Team Culture and Personnel Decisions

[CP87]

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Business management guru, Pete Drucker.

One thing that I think often gets lost when fans consider personnel decisions is the importance of those decisions in fostering the culture that has helped to make Iowa successful under Coach Ferentz. There is a strong expectation that everyone knows their job, takes care of their job to the best of their ability, strives for constant improvement, and values team above individual.

Coaches have one main carrot to dangle in front of players, and that is playing time. To foster this culture, players are rewarded with playing time if they show great focus, attention to detail, and coachability. Players who have played a lot don't keep their spots due to their "union card", but because they have been consistently displaying these qualities. Iowa has played plenty of young guys over veterans, as long as they display these qualities.

So when you ask questions like, "How many more games would Iowa have won if KF more consistently played the 'more talented' player?", also ask yourself, "Would these players be as good if not provided such strong motivation to improve their attention to detail, their ability to self-regulate, and their mastery of technique and gameplan?"

I am not saying the coaches do not make personnel mistakes, nor that this is the only way to do things. But it is obviously a core tenet of Coach Ferentz's coaching philosophy, and that is a philosophy that has worked out pretty well (on balance) for Iowa over the last 2 decades.

 

[guffus]

Sometimes this approach pays off, like with Akrum Wadley, who always had the talent, but needed to grow up both physically and emotionally. Wadley clearly had a problem early by acting very immature, but something finally clicked, and he decided to buy in, suck it up, stick around, and its all finally paying off for him.

Sometimes player show up mature and play right away like MVB.

Sometimes it does not work out and talented players transfer like Derrick Willies

Sometimes talented players stick around all 4 years but never really mature and stay in the doghouse the whole time, like DJK.

 

[Fryowa]

Coaches have one main carrot to dangle in front of players, and that is playing time. To foster this culture, players are rewarded with playing time if they show great focus, attention to detail, and coachability.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but flat out skill is going to be ultimate driver of whether someone plays or not (assuming there aren't some blaring personnel issues off the field such as team rules, grades, legal issues, etc).

The B1G is just way too competitive and cut throat to do it any other way. For example, Player A is lights out at his position but maybe doesn't work as hard in practice and let's say keeps to him self rather than being an outspoken team leader. Player B hustles his ass off, goes to the whistle, and gets super fired up with a team mentality but isn't as good at his spot. We all like warm and fuzzy Rudy stories, but skill trumps everything else and you better believe Player A is getting the minutes. Anything else would be suicidal in the elite football conferences, there's just no room for error.

 

[CP87]

But if Player A doesn't pay attention to detail or focus during practice and still gets rewarded with playing time, does that encourage players C-Z to also half-ass preparation? Does that allow Player A to ever reach his true potential?

I agree there are other ways to do it. You can play Player A, and you can try to motivate him to improve his habits through other means than withholding playing time. You could also have systems that are less mentally challenging to facilitate earlier integration of young talent. But I think it is a bit more nuanced than just, "play the guy with more natural ability." Those decisions have ripple effects through the team culture.

 

[SpiderRico]

Agree with all the sentiments posted here.....

So then can someone explain Herb Grigsby?

 

[InGoodCo]

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Business management guru, Pete Drucker.

One thing that I think often gets lost when fans consider personnel decisions is the importance of those decisions in fostering the culture that has helped to make Iowa successful under Coach Ferentz. There is a strong expectation that everyone knows their job, takes care of their job to the best of their ability, strives for constant improvement, and values team above individual.

Coaches have one main carrot to dangle in front of players, and that is playing time. To foster this culture, players are rewarded with playing time if they show great focus, attention to detail, and coachability. Players who have played a lot don't keep their spots due to their "union card", but because they have been consistently displaying these qualities. Iowa has played plenty of young guys over veterans, as long as they display these qualities.

So when you ask questions like, "How many more games would Iowa have won if KF more consistently played the 'more talented' player?", also ask yourself, "Would these players be as good if not provided such strong motivation to improve their attention to detail, their ability to self-regulate, and their mastery of technique and gameplan?"

