“we don't like to be reactionary with our decisions.”

[iowacowboy]

"Typically, we don't like to be reactionary with our decisions.” Kirk Ferentz - 10/4/16

Wow, that pretty much sums it up right there. Football is a game that is reactionary - any of us that have played it, watched it or even coached it know that. I'm blown away that this continues to come from our leadership and is allowed. Explains why we get outcoached as our opponents do react to what we are doing and most coaches react to players performance by benching the ones that don't perform. It's called observing and adjusting. Come on coach!

 

[IlpYGwoeBk]

What's the full context of this quote? It sounds bad, but I guess if he was trying to make a point that they want to be proactive and make the opponent play the game Iowa's way or something like that, it would make more sense.

 

[iowacowboy]

This one is in regards to personnel changes - on Hawk Central this morning. I guess we don't react to players poor play anymore and replace them, or we don't have anyone to replace them with.


http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sp...croston-miles-taylor-brandon-snyder/91576014/

 

[IlpYGwoeBk]

Well now I feel silly giving Ferentz the benefit of the doubt.

 

[HawkGold]

I think this is the real problem in a discussion between KF and GD. The problem is that decisions take too long during games.

 

[shonblatt]

The whole quote puts that into better context.

Q. Backups are always popular after losses. You look at a depth chart, and you see a fifth-year senior, Anthony Gair, at safety, and people are wondering what’s he not doing to be on the field. How close is he to being on the field?
COACH FERENTZ: It’s not a knock on Anthony. It’s just that we feel like Miles has played better and practiced better. Everybody starts clean in January. A guy like Desmond certainly has a head start, but he still has to go out and play and improve and work hard too. And it’s strictly based on what we see in practice, and that’s how depth charts get established. Typically we don’t like to be reactionary with our decisions, and hopefully you’re looking at things and being rational and basing it over the big picture and not just a momentary blip.​

Also related to this, a couple questions earlier:

Q. You guys haven’t made a lot of personnel changes because of performance on the field. Why is that?
COACH FERENTZ: Just I guess how it pans out. That’s like over 17 years you’re referring to; right? You know, it’s typical. I mean unless a guy is just flat-out not getting it done or is really struggling. If they’re out there drowning in the ocean, you’re going to try to throw a life preserver in there, for sure, and get a guy out of there. But there are ups and downs in everything you do, and you have to work through those ups and downs. If we feel a player is incapable, yeah, we’ll make a change that way. Or someone else if we see them ascending, we’ll give them an opportunity also. And health issues a lot of times factor into that, and guys take the opportunity and run.​

Ferentz believes in continuity. Not having knee jerk reactions. Being persistent at things he knows has worked in the past.

And he's had some success doing this, historically. The problem is when it doesn't work, he comes across as indecisive and resistant to change, the team fails to buy in, morale collapses, and what appears to be a talented group underachieves that season.

Last season's team didn't look like a 12-0 team early on, but was bolstered by winning the games against Pitt and Wisconsin. Confidence was built, and the team went on a roll. The difference between 7-5 and 10-2 or better can really be that small.

 

[Hawk5656]

And Barta gave him another extension

 

[NCHawker]

If there was someone better to put in (pick the position), they would have done it. IMO.

Depth issue here.

 

[DBAHawkFan]

Adding a TE to that side, Roll Outs, moving the pocket.....all things that could be done to help.

We haven't seen those adjustments (if they even exist in this offense) yet.

 

[David79]

It isn't a good idea to be reactionary in decisions. Kirk is right.

 

[nationalchamps]

He also needs to realize that some guys just aren't practice guys - they perform better in games.

 

[homes]

If there was someone better to put in (pick the position), they would have done it. IMO.

Depth issue here.

I agree with this, in general. But, it's hard to believe that the "next man in" is that much farther behind that he doesn't even get a taste of playing time when the starter is not getting the job done. I think that's the frustration. Not to pick on him, but by way of example, is the next left tackle so bad that no matter how many times Croston got whipped on pass protection, the next guy would be worse? I'd like to see the evidence of it, i.e., put the next guy in and see what can be done. If it's worse, then 1) you're playing the best guy available, but 2) you're in big trouble.

 

[theboat]

I agree

Adding a TE to that side, Roll Outs, moving the pocket.....all things that could be done to help.

We haven't seen those adjustments (if they even exist in this offense) yet.

that is the answer. Maybe there is someone better , maybe there isn't, but either way you adjust. If I am a coach that loves man coverage, but my CBs can't cover anyone, I adjust coverage to help them out, I don't just watch them get burned time after time.

 

[tksirius]

He also needs to realize that some guys just aren't practice guys - they perform better in games.

Oh believe me, he understands that. It's not about how they perform in games, it's about how they earn it during the week. Kirk cares more about Monday thru Friday than Saturdays.

