Question For Ferentz Haters

^^^^^^^^^^^

Sour grapes, and if the fans made the depth chart Nico Law would have been a 4 year starter.
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...

One decent victory does not a career change. It was pretty obvious that the entire team dynamic changed once Beathard entered the game. The offensive line blocked better, the backs ran with more conviction, the receivers did a better job of getting open. The Pitt defense suddenly had to respect the pass.

Once they saw life in the offense, the Hawk defense played better.

if you didn't see that for yourself, your loyalty to Captain Conservative is blinding you to his stubborn resistance to change and the detrimental effects it has had, and continues to have, on Iowa football. Speculation only, but if Beathard had played against Iowa State we would be undefeated after four games, with little doubt about which was the better team in all four, and still a strong contender in the B1G West.

I fully expect Kirk to return to his old ways and use Jake the full way @ Purdue, winning or losing.

NOTE: This is not a slam against Jake. Glad he is a Hawkeye and will take the hits for the Black and Gold. He just hasn't shown me he is the best QB on the team.
 
Last edited:
ThunderHawk said:
Great quarterbacking is like obscenity. Hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

I saw it yesterday in the second half. That kid was in total control. The team knew it. You could tell they knew it. Does Kurt know it?
Click to expand...

Sadly, some of us know the answer to that.
 
littlesparky23 said:
ssckelley said:
"Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it."

If you do not enjoy opinions that do not match up with your own then message boards are not for you. I have been on the Ferentz bandwagon from day one, in fact I have been on here advocating that we better be careful of what we wish for and used the Iowa basketball program as a reference. But honestly I am getting tired of Iowa playing down to competition and not willing to kick the snot out of a FCS team just because of respect for the coach. I think people are justified for grumbling about this coaching staff, obviously today's game has passed on Greg Davis a long time ago and Ferentz sticks by him and talks him up like he is some kind of offensive genius. As a Hawk fan I hope this staff proves me wrong, but in the meantime everyone is entitled to their own opinion.[/QUOTE

I agree 100% with you. I am not on here to argue with those who don't like Ferentz in an attempt to change their stance. I just get a little tired of people riding their emotions after every game. I myself like to wait until the end of the season before I judge the coach's performance. I do not consider myself a Ferentz lover or a hater, if at the end of the season we are anything less than 6-6 I will be calling for his seat to be vacated I just don't want to look foolish by calling for Ferentz to fired after one loss and then we turn and go 11-1.

And no the job should not just be handed to CJ after just one game. People forget that Jake can play too. They forget about Jake to CJF against Northwestern and refuse to acknowledge his play against UNI on that game-clinching drive.
Click to expand...

You would seriously accept 6-6 this season? Wow. Talk about low expectations. Iowa could go 6-6 with this schedule getting coached by the women's Field hockey coach.
Click to expand...
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
I think we need to stay with the hot hand(s), i.e., CJB, Weisman, lots of Powell, Smith and Willies. Less of Canzeri/Bullock/Vandeberg until second half. Make Purdue load the box while Weisman is in, open it with some deep balls, THEN let Canzeri go wild, and let Bullock get his 3rd down stuff.
Click to expand...

You lost me with the Bullock 3rd down stuff. We do not need to use 4 backs and Bullock should be the 4th man out. I have seen enough of one guy bring him down and him missing the cut lanes. Put him on special teams or maybe move him to Full back.
 
Benddontbreak said:
Good points here. They needed to get away from running other teams’ plays crappily (jet sweep, zone read, etc.) and get back to what’s given Iowa success. The first 3 weeks was just a lot of over-coaching.
Click to expand...

"Over coaching" is a term I have never heard in regards to this coaching staff.

20 damn coaches standing on the sideline and we still can't figure out clock management/time out usage. We were out of timeouts, half way through the 4th quarter on Saturday in a very tight ball game. The last minute of the ISU game was botched also. Iowa should start with that and then when they get that mastered, they can move on to more important stuff like utilizing personnel and play calling. (Example: Bullock running the ball on 3rd and six. Failed 3 times already and we are only 4 games into the season)

Things take time though. We must be patient. It took 2 years for the staff to figure out how teams were running successful fake punts against us.
 
hwk23 said:
If anything the opposite is true. If you watch the game, especially the 2nd half, it was almost all I-formation and pro-set. I think we went shotgun once (maybe twice) in the second half. Haven't seen so many I formation plays in quite some time. It seemed like we got back to Iowa football and had an identity.

Kirk hinted in the Tuesday presser that the problem might be the combination of the two offenses (which I think is a big part of it). So I'm guessing Kirk and GD discussed how to trim the playbook during the week. It was obvious the mix of the two systems wasn't working. Whatever the case I liked what I saw on the field, both halves.
Click to expand...

I think this is spot on. We ran more fullback with a fullback who had just been converted 2wks prior. I'm not gonna speculate (but if I did... Is this the writing on the wall for GD?).

I will say I liked the return to Hawkeye football; however, I certianly liked the package of CJB, Parker, Willies, and Powell we ran vs Ball St.
 
tweeterhawk said:
One decent victory does not a career change. It was pretty obvious that the entire team dynamic changed once Beathard entered the game. The offensive line blocked better, the backs ran with more conviction, the receivers did a better job of getting open. The Pitt defense suddenly had to respect the pass.

