Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it?

H

HomerChampless

Well-Known Member
When you ask, for example, Al Sharpton if he thinks the cop in Ferguson,Mo. is guilty, you know his answer.. always, cops are guilty in every situation. When you ask, for example, a conservative if there should be gun control, you know their answer.. never, in any situation. By the same token, when you ask advocates of conservative offense in football, you know their answer.. keep the offense simple. Don't take chances. Let the defense carry the load.

A host of HN posters are keen on conservative offense. KF is keen on conservative offense. Run the ball 30+ times a game. Punt the ball on fourth and one when the Line Of Scrimmage is forty yards or so from a touchdown. Play for field position if you can't score points. Conservative offensive advocates also think running the ball takes time off the clock from the other's offense (it also takes time from Iowa's offense).

Conservative offensive advocates already, IMO, have a sour taste about the offense. They must think, "Why make it more uncomfortable with crazy passing formations and crazy gadget plays"?

The only time a few 'conservatives' have advocated for a more advanced offense is when they realize the defense isn't solid. I've listened to some of Jon's podcasts. IMO, this is happening to Jon this season.

I'm guessing some posters aren't acquainted with HN's conservative football offense advocates' feelings about Ken O'Keefe, Iowa's previous Offensive Coordinator. Always riding KOK about the inadequate Iowa offense (usually pointing to the national ranking of Iowa's offense as proof). According to them, when Iowa lost games, the defense NEVER caused it. I remember the Wisconsin game so well. These advocates didn't mention anything about Iowa giving up over 30 points. All they seemly wanted to talk about was the offense's inability to score a FG starting from the, I think, 30 yard line in a 2 minute drill. And the fake punt.

Remember when you ask the opinion of advocates for conservative offense in football, you know their opinion about offense will be biased. IMO, it's not about Iowa winning and losing (because some avenues for winning are already disdained).
 
Last edited:
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

okay? so don't ask them?
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

i feel like i learned something by reading this...but then i realized i did not
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

The stupid thing about the conservative, don't take risks on offense and let the defense win approach is that you always end up in close games. Being in a close game at the end is the biggest risk you can take in sports. Maybe we have Kirk all wrong, maybe he has a gambling problem.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

So, define conservative football?

I'll offer a few perspectives.

Running instead of passing is not necessarily more conservative. Some running plays have a low probability of success / expected return relative to some passing plays.

Running into a stacked box is not conservative. It is a high risk/reward play. If you bust a seam you can have a big gain. if you get stuffed you don't look too smart.

A 2 yard pass may or maynot be risky. A 2 yard pass thrown over the middle may not be as risky as the same pass thrown from the left hash to the right sideline.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

Huh? What? Wait a minute... Never mind
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

Running the ball isn't conservative if you do it well. Wisconsin under Bielema ran the ball 65-70%+ every year (that's way more than us) and they finished #1 in scoring 3 out of the 7 years he was there.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

You had me at al sharpton
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

hwk23 said:
Running the ball isn't conservative if you do it well. Wisconsin under Bielema ran the ball 65-70%+ every year (that's way more than us) and they finished #1 in scoring 3 out of the 7 years he was there.
Click to expand...
Good point. I'll clarify. Iowa's running is conservative. Gains of 3-4 yards a pop are desired. Between the tackles. Blockers for running backs are the OLine, FBs and the runner themselves. Taking time off the clock is one major goal of Iowa's running (2nd major goal is scoring). Iowa' OLine is smaller than Wisconsin's and deals more with teamwork. Iowa attempts to pound opponent's DLine into submission over time using OLine, FB, and RB. Wisconsin's running backs would not thrive in Iowa's running game.

Wisconsin's running game is not conservative. Edge running. Jet sweeps. Using speed to gain big chunks of yardage every attempt. BB had a fullback to block for the runner. I'm haven't noticed today's Wisconsin offense enough to be adept in analysis. Wisconsin's OLine is more massive than Iowa's. They are designed to be bullies of opponent's DLine from the beginning of the game and throughout. Weisman wouldn't thrive in Wisconsin's running system. He'd be a fullback (if Wisconsin still uses one).
 
Last edited:
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

Is it conservative if you stop running the ball after you were running the ball well? Is it the conservativeness in kirk that makes him not understand football? Is it called conservative when you run a system that is built for players you dont have? Is it conservative to not understand specail teams and what an onside kick is?

