Open up the Playbook in first game.

[AHawk1]

As has been stated by several opposing coaches through the years Iowa is very easy to prepare for as they typically line up and play great fundamental FB, both offensively and defensively. It seems as fans we typically leave the opening game with a nice victory and the same response,"We played good but didn't show much offensively", as though we are keeping our offense under wraps and hiding all these exotic plays. As the season progresses each year it doesn't seem as though the offense changes significantly from the opener. What we saw on game 1 is probably going to be similar to what we see in game 12.

Wouldn't it be nice in the opener to try all sorts of different sets, different plays and just a completely different look at times. I'm sure the staff would quickly go back to it's old basic offensive philosophy, but it would sure be nice if opposing D-coordinators had at least a few more things to consider when preparing for Iowa.

I know most of us would like to see some different looks all season, but it doesn't appear that's going to happen under the current staff. So, lets open up the playbook, excuse me, let's borrow someone else's and show a totally different look sometime so that opposing coaches have to spend more than 10 minutes to prepare for us.

 

[zhawkzrule]

I agree, its the same play calling in general, just different formations they wont show. But overrall you'll see the calls during the particular game situation from week 1 to 12. I believe KOK is still scripting the first 12 to 15 plays and is supposed to adjust after that, according to the defensive scheme, I could be wrong but I know thats what he has done in past seasons.

 

[JonDMiller]

I dont think its a matter of opening up a playbook. I think its a matter of situational decisions. Running into 8 man fronts excessively, when you have man on man coverage and two stud WR and at least one is one on one, I have seen more than enough of that.

 

[rpmhawk]

I dont think its a matter of opening up a playbook. I think its a matter of situational decisions. Running into 8 man fronts excessively, when you have man on man coverage and two stud WR and at least one is one on one, I have seen more than enough of that.

In the same vein, I would like the staff to give an HONEST consideration to playing for the win at the end of regulation in certain situations. Not "well we tried running an obvious run formation that everyone knew the outcome and since that didnt work, we sat on the ball". You want to do that in a back-up's first road game against a premier defense, (OSU '09) ok fine, I'll let that one slide, it's probably closer to a 50-50 shot or maybe even worse. But to sit on the ball when you know you cant stop the other team from scoring and this is your only opportunity to potentially put points on the board without the other team responding....YOU DO IT!!

Borrowing a quote from the recent BHGP article:
"Imagine the Iowa Lottery gave you a scratch ticket and said "if you play, you have an 8% chance of winning $100 and a 1% chance of losing $100". At this point, if you were averse to gambling, you might say "forget it, I'll keep my money." But suppose the Iowa Lottery didn't stop there and said: "By law, If you refuse to use this first scratch ticket or use it and fail to win or lose, you will be given a new scratch ticket that you must use, and the second ticket will offer a 50% chance of winning $100 and a 50% chance of losing $100." Would you use the first scratch ticket then?"

All Ferentz can see is that 8% chance of winning and think its not very high. Either that or he is so risk-averse that even the 1% chance of lose keeps him away. Does he not realize that he's only increasing the chance of losing by doing nothing??

 

[hawkinn3]

Mcnutt has to be going crazy when he knows he has man coverage against a smaller, slower guy and but the play call is once again a run up the middle.

 

[83Hawk]

If Kirk/KOK opened the playbook, moths would fly out.