With Garmon committing..

[AdamHawk]

1. You're being a little disingenuous if you are saying that the level of execution isn't different between a walk-on and a 5-star. You're confusing effort with execution. Yeah, a walk-on can become a better player because the 5-star doesn't put forth the effort, but all things being equal, Alabama can execute at a higher level than say, Idaho.

2. I think there have been several times when plenty have felt square pegs were being jammed into round holes, or the staff wasn't exactly tailoring everything as well as they could to get the best 11 on the field at once. I think Jon has mentioned and written about this before.

Of course there is a difference of what level athletes can execute. My point is, you still have to execute what you are taught in order to be successful in college. Being a highly ranked recruit doesn't change that. Iowa has a game plan that works for them, based on the fact that it is difficult to land the blue chippers here. Obviously, we do get ours here and there but you can't just throw the plan out the window to accommodate them. That's my point. Regardless of your ranking out of HS, you are still going to have to execute the Iowa game plan in order to be successful.

You can call that trying to fit a square peg into a round hole if you'd like, that's your opinion. But it seems pretty obvious to me that Ferentz has found pretty good success in his plan and has shown a tendency to knock off several of those 'sexy' teams loaded with 4 and 5 star recruits.

 

[AdamHawk]

None of this is to say "scrap the whole thing." Just freshen up a bit. Maybe get a new haircut.

Do some things so that every opposing coach can't say, "Yeah, we knew exactly what was coming" thus forcing 22 players to "execute" flawlessly.

At some point people need to subscribe to one of two ideas.

1) Iowa doesn't have a problem recruiting high-level talent and recruiting is not a disadvantage here.

OR

2) Iowa's game plan is too complex or doesn't have a large enough margin of error to be consistently successful at Iowa.

Too often, Jon included, and maybe even myself included, people spout off about how the coaches and schemes are just fine you just need better players, look at 2009, 02-04 (NFL-loaded rosters).

But then the next day, we're ******** about how Iowa can't be expected to have defenses that are best in the nation and filled with NFL talent. Something just doesn't fit there.

I get what you are saying here but I think you are a little off. #2 is closer to accurate than #1 though. While I don't think it it 'too complex to be successful', it just relies heavily on execution. There is little margin for error but that's always been the case for KF's teams. When we limit the mistakes, the team is very tough to beat. Look at the defense; in order to score, you basically have to execute 12+ plays in order to get into the endzone. We rely on you not being able to do that and once you make the mistake, we capitalize on that. Iowa has made a living on being the more disciplined team on the field over the years. Again, it's not sexy but it's a proven strategy.

 

[herbyhawk]

never said that Mabin, Smith and Wilson are overrated or underrated
all i did was point out was they are all 6'2 and run a 4.4 40
Mo Brown was a 3* out of Florida and did some good things and everybody talks about speed and we have 4 guy at the skill position with that speed
Wegher left
Coe is saying he is coming back
the 2009 class also had 11 out of 20 commits on rivals has having 2*
2010 CJF, Dertby, Donnal and Coker with 5 2* recruits
2011 Blythe, Walsh, Hamilton and Coe with 5 2* recruits also Law was a 4* on scout but Hamilton wasn't
Coe is a strange one has he did not make it here because of grades, but has stated on more than one occasion that he is coming back
the # of 2* recruits is decreasing and the # of 3 and 4* recruits are increasing the days of getting projects and needing to develope them we finnaly are getting the more prepared prospects
unforetunatley i got the info on the # of 4* recruit per year from another readable source not saying that was wrong because there are to many ranking service out there and to many different opinions
for example on Rivals Ward is a Top 100 prospect
onn ESPN he is a low 4* recruit
and on Scout he isn't good enough to make their Top 300 to be a 4*
who's right and who's wrong i have no clue but he is playing in the US Army AA game so i will go with ESPN and Rivals

 

[NewMexHawk]

Now, IF the staff can just keep the guys on campus and don't run them off...Doesn't do much good to have a good recruiting class if the better recruits all transfer the first year or the beginning of the year.