Is it is conservative that Greg Davis was your choice for an OC?

Is it conservative to not have a good OL when thats the only thing you specailize in?

Norm was conservative and dominant and the only reason that goober has that crazy contract.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

Iowa could've used conservative offense and driven down the field to score a TD and taken, maybe, 7 minutes off the clock. Maryland could've responded with spread offense that took them down the field to score a TD in, maybe, 3 minutes. IMO, the most important question is: whose defense is a better stopper? Iowa's or Maryland's? It seemed Maryland's defense was the better stopper that game. Maryland's defense was more effective and Maryland's offense was more effective.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

HomerChampless said:
Good point. I'll clarify. Iowa's running is conservative. Gains of 3-4 yards a pop are desired. Between the tackles. Blockers for running backs are the OLine, FBs and the runner themselves. Taking time off the clock is one major goal of Iowa's running (2nd major goal is scoring). Iowa' OLine is smaller than Wisconsin's and deals more with teamwork. Iowa attempts to pound opponent's DLine into submission over time using OLine, FB, and RB. Wisconsin's running backs would not thrive in Iowa's running game.

Wisconsin's running game is not conservative. Edge running. Jet sweeps. Using speed to gain big chunks of yardage every attempt. BB had a fullback to block for the runner. I'm haven't noticed today's Wisconsin offense enough to be adept in analysis. Wisconsin's OLine is more massive than Iowa's. They are designed to be bullies of opponent's DLine from the beginning of the game and throughout. Weisman wouldn't thrive in Wisconsin's running system. He'd be a fullback (if Wisconsin still uses one).
Click to expand...

I think Weisman gets underestimated. He might not be the best rb for the stretch play, like most Iowa rb's, but I think he would have done pretty well in Bielema's offense. It would be like John Riggins running behind the Hogs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

If you can run the football well it is the easier thing to do than passing.

Nobody on this board was complaining last year when the running game sh#t stomped ISU and Minny in the first half of the season. And the running game was working pretty well all of last year.

No one was complaining about conservative play in the second half last year because Canzeri had that 168 yard game against indy and Jake was throwing a lot more 20 -30 yard passes in the gaps against cover two. I mean really nice passes and plays.

And no one was complaining when Weisman was slobber knocking Nebby players and other teams through out the year.

People are complaining now because it is much the same personnel having what seems like very up and down results. The offense seems to be better being the more old Darryl Lamonica Oakland Raiders of pound the ball and then go over the top. But we have only seen that style in 1.5 games which is not enough.

My gut feeling is if we would have taken about 5-8 shots of 40+ yards at Maryland we would have had some big success.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

uihawk82 said:
If you can run the football well it is the easier thing to do than passing.

Nobody on this board was complaining last year when the running game sh#t stomped ISU and Minny in the first half of the season. And the running game was working pretty well all of last year.

No one was complaining about conservative play in the second half last year because Canzeri had that 168 yard game against indy and Jake was throwing a lot more 20 -30 yard passes in the gaps against cover two. I mean really nice passes and plays.

And no one was complaining when Weisman was slobber knocking Nebby players and other teams through out the year.

People are complaining now because it is much the same personnel having what seems like very up and down results. The offense seems to be better being the more old Darryl Lamonica Oakland Raiders of pound the ball and then go over the top. But we have only seen that style in 1.5 games which is not enough.

My gut feeling is if we would have taken about 5-8 shots of 40+ yards at Maryland we would have had some big success.
Click to expand...

Iowa ran the ball 60.1% of the plays in 2013. We did that in 2001, 2002 and 2008 to and those were the three best KF years for offense. This year we're back to 50.6%. I think we were about 50% in 2012 to.

My theory is Iowa went back to basics after the terrible 2012. Pounded the ball against ISU and others (MW had 35 carries for 145 yards against ISU in the 2013 W). Now we've regressed back to the 2012 offensive play calling.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

HomerChampless said:
Good point. I'll clarify. Iowa's running is conservative. Gains of 3-4 yards a pop are desired. Between the tackles. Blockers for running backs are the OLine, FBs and the runner themselves. Taking time off the clock is one major goal of Iowa's running (2nd major goal is scoring). Iowa' OLine is smaller than Wisconsin's and deals more with teamwork. Iowa attempts to pound opponent's DLine into submission over time using OLine, FB, and RB. Wisconsin's running backs would not thrive in Iowa's running game.

