This is good! All hawk fans should read.

FreedComanche

FreedComanche

Banned
Herky's My Hero from Okoboji, Iowa, writes: Hey Adam, just a thought on Kirk Ferentz and the Iowa Hawkeyes. A lot of people are calling for KF's head if he has a bad season. Sure he has had a few bad years, but I think we are underestimating his long tenure at Iowa and the potential attributes of being the Grandad of coaches in the Bigten. What if he takes on the stigma that Paterno had at Penn State? Sure it is ways down the line, but isn't it possible for him to coach at Iowa for another 20+ years? In comparison, Paterno had a few bad stretches, for example from 2000-2004 Paterno was 26-33 overall and 16 -24 in the Big Ten. That's a horrendous stretch, but he still was a great coach. I say we lighten up on KF and realize that he could become a coaching legend among the Big ten and college football. Overall KF is 100-74 and 59-52 in the big ten, with two Big Ten championships, a plethora of solid NFL players, and some great bowl wins. Such coaching stability is unprecedented in today's NCAA and could easily become our biggest recruiting attribute.

Adam Rittenberg: Everyone who evaluates Ferentz's entire tenure objectively would conclude that he has had a very successful tenure at Iowa and boosted the program's regional and national profile. You make some really good points about the need to be patient and ride out the ups and downs rather than changing coaches every 3-6 years after the first sign of trouble. I actually talked recently with Ferentz about this, and he touched on the value of longevity at a program like Iowa.

"In Iowa, people understand that sometimes the best answer is finding solutions and working on those solutions, rather than worrying about making people walk the plank," he said. "That's a direct opposite of the way our society's going right now, which is one of the reasons I love working at Iowa. I think they get that."

I also asked him about keeping the message fresh after a stretch where Iowa clearly has lost momentum.

"If you change jobs every six years, you don't have to worry about freshness. There have been some really good coaches who have had a track record of staying somewhere typically 5-7 years, and maybe part of the motivation there is so their message doesn't get stale. Because that definitely can happen and does happen. So if you choose not to be a vagabond or an opportunist, or you choose to stay somewhere, then yeah, you constantly have to evaluate how you present, how you market, how you package, whatever term you want to use. But I also believe the things that were good two years ago were good 10 years ago, they were good 30 years ago. And if you go the other direction, they'll still be good two years from now, 10 years from now or 30 years from now. That doesn't change."

All that said, like any coach, he needs to be held accountable, especially because of the big money he's making. It's important Iowa takes a step in a positive direction this fall.

FreedComanche
 
FreedComanche said:
" But I also believe the things that were good two years ago were good 10 years ago, they were good 30 years ago. And if you go the other direction, they'll still be good two years from now, 10 years from now or 30 years from now. That doesn't change."


FreedComanche
Click to expand...

I understand what KF is trying to say here, but I don't agree. There are things that pass the test of time and will always hold up, but there are also things that evolve and force us to change.

Look at the NFL today compared to 30 years ago. Passing was not as prolific as it is now. The game has changed.

On a collegiate level, 30 years ago the world was smaller, we didn't have the option to watch every college FB game being played. You watched your local team plus whatever 2 or 3 nationally televised games were being shown on network TV.

With this increase in media that exposure to other programs has changed the way players are recruited. Nobody new who TCU or Boise State was in the 70's. Now they are legitimate programs that a recruit from Iowa would consider.
 
tubahawk said:
I understand what KF is trying to say here, but I don't agree. There are things that pass the test of time and will always hold up, but there are also things that evolve and force us to change.

Look at the NFL today compared to 30 years ago. Passing was not as prolific as it is now. The game has changed.

On a collegiate level, 30 years ago the world was smaller, we didn't have the option to watch every college FB game being played. You watched your local team plus whatever 2 or 3 nationally televised games were being shown on network TV.

With this increase in media that exposure to other programs has changed the way players are recruited. Nobody new who TCU or Boise State was in the 70's. Now they are legitimate programs that a recruit from Iowa would consider.
Click to expand...

I agree. Times change, and you need to change with it. Maybe a poor comparison, but what if the military didn't change with the times? Just because cannons and muskets were good 200 years ago, or because horses and chariots were good 2000 years ago, doesn't mean you won't get your but kicked if you go to battle with that technology TODAY.

As for the article, KF's success at Iowa is why I'm not yet ready to call for his head. I hope he turns it around and am willing to give him that chance, but there's a limit. I need to see things swing back in the right direction in the next year or two here, or I will be joining the crowd that wants a change. I'm not there yet, but my patience is wearing out a bit.
 
tubahawk said:
I understand what KF is trying to say here, but I don't agree. There are things that pass the test of time and will always hold up, but there are also things that evolve and force us to change.