I am not saying the coaches do not make personnel mistakes, nor that this is the only way to do things. But it is obviously a core tenet of Coach Ferentz's coaching philosophy, and that is a philosophy that has worked out pretty well (on balance) for Iowa over the last 2 decades.

There is nothing to argue about with any of this and its a well thought out and rational thought about how development in sport works. Wadley was a 2 star recruit with no other comparable offers to Iowa. He's also been playing 4 years and saw the field as Freshman. Bad attitude or not, he still got on the field and Iowa identified his talent immediately. The rest has been coaching and development and he's seen his roll grow every season since.

 

[CP87]

There is nothing to argue about with any of this and its a well thought out and rational thought about how development in sport works. Wadley was a 2 star recruit with no other comparable offers to Iowa. He's also been playing 4 years and saw the field as Freshman. Bad attitude or not, he still got on the field and Iowa identified his talent immediately. The rest has been coaching and development and he's seen his roll grow every season since.

I don't think anyone has ever said Wadley had a bad attitude, just that he struggled with some important life-skills (like self-regulation) early on. Or take the example of Josh Jackson; the coaches have gone out of their way to praise how great his attitude has always been, and how hard he has always worked. But he initially lacked the important skill of attention to detail. He has played in nickel and dime since he was a freshman, but he was surpassed last year by Rugamba due to this issue. By all accounts, he has been sterling with attention-to-detail since last January.

That is another aspect of this philosophy; it tends to favor those with 2 parent homes and stable upbringings, and it is much more challenging for young men who have not had as much nurturing in developing these skills prior to getting to campus.

 

[revkev73]

KF football works well...system guys, obedient, hard workers...vs Illinois, Purdue, Chico State...

Doesn't work well when you play athletic teams like Stanford, Ohio State, etc. etc. who have players who can run circles around slow, faithful, system guys...while the sparse number of bad boy "athletes" sit on the bench.

7-5... Astro Bluebonnet Bowl win... Another contract...works well...if you like vanilla.

Seems to be changing a bit, however...playing younger talent...new OC?

 

[InGoodCo]

KF football works well...system guys, obedient, hard workers...vs Illinois, Purdue, Chico State...

Doesn't work well when you play athletic teams like Stanford, Ohio State, etc. etc. who have players who can run circles around slow, faithful, system guys...while the sparse number of bad boy "athletes" sit on the bench.

7-5... Astro Bluebonnet Bowl win... Another contract...works well...if you like vanilla.

Seems to be changing a bit, however...playing younger talent...new OC?

Worked ok against Michigan last year. ... what happened? Or how about the slew of top 10 teams Ferentz has beaten over the years including PSU, MICHIGAN, LSU, FL.... etc?

I think KF has been playing younger players more lately and is more open to it, but it's not really all that new. There have been 4 year contributors through out his time in IC.

I just never got the union card deal/complaint - like KF is stashing guys that can play

Not even looking it up i think of Drew Tate, Coker, Sanders, Morris, King, The Outlaw, Wegher, Greene, Douglas, Sanders, Clark - Ferentz has a LONG history of playing underclassmen

 

[SpiderRico]

KF football works well...system guys, obedient, hard workers...vs Illinois, Purdue, Chico State...

Doesn't work well when you play athletic teams like Stanford, Ohio State, etc. etc. who have players who can run circles around slow, faithful, system guys...while the sparse number of bad boy "athletes" sit on the bench.

7-5... Astro Bluebonnet Bowl win... Another contract...works well...if you like vanilla.

Seems to be changing a bit, however...playing younger talent...new OC?

Actually, I think it's sort of the opposite.....

KF football works pretty well against the Penn States, Ohio States, Michigans of the world. Disciplined, tough, but conservative football typically keeps scores within range so that we are prepared when/if the opposition makes a mistake.

