No one is making anything up. Kirk said he was going to change things, things are definitely changed on the field, how much depends on who you ask. I don't think I've seen a single post on here saying Kirk has completely changed. Maybe some have a slight warped vision on how much things changed. But saying very little has changed is way more lol worthy.
The New Kirk Myth
- Thread starter deanvogs
- Start date
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Depends on your definition of "very little". I mean if you are talking about acres of land, "10 inches" seem very insignificant. If you are talking the male anatomy, then 10 inches is very significant.
So I think your definition of "very little" should be clarified.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
New Kirk is way more about the mentality than the schemes. The schematic identity of the program is almost exactly the same as it's always been under Ferentz, no doubt. But we haven't seen the team and coaching staff look this aggressive in terms of their mindset since 2002. The offense has gotten more conservative once getting leads the past few games, but I'd wager that a lot of that has to do with keeping CJB standing. If he weren't dealing with the groin injury, I think we'd have seen the team really put its foot on opponents' throats and stepped down like they did with Banks under center.
Honestly, there are quite a few parallels to the 2002 team, IMO. This team isn't a carbon copy and the overall talent is not on the same level at all, but you've got a true playmaker at quarterback, a deep stable of talented running backs, an All-B1G-caliber wide receiver, stellar special teams and a great defense led by an All-American defensive back that gives the unit its identity. And the biggest thing the teams have in common is Ferentz's aggressiveness in terms of strategy. The 2002 Ferentz had no problem with putting 40 on the board if he could, and we're seeing a very similar mindset now.
Ferentz knows who he is and what brand of football he wants his team to play. But instead of just pointing out that the same schemes worked in the past and leaving it at that, he seems to be coaching with more of the hunger/killer instinct of a coach 15 years younger to make sure it works now.
Honestly, there are quite a few parallels to the 2002 team, IMO. This team isn't a carbon copy and the overall talent is not on the same level at all, but you've got a true playmaker at quarterback, a deep stable of talented running backs, an All-B1G-caliber wide receiver, stellar special teams and a great defense led by an All-American defensive back that gives the unit its identity. And the biggest thing the teams have in common is Ferentz's aggressiveness in terms of strategy. The 2002 Ferentz had no problem with putting 40 on the board if he could, and we're seeing a very similar mindset now.
Ferentz knows who he is and what brand of football he wants his team to play. But instead of just pointing out that the same schemes worked in the past and leaving it at that, he seems to be coaching with more of the hunger/killer instinct of a coach 15 years younger to make sure it works now.
RocknRollface
Well-Known Member
So in summary many changes resulting in better ability to score which has generally what's been lacking in 10 + years worth of close losses.
If all these minor changes, and the one huge qb change, happened last year, we very well could have only had 1 or 2 losses. That would mean we are going for our 2nd strait West title and probably be ranked 5th or 6th in today's poll. I'm happy it finally happened, I just wish Kirk would have read my posts earlier.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
LOL, you think it is the offense?
Last year we avg. 31.25 PPG in B1G play and we went 4-4. This year we are averaging 27.5 PPG. in B1G play and are 4-0
I would suggest that you start paying attention to our top 10 rated defense that is holding B1G teams to 12.75 PPG. This is a very average team again this year if we don't have a top 10 defense.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Just imagine how good we would be if we had Willis and Vandeberg would have transfered. Man oh man I wish that KF would have named Willies the starter when he quit.....I mean that is what CJ did to KF, he was gonna quit if he didn't name him the starter.
I do want to thank you tho for saving this season. Thank God Kurt Fer listened to you about CJ, even though he ignored you advice on Willies.
It's obvious he didn't start reading my posts till after Willies left. I would much rather have CJ and Vandy than Jake and Willes though.
I agree with you that the change in QB is a huge reason for the improvement. Although the production level, either individually or from a team offense stand-point, has not been noticeably different, CJ does seem to have a leadership quality which was lacking previously, as well as a knack for big plays in big situations. Those are both largely subjective measures that are difficult to quantify, but I think most who have watched the past 2 seasons would agree.