 

[Joshbrown]

He also needs to realize that some guys just aren't practice guys - they perform better in games.

Agree and IMO it is the hardest job any coach has. Figuring out which guys are great in practice. Which guys are great on game day. And which guys are both. Only a certain % will be both. Then the tricky part happens where you have to experiment and take some calculated risks. Cirk is risk averse and so naturally errs on the side of reliable practice guys who ARE ALSO RISK AVERSE IN THEIR TECHNIQUE.

Problem is, sometimes you have to gamble. Sometimes it's not about teaching kids who is the boss, but saying to them, "Okay Derrick, you think you're so talented you prima donna puke. I'm gonna give you an entire game to impress me." Then if the kid delivers, you know you've got something.

 

[LurkinGopher]

It's not the player's fault, Dammit! Give them a chance to perform differently. On offense: throw different formations at teams to change it up. Come on, we all know if CJ is under center he is going to...

1) hand-off off tackle left or right - if full back in, read direction of play,
2) 5 step drop pass,
3) play-action and roll the opposite way of the fake. That's half the offense. The other half is he is in gun and will look to throw. There's the other half.

BORING AND PREDICTABLE!

Kirk wants to be the new England Patriots in the worst way. So, run the above offense, use tight ends on mismatches on out-sized safeties and slower LBs. However, Belichick allows Josh Daniels (OC) to throw a number of wrinkles into the sets. You'll see motion (to assist with WR separation), you'll see trick sets, he'll throw 20 times in a row and run when he should pass. The Pats' blocking schemes go from zone blocking, to whams, counters, fake whams (faker runs to set up quick slants). With motion and different schemes, the BORING AND PREDICTABLE Ferentz offense would work. Check out all the options and open receivers when motion is used!

http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/teams.../10/02/the-new-england-patriots-wham-schemes/

More:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...s-offensive-creativity-fueling-playoff-surge#

http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/teams.../10/02/the-new-england-patriots-wham-schemes/

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2015/1/30/7954703/super-bowl-2015-patriots-will-win-tom-brady

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ts-offensive-creativity-fueling-playoff-surge

Several points here. 1. Fire Ferentz and replace with Josh McDaniels. 2. Fire GDGD and put an innovative OC that won't take any of Kirk's crap in place or 3. Employ an Ohio State power spread offense (college football needs a running QB for the additional element of options, motions, and unpredictability.

Mike drop...

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

I have no issue with not being reactionary to changing personel too quickly. I have a HUGE problem not being reactionary to playcalling, formations, and schemes that can help the personel that might be struggling.

We aren't changing during a game...at all.

4 sacks, 6 TFL, and 5 QB hurries/flushes (one that forced a game ending throw), from the left side Deffensive End. Maybe help out the young man who's struggling. Good grief. That's beyond incompetence from the OC...and by extension the head coach.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

I have no issue with not being reactionary to changing personel too quickly. I have a HUGE problem not being reactionary to playcalling, formations, and schemes that can help the personel that might be struggling.

We aren't changing during a game...at all.

4 sacks, 6 TFL, and 5 QB hurries/flushes (one that forced a game ending throw), from the left side Deffensive End. Maybe help out the young man who's struggling. Good grief. That's beyond incompetence from the OC...and by extension the head coach.

I'm witya, bro! Been calling for elimination of single back and exclusive "I" w/twin-tights (+ addition of Mitchell for a power-I, on occasion) for 2 weeks!! Just another jaw-dropping failure by this coaching staff (along with the dozens over the last decade) to realize that you're OL is struggling and you best be bolstering your protection and running exclusively with POWER.

But, hey, let's not be reactionary derKirkFer!

 

[SpecialKHawk]

I do not think after a hugely disappointing 5 games that it's being reactionary to take a look at playing some other personnel. Keep in mind that can mean alternating at a certain position.

I see this as the head coach not wanting to do this because it might work or he may end up finding a better player he had no intentions of playing. Then people question his decision making in the first place.

 

[Caddy]

I do not think after a hugely disappointing 5 games that it's being reactionary to take a look at playing some other personnel. Keep in mind that can mean alternating at a certain position.

I see this as the head coach not wanting to do this because it might work or he may end up finding a better player he had no intentions of playing. Then people question his decision making in the first place.

This. We've seen the same shit for 5 games. The same guys flat out not getting it done, I wouldn't call it being reactionary to try somebody else. My God he is friggin clueless. So out of touch with what is going on. This entire staff needs to go, or this program is going to sink to a new low it may never recover from. This crap is why our recruiting sucks year after year. Guys like Bower, Snyder, Taylor, etc even sniffing the field, let alone being locked in to starting spots for the entire year. Snyder will start every game until he graduates, barring injury. Ridiculous.