AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
In the coaching business most dogs don't get to stick around long enough to learn a few new tricks.
Old Kirk Narratives Die Hard
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
In the coaching business most dogs don't get to stick around long enough to learn a few new tricks.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Very true. It's great to see....finally...but the cynic in me wonders at this point, what's his motivation? Is it...
"What have I got to lose...I'm nearing retirement?" ...
"I'm gonna give my assistants more of a say and let go a little bit" ...
"I'm gonna let Brian start to put his stamp on the team so he can position himself to take over"
or (sit down for this one)..
Does he now think that this may "give us the best chance to win"...rather than risk management.
Either way it's refreshing and could really rejuvenate the program...and help with recruiting of "skill players".
How about our 3rd down stats too!? We are not only converting them at a dang high rate but gaining an ungodly amount yards on them. It's been pretty crazy compared to last yr when we absolutely stunk at them. To me that's just huge. Keeps drives going and all the obvious things that go with it
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Just beat Maryland. Please
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
Fascinating.
Fryowa
Administrator
I get the overall gist of your post and don't disagree with all of it, but that stat is misleading and paints Iowa as in some way being comparable to Alabama and Clemson. Those two teams are literally the favorite in every game they play unless they're playing each other, usually by a loooooong way. Pretty hard to screw that up. Clemson's total winning percentage since 2015 is .920 and Alabama's is .941.
Again, I see where you're going, but you're twisting it around a little. Win/loss when favored isn't a measure of Ferentz "winning when he should," it's a measure of how accurate the odds-maker is. They have zero to do with each other. I'd argue that in Iowa's case, it's even more of a worthless stat than when you use teams like Clemson and Alabama. They are orders of magnitude better than the Hawkeyes so setting odds is WAY more of a crap shoot when it comes to Iowa.
Let's say you're a hiring manager for a book in a casino, and somebody wanted to work for you. They'd use the same stat and say, "Hey look, since 2015 I've covered 91% of my lines at closing." If you look at it that way, can you see now how that stat has nothing to do with anything? It isn't Ferentz's skill you're measuring, it's the odds-maker. Favorite/underdog vs. actual outcome is a ridiculous stat that doesn't show any correlation and for damn sure not any causation to coaching success.
Sorry for the rant, but statistics isn't about numbers; you can make them say anything you want. Statistics is about whether you can weed through the bullshit ones or not.
Last edited:
Fryowa
Administrator
That's both true and poignant.
Good point, but can you think of another way to determine which games "he should win"?
HawkPowerlifter
Well-Known Member
Great post by the OP. I think KF is loosening the reigns some. I also think its about talent and personnel. KF is more comfortable with opening things up because he has capable individuals in the skill positions. We may not be Bama or a 5 star recruiting juggarnaut, but I think we are beginning to see vast improvement across the board.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
This is just the big winning years though, with a number of them missing at that. Kirk's teams have tended to go through distinct rises, a period of success, than disappointment and attempts to hold it together till the end.
I would count two distinct periods of rise, success, and fall. With maybe the makings of a third.
The first started very late in 2000 with the Penn State and Northwestern games. 2001 was a much better team but it was inconsistent with an quarterback who was also inconsistent. 2002 was the arrival. They would go on to have a damn good team through three quarterbacks, decent balance on offense and some tremendous defense. 2005 was a shaky start for the green defensive line and a team that was thinner on talent than in previous years. That team showed solid improvement but failed to win the close one's. They were salty by the bowl game, but played a team destined for a national title and didn't get a fair shake from the officials. (putting it politely)
The second surge came in 2008 in the middle of a quarterback controversy. Things fell in place behind a fantastic halfback. The disappointment being they could just as easily have won any of their four losses. I still think the bowl team at the end of 2008 was one of Iowa best. The 2009 team was always a little better than their opponents, and was a bit like a gambler on the streak of a lifetime. Their luck didn't hold up past the Northwestern game. That Orange Bowl win had nothing to do with luck though. In 2010 Iowa had talent and depth. They had terribly bad luck with injuries, Norm was at deaths door, and Kirk was playing things way to tight in an attempt to hold it together. Wisconsin out snookered them, and things unraveled at the end of the regular season.
The 2015 team was more than a bit like the 2009 team. Their luck held up through the conference season though for a 12 - 0 record. Their three best opponents came early and the last five had losing records. Iowa's depth didn't make it through the conference championship game. Michigan State was in just as bad of shape. Both got annihilated by superior bowl teams.
The 2015 team didn't come out of nowhere. It started in 2013 when Greg Davis adapted his practices to something Kirk could coach, rather than impose himself to the degree he did in 2012. Still, Davis's horizontal passing game was never going to be complementary to Kirk's offense, but they did try to meld things together into something that worked. Because of this mismatch the end product during this period was always going to have issues. They were well short on receiver talent through this period and thin on many areas of the depth chart. Many of the teams, 2013, 2014 & 2016 had a good number of very talented players, but they were also often one injury short of disaster. Nine of the eighteen losses from 2013 to 2016 were by a touchdown or less. Offensively, Iowa was a bit stunted scheme wise, and fell short of personnel to pull it off.
In 2017 Iowa's offense continued to come up just a bit short, dropping 3 of the 5 losses, by less than a touchdown. They did seem to be adding depth and the new coaches were settling in and going about the business of implementing a different offense.
How they end up this year remains to be seen. I am intrigued by the improvements in offense and how well depth has held up on defense. Consistency will be the challenge this season.
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would't read it either.
I would't read it either.
