What does the coaching staff need to do?

This coaching staff has a pretty good track record of looking at issues within the program that need addressing, gathering the appropriate data, and making changes.

Case #1 - Bowl preparation. We had, argueably, the most talented team in the nation in 2002 heading into the 2003 Orange Bowl. We ended up getting blitzkrieged that evening. Kirk had his coaches gather information from different teams and take a good, hard look at their faults and made adjustments to their preparation. The result, a 4-2 bowl record since then with the only losses being to Florida and Texas in games that certainly could have gone either way.

Case #2 - Playing true freshman. This coaching staff has done a nearly a complete 180 and are now playing players more based on true talent and trusting some freshmen to make plays that in the past they would have never done.

There are several more instances of this, but I wanted a couple to show that this staff is, in fact, capable of making adjustments to endemic issues within the program.

Which leads me to another issue that I believe needs to be addressed.

There have been 27 teams that have been to a BCS bowl since 2005. Of those 27 teams, Iowa has the WORST record in games decided by 8 points or less. This was even before Saturday's game.

Some might say, "Well, our style of play lends itself to being in so many close games, so we probably have more close games to deal with." Unfortunately, that's not the case. Teams such as LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia and Oregon......those teams that most would consider having more high-powered offenses have all played at least 20 games decided by 8 points or less (we have played 26). So it's not the fact that we're playing so many close games, it's what we're doing (or not doing) to close them out.

So what say you, Hawkeye Nation? What do you see as some of the potential answers to this issue?
 


This coaching staff has a pretty good track record of looking at issues within the program that need addressing, gathering the appropriate data, and making changes.

Case #1 - Bowl preparation. We had, argueably, the most talented team in the nation in 2002 heading into the 2003 Orange Bowl. We ended up getting blitzkrieged that evening. Kirk had his coaches gather information from different teams and take a good, hard look at their faults and made adjustments to their preparation. The result, a 4-2 bowl record since then with the only losses being to Florida and Texas in games that certainly could have gone either way.

Case #2 - Playing true freshman. This coaching staff has done a nearly a complete 180 and are now playing players more based on true talent and trusting some freshmen to make plays that in the past they would have never done.

There are several more instances of this, but I wanted a couple to show that this staff is, in fact, capable of making adjustments to endemic issues within the program.

Which leads me to another issue that I believe needs to be addressed.

There have been 27 teams that have been to a BCS bowl since 2005. Of those 27 teams, Iowa has the WORST record in games decided by 8 points or less. This was even before Saturday's game.

Some might say, "Well, our style of play lends itself to being in so many close games, so we probably have more close games to deal with." Unfortunately, that's not the case. Teams such as LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia and Oregon......those teams that most would consider having more high-powered offenses have all played at least 20 games decided by 8 points or less (we have played 26). So it's not the fact that we're playing so many close games, it's what we're doing (or not doing) to close them out.

So what say you, Hawkeye Nation? What do you see as some of the potential answers to this issue?

Not sure why you chose 2005. In that timeframe, that's 30% more games than the next closet team, a significant difference. That does speak to Iowa being very competitive over the years.

If you go back to 2002, the winning percentage is 54%. Not sure how that compares to the other teams you've mentioned, but I bet that's competitive.

Last year, Iowa won 67% of its close games.

Statistics can be misleading. Doesn't mean there's not something to address, because we'd all like to see more wins out of those close games, but I don't know if I'd label it an "endemic issue", that's all.
 


Two come to mind:

1) Focus on how to manage the clock, especially late in the half and late in the game. Who does what? Who makes the call? When is the QB given the reins to go on instinct? How's that communicated to the field?

2) Play to win, not to not lose.
 


Not sure why you chose 2005. In that timeframe, that's 30% more games than the next closet team, a significant difference. That does speak to Iowa being very competitive over the years.

If you go back to 2002, the winning percentage is 54%. Not sure how that compares to the other teams you've mentioned, but I bet that's competitive.

Last year, Iowa won 67% of its close games.

Statistics can be misleading. Doesn't mean there's not something to address, because we'd all like to see more wins out of those close games, but I don't know if I'd label it an "endemic issue", that's all.

I didn't choose 2005. The article I read used that date. Ironically, it was an article about LSU and how they are #1 in the nation in games decided by 8 points or less since 2005 which was when Les Miles was hired. Kinda funny considering how much heat he takes for clock management.
 


They need to simulate in practice on how to manage the clock.They say they work on this with the players but what about the coaches.They can talk all they want to about the screw ups of the players but they need to also take the blame because everyone but them seems to know that you spike the ball after first down.
 


I didn't choose 2005. The article I read used that date. Ironically, it was an article about LSU and how they are #1 in the nation in games decided by 8 points or less since 2005 which was when Les Miles was hired. Kinda funny considering how much heat he takes for clock management.

Fair enough, but over the long haul, it's not been too bad. Who knows about Les Miles - the Forest Gump of college football coaches.

I don't think we'll ever get a straight answer on what happened on that last series. If they did want to run a play instead of spiking it, then that needed to be communicated to the entire offense as they were coming off a timeout after the third down pass to McNutt. If it was to be a play call instead of a spike, they should have been lined up ready to go, and get the play underway once the official set the ball. That would be an against the grain call in that situation, and might have caught Wisconsin napping a bit thinking the spike was coming, but it didn't appear that everyone was on the same page at that time, necessitating using the last time out. I still like the spike in that situation - it allows the play to be called in from the sidelines, and with the timeout, still allows Iowa to go over the middle. They didn't need to preserve downs at that time, they needed to preserve time. If it was the coaches, then I don't agree. If it was the players, then I respect KF for not capping on them.
 




Two come to mind:

1) Focus on how to manage the clock, especially late in the half and late in the game. Who does what? Who makes the call? When is the QB given the reins to go on instinct? How's that communicated to the field?

2) Play to win, not to not lose.

This and only this. Everything else comes down to this, especially number 2.
 


Or how about this... prepare yourself as a coaching staff as well as you prepare your players.

Or how about this... be able to adapt to what the opposing teams do. If they are putting their fastest WR in the slot, maybe a LB isn't the person to cover.

Recognize that while doing what you do and doing it well is 95% of your success, that you have zero element of surprise, and allow others to dictate the terms of the game to you.
 


I think 2 big changes would be to name 1 interim DC and 1 special teams coach immediately if not sooner. I hate management by committee- it doesn't work.
 




Top