Once they saw life in the offense, the Hawk defense played better.

if you didn't see that for yourself, your loyalty to Captain Conservative is blinding you to his stubborn resistance to change and the detrimental effects it has had, and continues to have, on Iowa football. Speculation only, but if Beathard had played against Iowa State we would be undefeated after four games, with little doubt about which was the better team in all four, and still a strong contender in the B1G West.

I fully expect Kirk to return to his old ways and use Jake the full way @ Purdue, winning or losing.

NOTE: This is not a slam against Jake. Glad he is a Hawkeye and will take the hits for the Black and Gold. He just hasn't shown me he is the best QB on the team.
Click to expand...

I'm not blind I saw CJ play a better game than Jake yesterday, but I believe Jake has played good enough to warrant him a chance at keeping his starting spot. Again I really don't care who starts at QB as long as that QB gives us the best chance to win.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Kirk did decide to attack vertically more in this game which was evidenced by Jake's throw to Vandeberg and Powell it just wasn't CJ's appearance that made the passes downfield happen even though he can throw it better than Jake.
 
BTW, the reason we lost a lot of time outs on saturday was because of CJ. Not faulting the guy, it was his first significant playing time, but he had trouble changing the plays and lost a lot of time.
 
blubberhawk said:
"Over coaching" is a term I have never heard in regards to this coaching staff.

20 damn coaches standing on the sideline and we still can't figure out clock management/time out usage. We were out of timeouts, half way through the 4th quarter on Saturday in a very tight ball game. The last minute of the ISU game was botched also. Iowa should start with that and then when they get that mastered, they can move on to more important stuff like utilizing personnel and play calling. (Example: Bullock running the ball on 3rd and six. Failed 3 times already and we are only 4 games into the season)

Things take time though. We must be patient. It took 2 years for the staff to figure out how teams were running successful fake punts against us.
Click to expand...

I've used this term to describe when the coaching staff drums in so much "prevent mistakes" thought into a player that he over-thinks each play, ends up playing tight and under-performing his ability. I believe we have seen it manifest itself in several players under the KF/GD regime and it's a shame to see them throttle natural ability by over-emphasizing the conscious mental aspect over proven football instinct.
 
tweeterhawk said:
You know who Ferentz is going to start, don't you? We all do. It will surprise no one.
Click to expand...

Rudock will start. I have no doubt. Probably how it should be since he went to the bench with an injury.

I will admit, I was one who felt Rudock was best for the team. Now having seen both play, it is clear to me who the most effective QB is. How long will it take KF to admit it?
 
1hawkeye1 said:
Rudock will start. I have no doubt. Probably how it should be since he went to the bench with an injury.

I will admit, I was one who felt Rudock was best for the team. Now having seen both play, it is clear to me who the most effective QB is. How long will it take KF to admit it?
Click to expand...

I thought KF sounded snarky when they talked to him on the field after the Pitt game, with his "QB controversy" comment and to me, it seemed like he didn't particularly gush about CJB when asked about him, although he did admit that he played well. It seemed like he begrudgingly acknowledged this, but I'd have to go back and see that interview again.

Rudock will start next week, as long as he isn't injured.

Just my prediction.

And to answer the OP's question, yeah, some adjustments were clearly made. The D played a much better second half as well. As for the QB change, if Rudock was out because he got dinged up, then that forced a QB change whether KF wanted it or not.

Yes indeed, there is now a QB controversy in Iowa City. Whether KF wants it or not. (Don't think he's overly happy CJB looked so good, because it opens him up to criticism if he doesn't play him now)
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...

I love threads like this that try to call fans out after a win ... good stuff. Bottomline, is where was this second-half Iowa team against the likes of UNI, Balls State, and Iowa State. Nobody "hates" Kirk. If it was simply coaching then where was this "coaching" against the first 3 opponents? This win was 2-fold: Beathard and a more aggressive defense. We would NOT have won this game with Jake ... Nothing against Jake, Beathard simply allows Iowa to open up its offense and it allows us to stretch opponents on defense.
 
littlesparky23 said:
BTW, the reason we lost a lot of time outs on saturday was because of CJ. Not faulting the guy, it was his first significant playing time, but he had trouble changing the plays and lost a lot of time.
Click to expand...

Jake callrd a timeout out of confusion in the first half. Why dont you hold it against him?

Better to call timeouts to get the right play then to take them home with you.
 
blubberhawk said:
You lost me with the Bullock 3rd down stuff. We do not need to use 4 backs and Bullock should be the 4th man out. I have seen enough of one guy bring him down and him missing the cut lanes. Put him on special teams or maybe move him to Full back.
Click to expand...

Give me a break with the "one guy bringing him down" crap. Weisman goes down after running into the back of his own O-line.
 
theboat said:
Jake callrd a timeout out of confusion in the first half. Why dont you hold it against him?

Better to call timeouts to get the right play then to take them home with you.
Click to expand...

I agree it is better to call timeout than call a wrong play and waste a down. I wasn't faulting CJ I was just saying you can't blame the coaching management for losing those timeouts.
 
littlesparky23 said:
I agree it is better to call timeout than call a wrong play and waste a down. I wasn't faulting CJ I was just saying you can't blame the coaching management for losing those timeouts.
Click to expand...

No I wouldnt blame the coaches. Kirks known for great clock management so its too bad that hasnt rubbed off on the back QB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top