Look at the NFL today compared to 30 years ago. Passing was not as prolific as it is now. The game has changed.

On a collegiate level, 30 years ago the world was smaller, we didn't have the option to watch every college FB game being played. You watched your local team plus whatever 2 or 3 nationally televised games were being shown on network TV.

With this increase in media that exposure to other programs has changed the way players are recruited. Nobody new who TCU or Boise State was in the 70's. Now they are legitimate programs that a recruit from Iowa would consider.
Click to expand...
It's good to hear it from the horse's mouth.
 
I don't think he meant coaching schemes from 30 years ago still work today. Coaching isn't just schemes.

Somebody used the military as an example. The military isn't just ships and tanks.
 
tubahawk said:
I disagre ey way I read it, that's ex think he's saying.
Click to expand...

+1
And It is not the 1st time he has said so.

On another note, Kstate got rid of Snyder, then had to get him back to see success again. Nebby was lost and all but forgotten...... Notre Dame, with all their glory, resources and fanfare disapeared for decades and multiple attempts to find a coach thag could bring them back. Michigan fell off, as did Miami. All of these either are, or were known as contenders and most as Elite.

We saw what became of Iowa basketball when Davis was removed. Im not at all satisfied right now, but I amgoing to show restraint and due patience, as the alternative is frightening and the history is worthy.
 
This is exactly the philosophy that got Bob Commings fired. Admittedly, Commings didn't have any great years, but he thought he could use Evy's ideas to rejuvenate a down Iowa program and it just didn't work.
 
tubahawk said:
I disagree. They way I read it, that's exactly what I think he's saying.
Click to expand...
Well, your wrong. If he were to say that and mean it, he'd have to be an idiot. I don't know the coach, but I know some who do, and I am to understand he is not an idiot.
 
OLWPAORWWM said:
Well, your wrong. If he were to say that and mean it, he'd have to be an idiot. I don't know the coach, but I know some who do, and I am to understand he is not an idiot.
Click to expand...

I am sympathetic to you on that. It hurts to make the realization that our hero is not what we thought he was. Not saying that is the case here, but to completely rule that out as a possibility does limit what you can allow yourself to believe.
 
tubahawk said:
So, in your correct opinion, what is he referring too?
Click to expand...

He didn't spell out exactly what he was referring to so technically the way you perceive it isn't wrong or right. If he was claiming that the same conservative offensive strategy that was successful 10 years ago can be successful today then I would argue that he's wrong. There are ways you can keep what you're good at and adapt to the times. You don't have to refuse to adapt all together (I think he's finally showing signs of budging here).

However, if he's talking about work ethic, fundamentals, execution, and doing things the right way (which I think is more along the lines of what he was referring to) then he's absolutely correct. You need those things from your players to be succesful. That was the case 10-15 years ago, it's the case now, and it will always be the case in the future.

The military comparison is the same thing... I have experience in that department. Yes the weapons have adapted greatly over time and that can change the approach, however many of the same strategies that were used hundreds of years ago are still effective strategies today. Guerilla warfare, how to set up or react to an ambush, or how you want to go about flanking an enemy position. These are things that have remained very similar over time.
 
tubahawk said:
So, in your correct opinion, what is he referring too?
Click to expand...
Well, like someone said above, the military has to change with the times, and I am former military, so I know that my Navy needed new ships and cannons to face new and evolving threats. However, what made the US Navy great, and what continues to make it great, is not the size and strength of the ships, but the hearts of the men who serve them.

What makes Iowa football great is not the plays that they run, but the men who make the program. What it takes to make a great Iowa football player; Pride, hard-work, determination, passion...those things that Coach Fry preached in 1979 are just as relevant as they are today.
 
tubahawk said:
I understand what KF is trying to say here, but I don't agree. There are things that pass the test of time and will always hold up, but there are also things that evolve and force us to change.

Look at the NFL today compared to 30 years ago. Passing was not as prolific as it is now. The game has changed.

On a collegiate level, 30 years ago the world was smaller, we didn't have the option to watch every college FB game being played. You watched your local team plus whatever 2 or 3 nationally televised games were being shown on network TV.

With this increase in media that exposure to other programs has changed the way players are recruited. Nobody new who TCU or Boise State was in the 70's. Now they are legitimate programs that a recruit from Iowa would consider.
Click to expand...