 

[Section136]

never said that Mabin, Smith and Wilson are overrated or underrated
all i did was point out was they are all 6'2 and run a 4.4 40
Mo Brown was a 3* out of Florida and did some good things and everybody talks about speed and we have 4 guy at the skill position with that speed
Wegher left
Coe is saying he is coming back
the 2009 class also had 11 out of 20 commits on rivals has having 2*
2010 CJF, Dertby, Donnal and Coker with 5 2* recruits
2011 Blythe, Walsh, Hamilton and Coe with 5 2* recruits also Law was a 4* on scout but Hamilton wasn't
Coe is a strange one has he did not make it here because of grades, but has stated on more than one occasion that he is coming back
the # of 2* recruits is decreasing and the # of 3 and 4* recruits are increasing the days of getting projects and needing to develope them we finnaly are getting the more prepared prospects
unforetunatley i got the info on the # of 4* recruit per year from another readable source not saying that was wrong because there are to many ranking service out there and to many different opinions
for example on Rivals Ward is a Top 100 prospect
onn ESPN he is a low 4* recruit
and on Scout he isn't good enough to make their Top 300 to be a 4*
who's right and who's wrong i have no clue but he is playing in the US Army AA game so i will go with ESPN and Rivals

 

[BackNBlk]

I get what you are saying here but I think you are a little off. #2 is closer to accurate than #1 though. While I don't think it it 'too complex to be successful', it just relies heavily on execution. There is little margin for error but that's always been the case for KF's teams. When we limit the mistakes, the team is very tough to beat. Look at the defense; in order to score, you basically have to execute 12+ plays in order to get into the endzone. We rely on you not being able to do that and once you make the mistake, we capitalize on that. Iowa has made a living on being the more disciplined team on the field over the years. Again, it's not sexy but it's a proven strategy.

First off, I'd like to point out that EVERY scheme relies heavily on execution or they couldn't be successful. You make a very good point in the rest of your paragraph though. The thing I see as the biggest reason for underachievement the past few years when we have had mediocre records is the inability to control the LOS on both sides of the ball. Lack of a strong pass rush also leads to less forced turnovers.

 

[ISUhawk]

Athleticism DOES matter. We can execute all we want but you need talent to do it well. Look at VaTech last night. That RB was awesome and he had the same holes and area to work with that Canzeri did against Oklahoma. The difference was that Canzeri is small and not at athletic as the other dude and went down at first touch while VaTech's rb fought for an extra 5 almost every run. If you can execute with BETTER talent then we can move up in the world and start challenging the OSU's and Alabama's.

 

[HomerChampless]

OR

2) Iowa's game plan is too complex or doesn't have a large enough margin of error to be consistently successful at Iowa.

.

I chose to use this blurb from the full quote because it's so blatantly false.

To prevent mistakes and take time off the clock, Iowa dumbs down the offense. No opinions.

 

[hawkeyeguy85]

I chose to use this blurb from the full quote because it's so blatantly false.

To prevent mistakes and take time off the clock, Iowa dumbs down the offense. No opinions.

My point wasn't to say necessarily to say either of those things are true. It's to point out so of the hypocrisy from one of the sides of the argument about what is or is not wrong with Iowa football.

Specifically, those that say Iowa's philosophy is fine, they just need a top ten defense and absolutely flawless execution to be successful. But then five minutes later are complaining about how Iowa can't consistently recruit to fill said defense with NFL'ers, players that can execute that well, that long, that consistently.

So change one. Either recruit guys every year skilled enough to execute flawlessly, or do something that provides a little more margin of error.

Look, Jon has repeated it ad nauseum on here...Iowa's offense only produces enough to be successful when Iowa has a top-ten caliber defense. When the defense can't carry the day, big, big problems start to happen. But yet little ol' Iowa can't recruit well enough to expect and NFL D-line and LBs capable of covering WR and round and round it goes.

 

[BackNBlk]

Now, IF the staff can just keep the guys on campus and don't run them off...Doesn't do much good to have a good recruiting class if the better recruits all transfer the first year or the beginning of the year.

Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about. Most of the four and five star players that Iowa has gotten, they have retained. Here is a list of the four and five star players since 2002 (as far as Rivals archive goes back):


2002
Chris Felder (retired due to injuries)
Edmond Miles
2003
Mike Jones
Drew Tate
Albert Young
2004
Kyle Williams (grades; later transferred to Purdue)
Walner Belleus
2005
Dan Doering
Kalvin Bailey (transferred to CC; hasn’t played D1 ball with anyone else that I know of)
Ryan Bain (transferred to Akron after 4 starts and 24 games played)
Jake Christensen (transferred to EIU after losing starting job to Stanzi)
Rafael Eubanks
Alex Kanellis (retired due to injuries)
Tony Moeaki
Dace Richardson
2006
Adrian Clayborn
Jeremiha Hunter
2007
Christian Ballard
Jordan Bernstine
Bryan Bulaga
Cedric Everson (kicked off team)
Diauntae Morrow (transferred)
2009
Keenan Davis
Brandon Wegher (transferred)
2010
Marcus Coker
AJ Derby
Andrew Donnal
CJ Fed
2011
Austin Blythe
Rodney Coe (at CC; grades)
Ray Hamilton
Jordan Walsh

 

[PCHawk]

The thing about our game day philosophy is it doesn't matter that much what kind of talent we have. A team full of NFLers only has a slightly better chance of success then this years team. Our strategy is to limit possessions and keep the game close and we are very good at that strategy.

