why ferentz is awesome

[trj]

He has also given us losing records to ISU, Northwestern, and Directional Michigan in that timespan.

It is kinda hard to ignore, it isn't a tiny mole on the chin of a supermodel something that you can easily look past, it is a giant wart right in the middle of her forehead. ISU, Indiana, and Minnesota are below .500 teams during that timespan and i believe Northwestern is right about .500. Losing to those schools are probably the difference in not attaining more of those 9-3/8-4 seasons '77hawkeye was alluding to.

 

[dave3912]

To a degree, yes. You ferentz defenders, please don't take offense. I didn't say completely. I said to a degree.

FreedComanche

'05 and '10 teams proved this is to be pretty true. Both teams were pretty loaded.

 

[Hawkguy712]

I'm not sure the OP link makes the case he thinks it does. It shows this program does well at developing players. That is only a part of the coaches job. Taking that talent you've developed and translating it into wins on the field is the other part of the equation. If anything it shows this program has squandered the talent they work so hard developing.

Ability to get players into the NFL is more a recruiting tool than a measurement stick for successful coaching. Wins determine whether or not a coach is considered successful.

Coaching up midlevel talent helps provide a basis to want to come into iowa, or stay in iowa when the alabamas come calling.
Ferentz has turned this into wins in the past, being a team thats run oriented offensively, but needs the dline pass rush to win. Weve been ranked in the top 10 many times.

Now say we get a new head coach. May i assume its someone that isnt previously a top 10 headcoach or successful nfl headcoach. Whats the recruiting tactic?

 

[DDStretch]

Originally posted by HawkeyePhreekWhen it comes to things that matter in college coaching most everything has past kf bye just like the tv/dvr remote in his office.

So, it's kind of like the English language with you then?

Originally posted by HawkeyePhreekTeams lick there chops when playing kf cause you know exactly what is coming and know its going to be a close game and you will have a chance to win.

Do you know this for a fact? You know that teams actually enjoy having to play Iowa. Typically, Kirk Ferentz coached teams have been fundamentally sound and have minimized mistakes. No football coach I ever played for was thrilled to play a team like that.

Originally posted by hawkdrummer1
Interestingly enough there appears to be no clear W-L correlation in that piece. There are some solid winning programs on each side of the ledger and some that aren't so successful. But it does reopen a fair question. If a program's NFL placement is significantly better than it's W-L success (or worse)... WHY?

No statistical data or factual information to back myself up, but could it be that some coaches care more about their win-loss record and run "system" programs, i.e., Urban Meyer, that don't necessarily end up making the player the best he can be, while other coaches are more concerned with each player realizing his potential and putting players in the best opportunity to be successful?


Just a hypothesis, but it is curious when some of the best programs in the nation (Ohio State, Oregon, Texas) either don't appear on the list or appear on the wrong side of it despite the fact that they're consistently getting players who are considered better coming out of high school.

Originally posted by 1977Hawkeye

2005: 7-4
2006: 6-6
2007: 6-6
2008: 8-4
2009: 10-2
2010: 7-5
2011: 7-5
2012: 4-8

I completely agree with your "expectations", but I think the records can be somewhat misleading. I would venture to guess Iowa was competitive and had a chance to win in 80-90% of the losses here. Lots of time, it simply does come down to execution, or lack thereof, but to me, it does mean something that Iowa simply hasn't been outclassed (blown out, if you will) on the field during the majority of Ferentz' tenure.

Originally posted by 1977Hawkeye
I'll grant you that. The thing is, the majority of that success was early on in his tenure. The last several years have really dropped off. If we had the "8 wins or more" conversation after the 2009 season, things would be looking a lot better.

I'm believer that Ferentz' biggest mistake was being overly loyal to Norm Parker for too long. I believe that heavily handcuffed Iowa not having one of its most important coaches on the recruiting trail, and we're seeing how big of a detriment that really was considering the lack of fruit in our recruiting classes in the mid-2000s. There was simply no depth behind the studs of the 2010 senior class. I'm excited now that Kirk has infused the coaching staff with some young, energetic personalities. With Chris White, Brian Ferentz, Levar Woods and Eric Johnson, I think we'll start to see some stronger classes come in real quick.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

And as I said, 8-4 is "almost fair" for expectations.

And sure this is 2013. What's changed that would make us recruit better, have better facilities than other schools or a larger state population from which to pull? Nothing.

I certainly want 8-4 or better EVERY season. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that we won't have crappy seasons once in a while. Making a bowl game with a 7-5 season isn't our greatest "hope", but it's better than 20 years of losing seasons and zero bowl games. Tons better.

For the third time, I didn't say that Iowa should be 8-4 or better EVERY season. Just that at least 8-4 is what normally should be expected for what is supposed to be a good football program. Not that 7-5 is warrants firing anybody, but I don't think we should be happy with 7-5 or 6-6 just because those types of seasons are to be expected here and there. Problem is, 6-6, 7-5, etc. has become the norm under KF. 8-4 seasons are definitely the exception to the rule the last 8 seasons.