Wisconsin's running game is not conservative. Edge running. Jet sweeps. Using speed to gain big chunks of yardage every attempt. BB had a fullback to block for the runner. I'm haven't noticed today's Wisconsin offense enough to be adept in analysis. Wisconsin's OLine is more massive than Iowa's. They are designed to be bullies of opponent's DLine from the beginning of the game and throughout. Weisman wouldn't thrive in Wisconsin's running system. He'd be a fullback (if Wisconsin still uses one).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I honestly don't believe that Gordon would have fared as well if he had come here. I've got no problem running the ball 30plus times a game as long as you do it effectively. Iowa wants to run the ball, but most of the time they just don't do it very well.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

HomerChampless said:
Iowa could've used conservative offense and driven down the field to score a TD and taken, maybe, 7 minutes off the clock. Maryland could've responded with spread offense that took them down the field to score a TD in, maybe, 3 minutes. IMO, the most important question is: whose defense is a better stopper? Iowa's or Maryland's? It seemed Maryland's defense was the better stopper that game. Maryland's defense was more effective and Maryland's offense was more effective.
Click to expand...
Because Iowa's offense is horrible and has been for a long time. Team after team makes Iowa's offense look like the joke that it is. It's no wonder we have trouble recruiting offensive skill players who are actually wanted by anybody else.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

hwk23 said:
Iowa ran the ball 60.1% of the plays in 2013. We did that in 2001, 2002 and 2008 to and those were the three best KF years for offense. This year we're back to 50.6%. I think we were about 50% in 2012 to.

My theory is Iowa went back to basics after the terrible 2012. Pounded the ball against ISU and others (MW had 35 carries for 145 yards against ISU in the 2013 W). Now we've regressed back to the 2012 offensive play calling.
Click to expand...

My guess is we weren't good those years due to running the ball a lot. It's more that we were able to run the ball a lot those years because we were good.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

HomerChampless said:
When you ask, for example, Al Sharpton if he thinks the cop in Ferguson,Mo. is guilty, you know his answer.. always, cops are guilty in every situation. When you ask, for example, a conservative if there should be gun control, you know their answer.. never, in any situation. By the same token, when you ask advocates of conservative offense in football, you know their answer.. keep the offense simple. Don't take chances. Let the defense carry the load.

A host of HN posters are keen on conservative offense. KF is keen on conservative offense. Run the ball 30+ times a game. Punt the ball on fourth and one when the Line Of Scrimmage is forty yards or so from a touchdown. Play for field position if you can't score points. Conservative offensive advocates also think running the ball takes time off the clock from the other's offense (it also takes time from Iowa's offense).

Conservative offensive advocates already, IMO, have a sour taste about the offense. They must think, 'Why make it more uncomfortable with crazy passing formations and crazy gadget plays'?

The only time a few 'conservatives' have advocated for a more advanced offense is when they realize the defense isn't solid. I've listened to some of Jon's podcasts. IMO, this is happening to Jon this season.

I'm guessing some posters aren't acquainted with HN's conservative football offense advocates' feelings about Ken O'Keefe, Iowa's previous Offensive Coordinator. Always riding KOK about the inadequate Iowa offense (usually pointing to the national ranking of Iowa's offense as proof). According to them, when Iowa lost games, the defense NEVER caused it. I remember the Wisconsin game so well. These advocates didn't mention anything about Iowa giving up over 30 points. All they seemly wanted to talk about was the Iowa offense's inability to score a FG starting from the, I think, 30 yard line in a 2 minute drill. And the fake punt.

Remember when you ask the opinion of advocates for conservative offense in football, you know their opinion about offense will be biased. IMO, it's not about Iowa winning and losing (because some avenues for winning are already disdained).
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOHbxBAEN8
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

PCHawk said:
The stupid thing about the conservative, don't take risks on offense and let the defense win approach is that you always end up in close games. Being in a close game at the end is the biggest risk you can take in sports. Maybe we have Kirk all wrong, maybe he has a gambling problem.
Click to expand...
Thumbs up, PCHawk. I'd add KF is such a good sport, not wanting to crush the opposition and putting players in his doghouse if they do, that this compounds the reason why Iowa's games are always close.
 
Re: Why ask the opinion of advocate of conservative football offense when you know it

Do you have crib notes for your mile long post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top