Unfortunately, it also works in reverse against some of the "lesser" teams.

 

[Fryowa]

But if Player A doesn't pay attention to detail or focus during practice and still gets rewarded with playing time, does that encourage players C-Z to also half-ass preparation? Does that allow Player A to ever reach his true potential?

I agree there are other ways to do it. You can play Player A, and you can try to motivate him to improve his habits through other means than withholding playing time. You could also have systems that are less mentally challenging to facilitate earlier integration of young talent. But I think it is a bit more nuanced than just, "play the guy with more natural ability." Those decisions have ripple effects through the team culture.

Pop Warner, junior high and high school, maybe, but once you get into big boy football like this I don't think it's much of a factor. Let's face it, B1G scholarship football players are there to play ball. It's a year round job no matter how you spin it.

As a coach at that level of competition, you're inclined to worry about ability and skill more than attitude or what have you (again, barring rules violations or illegal stuff). As a fan and knowing what the level of play is in the Big Ten, I don't care so much what a player's personality and work ethic are like as long as they are the best at that position.

You could also argue that players who don't work the hardest don't develop the ability to succeed and you might have a point, but there are a lot of exceptions. Look at the NFL, there are plenty of players who haven't been popular in the locker room who had long, productive careers because they produced. Terrell Owens was hated just about everywhere he went because he was lazy and standoffish, but he was always on the field in his prime because he caught tons of touchdown passes. He didn't have to go the extra mile because he was an athletic freak and he knew it.

I have a hard time believing that every single standout Hawkeye was popular with all of his teammates and worked balls to the wall every practice. Most? Probably. But at the end of the day as long as a player has clean behavior you have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win.

 

[SpiderRico]

Pop Warner, junior high and high school, maybe, but once you get into big boy football like this I don't think it's much of a factor. Let's face it, B1G scholarship football players are there to play ball. It's a year round job no matter how you spin it.

As a coach at that level of competition, you're inclined to worry about ability and skill more than attitude or what have you (again, barring rules violations or illegal stuff). As a fan and knowing what the level of play is in the Big Ten, I don't care so much what a player's personality and work ethic are like as long as they are the best at that position.

You could also argue that players who don't work the hardest don't develop the ability to succeed and you might have a point, but there are a lot of exceptions. Look at the NFL, there are plenty of players who haven't been popular in the locker room who had long, productive careers because they produced. Terrell Owens was hated just about everywhere he went because he was lazy and standoffish, but he was always on the field in his prime because he caught tons of touchdown passes. He didn't have to go the extra mile because he was an athletic freak and he knew it.

I have a hard time believing that every single standout Hawkeye was popular with all of his teammates and worked balls to the walls every practice. Most? Probably. But at the end of the day as long as a player has clean behavior you have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win.

Typically I'd agree with you on this, but Doyle, who is as much responsible for the culture there than KF is has constantly said this since the end of 2014...."Culture is Values plus Behavior minus What You Allow"....that's always stuck with me....especially the last part. In essence, what he's saying is that you tear away your organization's culture by what you allow players, coaches, etc to get away with that are opposite to the culture you're trying to instill.

That's why I think you see some of the player decisions you see. You constantly hear coaches like Brian Ferentz talk about that they're looking for a "certain" player and that Iowa isn't for everyone. I think that's code for, "We aren't going to put up with the bullshit that a lot of other schools might just because you are a good football player." I know a lot of schools like to say they're "different" (or elite)...but I truly think Iowa is different in that they will pass on players that might have the chance to be really good/productive if they think that player may cause a rift in the culture they're trying to build/maintain.

 

[Fryowa]

Typically I'd agree with you on this, but Doyle, who is as much responsible for the culture there than KF is has constantly said this since the end of 2014...."Culture is Values plus Behavior minus What You Allow"....that's always stuck with me....especially the last part. In essence, what he's saying is that you tear away your organization's culture by what you allow players, coaches, etc to get away with that are opposite to the culture you're trying to instill.