What's changed that should make us recruit better? Um, 30 years or so of pretty good football under Hayden Fry and Kirk Ferentz. Iowa isn't Alabama or USC, or Notre Dame, but I would hope that after 3 decades of good, to occasionally great, football that Iowa would have earned itself some sort of reputation as a good football program, unlike it was in 1977. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iowa just spend a bunch of money on athletic facilities (both football and basketball) in the past decade or so?

 

[tubahawk]

Coaching up midlevel talent helps provide a basis to want to come into iowa, or stay in iowa when the alabamas come calling.
Ferentz has turned this into wins in the past, being a team thats run oriented offensively, but needs the dline pass rush to win. Weve been ranked in the top 10 many times.

Now say we get a new head coach. May i assume its someone that isnt previously a top 10 headcoach or successful nfl headcoach. Whats the recruiting tactic?

I'm not sure what we are debating here? I agree this program's ability to develop individual players into NFL level talent is one of if not the strongest recruiting tool we have.

Routinely taking that individually developed talent and underachieving as a team is what puts the target on KF's back. What good does it do to develop talent if it doesn't translate into wins?

 

[woodyk1]

I'm not sure what we are debating here? I agree this program's ability to develop individual players into NFL level talent is one of if not the strongest recruiting tool we have.

Routinely taking that individually developed talent and underachieving as a team is what puts the target on KF's back. What good does it do to develop talent if it doesn't translate into wins?

Playmakers are the difference. Iowa develops NFL players that provide support on teams, (Yanda, Angerer, Moeaki, Myers, etc.) but they have not had playmakers to win games in college the past couple of years. When they have a Brad Banks or Shonn Greene, they make the difference. When they do not have playmakers in the skill positions, they are average (at best). IMO, of course.

 

[DDStretch]

Playmakers are the difference. Iowa develops NFL players that provide support on teams, (Yanda, Angerer, Moeaki, Myers, etc.) but they have not had playmakers to win games in college the past couple of years. When they have a Brad Banks or Shonn Greene, they make the difference. When they do not have playmakers in the skill positions, they are average (at best). IMO, of course.

Opinion seconded.

The Yandas, Angerers, Bulagas, Myers, Moeakis, etc., give Iowa a foundation to be a solid ballclub, but the true, elite playmakers are what will take Iowa from 8-4 to 10-2 or better, and Iowa just hasn't gotten those stud athletes with great speed for a while. Aside from a quarterback turned best WR in school history and a freshman RB who flamed out, the Hawkeyes have been lacking those big time playmakers for the past few seasons. When you lose that foundation (offensive line injuries), have really only one playmaker on the defensive line and you're instituting a new offense, you get what happened last year. We may not be talking 10-win season, but I really don't see a repeat of last year in the win department.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Banks and Greene were the best playmakers in KF era. We all saw what happened during those years.

 

[DDStretch]

Banks and Greene were the best playmakers in KF era. We all saw what happened during those years.

Offensively, yeah, probably. McNutt and Tate were pretty good also. I'd give Tyler Sash his due as one heck of a playmaker as well. That side of the ball needs playmakers, too.

 

[tubahawk]

Playmakers are the difference. Iowa develops NFL players that provide support on teams, (Yanda, Angerer, Moeaki, Myers, etc.) but they have not had playmakers to win games in college the past couple of years. When they have a Brad Banks or Shonn Greene, they make the difference. When they do not have playmakers in the skill positions, they are average (at best). IMO, of course.

So having more NFL caliber talent than all but 3 other schools isn't enough? It has to be a foundation of all that NFL talent PLUS a couple of playmakers in order to consistently get Iowa 8-10 win season?

 

[Makavelihawk]

So having more NFL caliber talent than all but 3 other schools isn't enough? It has to be a foundation of all that NFL talent PLUS a couple of playmakers in order to consistently get Iowa 8-10 win season?

The answer is yes because...Well, ummm how do I put this? Here...

 

[woodyk1]

So having more NFL caliber talent than all but 3 other schools isn't enough? It has to be a foundation of all that NFL talent PLUS a couple of playmakers in order to consistently get Iowa 8-10 win season?

In my opinion, yes. For example, as someone mentioned, who were the playmakers of last year's team. Hyde and K.Davis? Well, those are nice college players, but not enough to make the difference. Then, add the injuries to the offensive line, the adjustments to new coaches, and some bounces that went the other way, and you have a 4-8 team.

 

[tubahawk]

In my opinion, yes. For example, as someone mentioned, who were the playmakers of last year's team. Hyde and K.Davis? Well, those are nice college players, but not enough to make the difference. Then, add the injuries to the offensive line, the adjustments to new coaches, and some bounces that went the other way, and you have a 4-8 team.

Looking at Florida State (Who is the third worst college for creating NFL recruits according the original link) their record for the last 5 years is;
2007 7–5
2008 8–4
2009 6–6
2010 9–3
2011 8–4
2012 10–2
Overall 48-24

Iowa's record over that same span;
2007: 6-6
2008: 8-4
2009: 10-2
2010: 7-5
2011: 7-5
2012: 4-8
Overall: 42-30

If we keep needing the moon and planets to align perfectly, perfect player health, a healthy supply of Unicorn potion, and a 7-point head start in order for Iowa to consistently see to 8-10 win seasons it's never going to happen.

