Sidebar: Why is Phil Parker so bad?
- Thread starter BSpringsteen
- Start date
spudhawk
Well-Known Member
Phil is not Norm's son. I think Parker would still run a base 4-3 but would be more aggressive. No one understands our d-backs abilities better and I think you would see more packages and man to man coverages under Phil. As much as I love Norm, I am not sure if he saw how much QBs have improved over the last 3 or 4 seasons. staying back in a cover 4 shell won't work anymore against mobile spread Qbs.
I would be comfortable with co- dcs if we bring in a special teams or qb coach.
I would be comfortable with co- dcs if we bring in a special teams or qb coach.
twinhawkfans
Well-Known Member
Everybody else.
DesMoinesHawki
Well-Known Member
I think the bottom line is that whoever takes the position we need to see some changes on defense and get a little more aggressive. Change can be good. When you have the same staff in place for 13 years and you just move people around that does not equate to things becoming better. I have mentioned this before, but think of your own job ... Imagine working with the same 8 or so people for 13 years and "Sally" gets promoted from an administrative assistant to a business consultant. Sure, Sally may do well but she has been a part of the same environment for 13 years. How creative is she going to be? Did she get promoted because she was the best choice? Or did she get promoted because the manager in charge felt a sense of obligation to her?
I hope Kirk truly has an open mind when filling the position. Loyalty is great in life ... But loyalty can sometimes halt new ideas and creativity.
I can relate a personal experience ... I recently joined a completely new team at my company. The majority of team members have been in place for seven years. In my month on the job I have noticed a lot of "well, that's the way we have always done it." From my perspective, I have been able to inject a different point of view and open some eyes that "hey, have you thought about this? Or have you tried it this way?"
All I am saying is that change can be good. When you are in any position for 13 years you get comfortable. You might look at change as a bad thing.
In the meantime, you could be missing out on other opportunities or new ideas when/if you close the door on bringing in new people.
Yes, Phil Parker is qualified (possibly Wilson as well) but are they the best options out there? When you become close-minded you miss the chance to open new doors.
Obviously Kirk knows the skills of his staff better than anyone ... But it comes down to the old adage of doing the same thing and expecting different results. I think the last couple of years have shown us that maybe things are not working like they "used to."
I hope Kirk truly has an open mind when filling the position. Loyalty is great in life ... But loyalty can sometimes halt new ideas and creativity.
I can relate a personal experience ... I recently joined a completely new team at my company. The majority of team members have been in place for seven years. In my month on the job I have noticed a lot of "well, that's the way we have always done it." From my perspective, I have been able to inject a different point of view and open some eyes that "hey, have you thought about this? Or have you tried it this way?"
All I am saying is that change can be good. When you are in any position for 13 years you get comfortable. You might look at change as a bad thing.
In the meantime, you could be missing out on other opportunities or new ideas when/if you close the door on bringing in new people.
Yes, Phil Parker is qualified (possibly Wilson as well) but are they the best options out there? When you become close-minded you miss the chance to open new doors.
Obviously Kirk knows the skills of his staff better than anyone ... But it comes down to the old adage of doing the same thing and expecting different results. I think the last couple of years have shown us that maybe things are not working like they "used to."
Last edited:
You do realize that even Norm had to start somewhere, right? Maybe you think that it's only ok for a guy to get his first coordinator job at a school that sucks, so it won't matter if he fails, but the fact is that everybody starts somewhere.
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
This was exactly the problem last year and this year as well when Norm started having more problems.
I have said this elsewhere. You have about 20 seconds to call the defense. Having to do that by committee is almost impossible. So, what you end up having to do is choose one really conservative D and stick with it. Wonder why the sack numbers dropped last year? Well, because they were having the line play contain. The problem is that puts them in a position to play soft. Unfortunately, they couldn't really do anything else because they didn't have the time to have a pow wow between each play and come up with a different scheme.
It really was a HUGE mistake on KF's behalf not just going ahead and giving the job to someone on an interim basis.
Last edited:
ICHawk24
Well-Known Member
If you can't get basic facts correct, please don't flap your gums about how the program should be run.
DodgerHawki
Well-Known Member
Fair and valid points..
and I'm sure your line of thinking is part of Ferentz's thought process in determining who the new coordinator will be. When Carl Jackson left, KF switched Erb over to running backs and brought in Campbell as WR coach, so it seems obvious KF is willing to bring in new people when it's the right thing to do. Same when Bielema left for KSU KF brought in Darrell Wilson when I'm sure he could have promoted a grad assistant.
I just hope that KF makes the decision that is best for the program, and not just changing for changing sake. Phil Parker (if he's the hire) may have a different direction he would take the defense. I'm not convinced that our defense needs "radical change" as much as it needs better players. I really don't think the results would have been better (and probably much worse) had Iowa gone to a blitz-heavy look this year. When you don't have the personnel up front, changing the scheme you are running has limited impact.
My guess is that the decision has already been made in regards to the d-coordinator (or at least I hope so).
and I'm sure your line of thinking is part of Ferentz's thought process in determining who the new coordinator will be. When Carl Jackson left, KF switched Erb over to running backs and brought in Campbell as WR coach, so it seems obvious KF is willing to bring in new people when it's the right thing to do. Same when Bielema left for KSU KF brought in Darrell Wilson when I'm sure he could have promoted a grad assistant.
I just hope that KF makes the decision that is best for the program, and not just changing for changing sake. Phil Parker (if he's the hire) may have a different direction he would take the defense. I'm not convinced that our defense needs "radical change" as much as it needs better players. I really don't think the results would have been better (and probably much worse) had Iowa gone to a blitz-heavy look this year. When you don't have the personnel up front, changing the scheme you are running has limited impact.
My guess is that the decision has already been made in regards to the d-coordinator (or at least I hope so).
MisterWinky
Well-Known Member
Wuh? Iowa, like most teams, has ast coaches also be responsible for a special teams unit. So there's more than 2 "special teams" coaches. Many teams have co-DC's (and co-OC's, or "running game coordinator", "passing game coordinator") Typically, there's still only one actually calling the plays on gameday. The other contributes towards gameplanning during the week. SO its not like they're arguing about calls between plays.
It seems like just about every fan base feels this way about their OC.