What Kirk needs to do is realize that he has got this team to the point where we are normally the better team on the field, other then this year due to attrition. The problem is he doesn't have the ability to run a different game day philosophy effectively, although I doubt there are to many if any coaches out there who could be good at more then one strategy, you are who you are.

What he needs to do is hire an OC and DC who is good at running a game day strategy fit for a team that is normally better then their opponent.

Our offense is fine but if we would pick up the pace it would not only give us more opportunities to score but it would be easier to find a rythem.

Spout off all the defensive stats you want but watch other teams around the nation and you will see what a dominant defense looks like. If we are going to put this many NFL caliber players on the field we need a game plan designed to get off the field not one designed to limit possessions and wait for the other team to make a mistake. It doesn't help our offense score when they spend so much time on the sidelines.

If we can combine Kirks ability to put the better team on the field with an OC and DC that has the ability to use that talent on the field then we can be a dominant team. Until then expect a 50 50 shot of a good record regardless of talent

 

[hawkeyeguy85]

The thing about our game day philosophy is it doesn't matter that much what kind of talent we have. A team full of NFLers only has a slightly better chance of success then this years team. Our strategy is to limit possessions and keep the game close and we are very good at that strategy.

What Kirk needs to do is realize that he has got this team to the point where we are normally the better team on the field, other then this year due to attrition. The problem is he doesn't have the ability to run a different game day philosophy effectively, although I doubt there are to many if any coaches out there who could be good at more then one strategy, you are who you are.

What he needs to do is hire an OC and DC who is good at running a game day strategy fit for a team that is normally better then their opponent.

Our offense is fine but if we would pick up the pace it would not only give us more opportunities to score but it would be easier to find a rythem.

Spout off all the defensive stats you want but watch other teams around the nation and you will see what a dominant defense looks like. If we are going to put this many NFL caliber players on the field we need a game plan designed to get off the field not one designed to limit possessions and wait for the other team to make a mistake. It doesn't help our offense score when they spend so much time on the sidelines.

If we can combine Kirks ability to put the better team on the field with an OC and DC that has the ability to use that talent on the field then we can be a dominant team. Until then expect a 50 50 shot of a good record regardless of talent

Well said.

I definitely think there is a disconnect with what Iowa is trying to do and who (players/talent) they're trying to do it with.

(i.e. Things they should be doing and aren't, things they are doing that they shouldn't)

 

[CGHawk]

The thing about our game day philosophy is it doesn't matter that much what kind of talent we have. A team full of NFLers only has a slightly better chance of success then this years team. Our strategy is to limit possessions and keep the game close and we are very good at that strategy.

What Kirk needs to do is realize that he has got this team to the point where we are normally the better team on the field, other then this year due to attrition. The problem is he doesn't have the ability to run a different game day philosophy effectively, although I doubt there are to many if any coaches out there who could be good at more then one strategy, you are who you are.

What he needs to do is hire an OC and DC who is good at running a game day strategy fit for a team that is normally better then their opponent.

Our offense is fine but if we would pick up the pace it would not only give us more opportunities to score but it would be easier to find a rythem.

Spout off all the defensive stats you want but watch other teams around the nation and you will see what a dominant defense looks like. If we are going to put this many NFL caliber players on the field we need a game plan designed to get off the field not one designed to limit possessions and wait for the other team to make a mistake. It doesn't help our offense score when they spend so much time on the sidelines.

If we can combine Kirks ability to put the better team on the field with an OC and DC that has the ability to use that talent on the field then we can be a dominant team. Until then expect a 50 50 shot of a good record regardless of talent

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

[PCHawk]

Last year we had one of the best D lines in the nation. How many times did they get to the QB a half second to late as he threw to the underneath route? With a line like that we should take away the short routes. If they can pick up the rush, beat our corner deep, not feel a phantom rush, throw an accurate deep ball, and make the catch then say congtats, I bet you can't do it again.

With drives like that our D isn't huffing and puffing on the sideline in the 4th quarter, or offense is right back in the game with another chance to score, and their offense, particularly their quarterback, has no chance to get in a flow of the game.

 

[DDStretch]

But Jon, don't you think there is something a little off about running a game plan that takes 4 and 5 star recruits or NFL talent to "execute" at a high enough level to be successful

Iowa doesn't get a ton of 4-5 stars. Iowa has been successful under Kirk's system for the past 10 years. I don't think your comment adds up.