 

[woodyk1]

Looking at Florida State (Who is the third worst college for creating NFL recruits according the original link) their record for the last 5 years is;
2007 7–5
2008 8–4
2009 6–6
2010 9–3
2011 8–4
2012 10–2
Overall 48-24

Iowa's record over that same span;
2007: 6-6
2008: 8-4
2009: 10-2
2010: 7-5
2011: 7-5
2012: 4-8
Overall: 42-30

If we keep needing the moon and planets to align perfectly, perfect player health, a healthy supply of Unicorn potion, and a 7-point head start in order for Iowa to consistently see to 8-10 win seasons it's never going to happen.

They had the exact same record (38-22) until this past year. Florida State had 11 players drafted in this year's draft including a QB in the 1st round. I would assume those players were not included in that number.

 

[DDStretch]

Originally posted by tubahawk
So having more NFL caliber talent than all but 3 other schools isn't enough? It has to be a foundation of all that NFL talent PLUS a couple of playmakers in order to consistently get Iowa 8-10 win season?

Umm, yes, it does. What do you expect, that if Iowa has NFL caliber offensive linemen they can throw you in at running back and put me in the slot and we'll be good to go? Fat chance. They need somebody who can actually put the ball across the goal line and create plays in space.


Offensively, I can think of about 3 people in the past five years who could do that on more than just an "OK" level - Marvin McNutt, DJK and Brandon Wegher.

Originally posted by tubahawk
Looking at Florida State (Who is the third worst college for creating NFL recruits according the original link) their record for the last 5 years is;2007 7–5
2008 8–4
2009 6–6
2010 9–3
2011 8–4
2012 10–2
Overall 48-24


Iowa's record over that same span;
2007: 6-6
2008: 8-4
2009: 10-2
2010: 7-5
2011: 7-5
2012: 4-8
Overall: 42-30


If we keep needing the moon and planets to align perfectly, perfect player health, a healthy supply of Unicorn potion, and a 7-point head start in order for Iowa to consistently see to 8-10 win seasons it's never going to happen.

Let's put Iowa in the ACC and morph the state of Iowa into one of the top 2 high school recruiting hotbeds in the nation and see what happens.


All that list tells me about Florida State is they're one of the best teams in the country at squandering the talent they get to sign on the dotted line.


Iowa's list of NFL players includes a lot of overachievers who were made into NFL caliber talent. The Hawkeyes haven't had many guys who were sure-fire NFLers as soon as they walked through the doors at Kinnick.

 

[CAARHawk]

the past three seasons have been bad, worse than I expected. I am not saying that Iowa should win 9-10 games annually but a bad year to me is minimum of 7 wins.

So what you are saying is only the last two seasons have really been bad?

It's just so funny how people can't seem to see beyond the moment from the prospect of the good and the bad.

However, over the years it does seem that 7/8 wins is the dividing line for fans. 7 wins means getting over .500 in a bad bowl or just over .500 during the season and a bowl loss.

During the KF era, they added the 13th game. Even so, 8 wins puts the team over . 600 in a 12 or 13 game season. So maybe the line should be a .600 winning percentage.

 

[dave3912]

So what you are saying is only the last two seasons have really been bad?

It's just so funny how people can't seem to see beyond the moment from the prospect of the good and the bad.

However, over the years it does seem that 7/8 wins is the dividing line for fans. 7 wins means getting over .500 in a bad bowl or just over .500 during the season and a bowl loss.

During the KF era, they added the 13th game. Even so, 8 wins puts the team over . 600 in a 12 or 13 game season. So maybe the line should be a .600 winning percentage.

05-07 was bad, really bad. '10 (minus the bowl game) was bad considering the talent the team had returning from an 11 win team the year before. So that is 6 out of the last 8 years that reached the minimal win total.

Funny how people lose sight of '05-'07 when '05 had just as much hype if not more than as '10.

 

[CAARHawk]

05-07 was bad, really bad. '10 (minus the bowl game) was bad considering the talent the team had returning from an 11 win team the year before. So that is 6 out of the last 8 years that reached the minimal win total.

Funny how people lose sight of '05-'07 when '05 had just as much hype if not more than as '10.

I still don't put 10 in the bad category. People focus on what was coming back and forget what was lost. The LB corp was a disaster. The line ended up starting a small fifth year senior walk-on who got abused, next to a small first year center. Basically the center of the line was blown up each game. The running game went from a three headed monster to a single 4th stringer. Still the team hit the 8 win threshold.

 

[Makavelihawk]

I still don't put 10 in the bad category. People focus on what was coming back and forget what was lost. The LB corp was a disaster. The line ended up starting a small fifth year senior walk-on who got abused, next to a small first year center. Basically the center of the line was blown up each game. The running game went from a three headed monster to a single 4th stringer. Still the team hit the 8 win threshold.

Sorry man, But if you don't think '10 was bad it's probably not worth it for anyone to argue with you. That was one of the worst coaching jobs I've ever seen in my lifetime. That team was absolutely stacked.