As for the bolded part, most of us agree that Coach Ferentz made the wrong decision last year. But even though he did not make the right decision, I think he made a defensible decision. Rudock was and is a good QB. If he consistently practiced better than CJ, and a fundamental aspect of the program is that you earn your PT in practice, it is hard for the coaches to pull the trigger because they think CJ might be a "gamer." About the time he was starting to earn more PT, he had a stretch where he was banged up and not fully healthy (if I remember correctly?). I agree that there was probably stubbornness and risk-aversion that came into play as well, but I can imagine that was a very difficult decision that they wrestled with last year.
Lastly, to play Devil's advocate, what if being forced to improve his preparation, his practice-habits, and his focus last year actually forced CJ to become a better player this year. Everyone claims that Iowa would have won 2-3 more games last year with CJ at the helm as if it is an undisputed fact. Well what if this year's team would have lost 2 more games without CJ being encouraged to improve those aspects of his game last year? What if the coach is not lying through his teeth to cover his butt, as you claim, but is instead giving his honest perception of how CJ has improved over the last year?
RocknRollface
Well-Known Member
Were not playing last years Iowa team, were playing the opossing teams on this years schedule.
Imagine if Iowa was not attempting to be more aggressive offensively like at the end of halfs, where we used to sit on the ball out of fear, there could have easily been a couple loses already.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
How many times (and for how long) has Iowa been behind in any game this season? Pressure on opponents' offenses to climb out of holes on the scoreboard makes any defense better.
I'm going to reference the Denver Broncos win over the Green Bay Packers last Sunday to illustrate this. Going into the game, Green Bay had one of the best defenses in all of pro football (so did Denver). Denver's offense shredded Green Bay's defense and Denver's defense shredded Green Bay's offense. One CAN'T say, however, that Denver was/is so much better than Green Bay. Why the transitive property doesn't apply to football.
While Denver's offense was being effective, Denver's defense was on the sidelines resting and sucking down oxygen. Meanwhile, Green Bay's defense was on the field for longer periods of time than accustomed and in thin air. The deficit grew larger and larger putting more pressure on Green Bay's offense while limiting Green Bay's playbook as the deficit remained or increased and the game clock counted down. Unleashing the 'hounds' of Denver's defense also caused Green Bay's offense to be less effective.
One can't quote a few stats of Iowa's defense like yards allowed, points allowed, running touchdowns, etc., to justify a judgement of any defense (or offense) without taking into account the entirely of the game's situation.
Taking the ball after the coin flip and driving it down the field to score puts immediate pressure on opponents. Not so much to score (that'll happen as the game progresses and the deficit remains or gets larger), but for their defense to find ways to stop.
Why is Iowa's defense so good? IMO, Iowa's offense. The points they score. The amount of game time Iowa is ahead.
Why is Iowa's offense so good? Iowa's defense. For the same reasons.
One problem I've seen with the old Kirk is his propensity to lean on the defense and to, for whatever reason, 'starve' Iowa's offense. Making the offense more dynamic is definitely new Kirk.
Last edited:
Didn't Iowa start changing that last year (or maybe the year before)? I think the increased aggression at the end of halves coincided with increased aggression on 4th downs, which definitely did not start this year. Go back and look at the boxscores from the last two years, you will find very few (if any) instances where we sat on the ball at the end of the half.
Perhaps we have been more successful with it this year due to personnel changes, but I believe the philosophical change pre-dates this year. Which kind of supports the OP. Many of these changes occurred previously, but people are recognizing them now due to the overall record.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
I read part of post #51 of this thread and the phrase practice performance to determine a player's contribution on game day caught my eye. Hum. Maybe the old Kirk would've said this. BTW, just how much is CJ contributing in practices these days with his injury(s)? If the first sentence were true, Wiegers would be the starter at QB.
Last edited:
Earning playing time through practice has always been a consistent, and I would argue important, aspect of the Iowa FB program. As a team looking to develop players and to out-execute the opponent, high-quality practices are essential. We consistently hear from the BTN crew during spring practices or the fall tour that Iowa practices as well as anyone out there.
Quality of practice habits and performance is crucial for earning your first shot at playing time. That is quite different than having to accumulate physical reps during a given game week in the face of an injury that only improves with rest. Also keep in mind, physical reps are not the only form of practice. One also proves themselves through their film study and their mental reps.
Quality of practice habits and performance is crucial for earning your first shot at playing time. That is quite different than having to accumulate physical reps during a given game week in the face of an injury that only improves with rest. Also keep in mind, physical reps are not the only form of practice. One also proves themselves through their film study and their mental reps.