That's why I think you see some of the player decisions you see. You constantly hear coaches like Brian Ferentz talk about that they're looking for a "certain" player and that Iowa isn't for everyone. I think that's code for, "We aren't going to put up with the bullshit that a lot of other schools might just because you are a good football player." I know a lot of schools like to say they're "different" (or elite)...but I truly think Iowa is different in that they will pass on players that might have the chance to be really good/productive if they think that player may cause a rift in the culture they're trying to build/maintain.

I think with Iowa we filter a lot more on the front end which helps make it not so much of an issue for this team.

We don't see the SEC/PAC12 divas because we don't invite them to play here

 

[SpiderRico]

I think with Iowa we filter a lot more on the front end which helps make it not so much of an issue for this team.

I think you're right...but I also think it's showing up in what they did with Jerminic, Willies, and then other depth chart decisions...as well as what they did with Chris White and Bobby Kennedy....but I do know they've been putting a ton of emphasis on "background checks" during the recruiting process to weed out those issues ahead of time....

 

[Fryowa]

I think you're right...but I also think it's showing up in what they did with Jerminic, Willies, and then other depth chart decisions...as well as what they did with Chris White and Bobby Kennedy....but I do know they've been putting a ton of emphasis on "background checks" during the recruiting process to weed out those issues ahead of time....

Jermenic Smith would be playing at a whole lot of other schools that, in interest of discretion, I won't mention. I hated that he punked out, but liked KF's decision to cut him loose.

 

[InGoodCo]

I think with Iowa we filter a lot more on the front end which helps make it not so much of an issue for this team.

We don't see the SEC/PAC12 divas because we don't invite them to play here

Iowa recruits to "fit" more then most schools IMO.... and that's from the scheme to attitude

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Agree with all the sentiments posted here.....

So then can someone explain Herb Grigsby?

Depth Chart?... I know your half joking but that's another factor. Look at Mark Weisman on what other school would he have been a bell cow/tailback

 

[CP87]

Is Nebraska perhaps an example of what happens with talent but without a culture of accountability?

 

[cincyhawk]

Is Nebraska perhaps an example of what happens with talent but without a culture of accountability?

No, Nebraska is what happens when thou have poor coaches.

 

[thefizz]

Pop Warner, junior high and high school, maybe, but once you get into big boy football like this I don't think it's much of a factor. Let's face it, B1G scholarship football players are there to play ball. It's a year round job no matter how you spin it.

As a coach at that level of competition, you're inclined to worry about ability and skill more than attitude or what have you (again, barring rules violations or illegal stuff). As a fan and knowing what the level of play is in the Big Ten, I don't care so much what a player's personality and work ethic are like as long as they are the best at that position.

You could also argue that players who don't work the hardest don't develop the ability to succeed and you might have a point, but there are a lot of exceptions. Look at the NFL, there are plenty of players who haven't been popular in the locker room who had long, productive careers because they produced. Terrell Owens was hated just about everywhere he went because he was lazy and standoffish, but he was always on the field in his prime because he caught tons of touchdown passes. He didn't have to go the extra mile because he was an athletic freak and he knew it.

I have a hard time believing that every single standout Hawkeye was popular with all of his teammates and worked balls to the wall every practice. Most? Probably. But at the end of the day as long as a player has clean behavior you have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win.

Say what you want about Terrell Owens personality, but nobody ever accused him of being lazy or lacking work ethic. If anything, his work ethic was revered by teammates.

"And the thing about this guy, I wanted to go to battle with him."
-Jerry Rice

"When Terrell Owens is one that piece of grass, it's amazing, the effort and greatness that he has in him."
-Steve Young

"...T.O. knows a lot of the ins and outs of the receiving position....Regardless of what else goes on, when he comes on the football field, it's all business and all work"
-Greg Lewis, teammate in Philadelphia. This quote was after he was let go.

"He brought a lot of experience, and his work ethic was tremendous."
-Ryan Fitzpatrick