BINGO. KFz may not realize, but he just openly displayed his biggest flaw. (well, besides clock management). While there are some things that stand the test of time (hard work, good character, sound fundamentals) there are also a lot of things that change. And if you don't change and adjust too... you get left behind.
 
Overall KF is 100-74 and 59-52 in the big ten,(Wow this is classified as "success"?! A little over .500 with some of the best facilities and fan base in the conference? I bet Pat Fitzgerald has better Big 10 winning percentage with tougher academic standards {thus tougher recruiting} and that dumpster of a stadium.) with two Big Ten championships(shared), a plethora of solid NFL players (that he underachieved with, especially against Iowa St.), and some great bowl wins. Such coaching stability is unprecedented in today's NCAA (because fans from other schools expect results for their money, except at Iowa where the spineless media and locals consider Paul Harvey an investigative journalist) and could easily become our biggest recruiting attribute.(or our downfall into the Bloomington of the west division)
 
"...But I also believe the things that were good two years ago were good 10 years ago, they were good 30 years ago. And if you go the other direction, they'll still be good two years from now, 10 years from now or 30 years from now. That doesn't change."

If he means scoring more points than your opponent, he is correct. But to line up with the same offense each year and believe you can "out execute" the other team, particularly if they are more talented, becomes too obvious to succeed. You know, if the other team DOES "...know what Iowa is going to do.." don't you think they scheme to prevent Iowa's executing it properly?
 
"...But I also believe the things that were good two years ago were good 10 years ago, they were good 30 years ago. And if you go the other direction, they'll still be good two years from now, 10 years from now or 30 years from now. That doesn't change."

I wonder what Hayden thought about being innovative at Iowa and how much success he had? I would argue that Hayden Fry brought the passing game to the Big Ten. This example is to point out how innovation can help.
 
But I also believe the things that were good two years ago were good 10 years ago, they were good 30 years ago. And if you go the other direction, they'll still be good two years from now, 10 years from now or 30 years from now. That doesn't change."

Things that were "good" in the past, may very well still be "good". That doesn't mean they're equally effective in the current landscape.

There are two diametrically opposed fallacies related to progress.

1. If something was good before...it will always be good. While it may still have inherent value, it's relative value declines with technological progress unless it's adapted (this is often the error of more conservative thinkers) A well-crafted leather buggy whip was still damn good when the automobile came out..but it was also quickly irrelevant. If you're not growing, you're dying. There is no staying the same.

2. If something new and better comes along, we need to toss out the old ways. Wrong again. While progress does indeed give us new perspectives, ideas and better ways. It doesn't completely supplant all earlier valid premises. (this is often the error of the progressive thinkers) You retain what is valid and has value...and add to it, build on it. And some of the new ideas, do indeed, prove to be fads given the test of time.

While KFz has it right, with reference to idea #2, he's just as much wrong on #1. Yes..work ethic, character, solid fundamentals, execution, minimizing mistakes...are all still important...and will be in the future. But they are not enough. You can't just "take care of business" and wait for the competition to make a mistake. They will run by you.
 
Last edited:
hawkdrummer1 said:
But I also believe the things that were good two years ago were good 10 years ago, they were good 30 years ago. And if you go the other direction, they'll still be good two years from now, 10 years from now or 30 years from now. That doesn't change."

Things that were "good" in the past, may very well still be "good". That doesn't mean they're equally effective in the current landscape.

There are two diametrically opposed fallacies related to progress.

1. If something was good before...it will always be good. While it may still have inherent value, it's relative value declines with technological progress unless it's adapted (this is often the error of more conservative thinkers) A well-crafted leather buggy whip was still damn good when the automobile came out..but it was also quickly irrelevant. If you're not growing, you're dying. There is no staying the same.

2. If something new and better comes along, we need to toss out the old ways. Wrong again. While progress does indeed give us new perspectives, ideas and better ways. It doesn't completely supplant all earlier valid premises. (this is often the error of the progressive thinkers) You retain what is valid and has value...and add to it, build on it. And some of the new ideas, do indeed, prove to be fads given the test of time.

While KFz has it right, with reference to idea #2, he's just as much wrong on #1. Yes..work ethic, character, solid fundamentals, execution, minimizing mistakes...are all still important...and will be in the future. But they are not enough. You can't just "take care of business" and wait for the competition to make a mistake. They will run by you.
Click to expand...

WI has gone to the last three Rose Bowls. Please enlighten me in their vaunted passing attack and revolutionary new schemes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top