Statistically: The last six seasons the Hawkeyes have been middle of the pack.

[Montanahawk]

Both in the conference and in the FBS(the article says FCS but it's FBS) subdivision.

Obviously, the strength of the team has been the defense and the biggest weakness it's offense. Appearing twice in the conference's best 10 team defenses during that period(2008 and 2009) and twice in the conference's worst 10 offenses(2007, and of course, 2012). But, it's most recent defensive struggles have hurt it's conference standing in that department as well.

Have to believe, even with a unsettled DE position, that with eight starters back we're better defensively and closer to Iowa's traditional defensive norms than the last two years. Offensively the question becomes how to we go from pretty horrific to at least mediocre.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/5/3/4295818/college-football-rankings-big-ten-f-plus

 

[uihawk82]

The title of your thread is spot on. The years 2007 and 2012 were poor, 2008 and '09 were great and could have been better, and 2010-11 were underachieving years as we all know.

To me one of the constants in all of these years is a tendency to underperform, lose some games the hawks shouldn't have, and therefore come up short of expectations (except for 2009 maybe).

My son and I contend that the hawks in 2008 could have been an 11 win team if the coaches had the QB situation scouted out by the first game. Oh well.

How many of you think some new, younger coaching blood may just give the hawks the added punch to not lose those 1 to 3 games a year that they have been during this stretch. I think some of the new coaches can bring a more aggressive, stomp your opponent attitude.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

The title of your thread is spot on. The years 2007 and 2012 were poor, 2008 and '09 were great and could have been better, and 2010-11 were underachieving years as we all know.

To me one of the constants in all of these years is a tendency to underperform, lose some games the hawks shouldn't have, and therefore come up short of expectations (except for 2009 maybe).

My son and I contend that the hawks in 2008 could have been an 11 win team if the coaches had the QB situation scouted out by the first game. Oh well.

How many of you think some new, younger coaching blood may just give the hawks the added punch to not lose those 1 to 3 games a year that they have been during this stretch. I think some of the new coaches can bring a more aggressive, stomp your opponent attitude.

Problem with the 2008 supposition is that the issues we had were not all on the QBs. And Stanzi was still making mistakes late in the season, anyway (as well as great plays). SG being out for end of NW game made huge difference, as did missed block by FB on 4th-and-1 against MSU. Illinois game was a matter of TONS of mistakes, Pitt game was a matter of defensive mistakes on top of the QB woes.

We certainly had one more win in us that season, but three (unless you are counting bowl game) is pushing it.

As much as "young aggressive coaching" can help, it can also hurt. It boils down to talent, hard work, execution and limiting mistakes. Just like it did in the first 110+ years of Iowa football. A little luck never hurts, either!