This is where the frustration comes in for the side that can't understand why there can't be at least a little adaptation/tweaks to fit the talent Iowa has. Play to the strength of the players, not the strength of the inanimate system.

They do. Iowa plays ball control. Iowa is primarily a run-first team. Iowa rarely leaves its cornerbacks in straight 1-on-1 situations with top wideouts. Why? Speed. Iowa has long had to adapt its game plan for a lack of speed.

You're being a little disingenuous if you are saying that the level of execution isn't different between a walk-on and a 5-star. You're confusing effort with execution.

You're confusing talent with execution. I can be the biggest, baddest dude on the planet, but if I don't lower my pad level, get off the ball and get my hands/body in the right position, but you do, you're going to come across looking like the better player.

Two linebackers: Player X is a walk-on who listens to his coaches, trusts the game plan, keys off the guards like his coaches have taught him to and ends up in the right spot. Player Y is the top linebacker recruit in the country, but he feels like he can get by on pure talent rather than game plans and fundamentals. He flys around the field on instinct, sometimes ending up in the right spot. Who do you think looks like the better football player?

That's not to say I wouldn't want the 5-star coming out of high school because obviously his ceiling as a player is much higher. And, as an Iowa fan, I have complete faith that Kirk Ferentz and his staff would get him on the straight and narrow, turning him into an outstanding player.

And, when you're trying to compete against other schools that have talent and recruiting advantages, it is tough to reason why doing things that almost tie one of your own hands behind your back is a very good idea.

Do you realize that when you play teams with better talent, you have to keep the game as close as possible for as long as possible to win? It's Sports 101. In football, that means ball control with an emphasis on a strong defense and a good running game. If you have less talent than Oregon, you can't go into the game with the idea that you're going to outscore them. You keep the ball out of their hands to win.

While I don't think it it 'too complex to be successful', it just relies heavily on execution. There is little margin for error but that's always been the case for KF's teams. When we limit the mistakes, the team is very tough to beat. Look at the defense; in order to score, you basically have to execute 12+ plays in order to get into the endzone. We rely on you not being able to do that and once you make the mistake, we capitalize on that. Iowa has made a living on being the more disciplined team on the field over the years. Again, it's not sexy but it's a proven strategy.

Nailed it.

 

[FCAS]

... Mabin is 6'2 4.4 40 as is Wilson from Ohio
lets face it all 3 are 6'2 and run 4.4 40's, Iowa hasn't had that kind of speed at their disposal before, at least in that kind of quantity, also i like Florida speedy WR's

I'm always very skeptical of these reported 40 times, but there does appear to be a trend toward more speed.

 

[brett108]

never said that Mabin, Smith and Wilson are overrated or underrated
all i did was point out was they are all 6'2 and run a 4.4 40
Mo Brown was a 3* out of Florida and did some good things and everybody talks about speed and we have 4 guy at the skill position with that speed
Wegher left
Coe is saying he is coming back
the 2009 class also had 11 out of 20 commits on rivals has having 2*
2010 CJF, Dertby, Donnal and Coker with 5 2* recruits
2011 Blythe, Walsh, Hamilton and Coe with 5 2* recruits also Law was a 4* on scout but Hamilton wasn't
Coe is a strange one has he did not make it here because of grades, but has stated on more than one occasion that he is coming back
the # of 2* recruits is decreasing and the # of 3 and 4* recruits are increasing the days of getting projects and needing to develope them we finnaly are getting the more prepared prospects
unforetunatley i got the info on the # of 4* recruit per year from another readable source not saying that was wrong because there are to many ranking service out there and to many different opinions
for example on Rivals Ward is a Top 100 prospect
onn ESPN he is a low 4* recruit
and on Scout he isn't good enough to make their Top 300 to be a 4*
who's right and who's wrong i have no clue but he is playing in the US Army AA game so i will go with ESPN and Rivals

Listed times on recruting sites are just crocks. It is amamzing how fast so many HS players are, and yet NFl drafts come along and all that speed just went away.

 

[herbyhawk]

the lack of talent in away reflects on the results
# of 2* per year 2004 -2009
2004 12
2005 5
2006 8
2007 8
2008 12
2009 13
to many Diamonds in the rough for a team to be successful
2010 5
2011 5
2012 3 and counting with one being a kicker if this trend of getting away from the 2* players continues, i expect better things ahead
i am not against the 2* recruits but lets face it, sustained success went down with the recuiting
so stars do matter
an avg of 11 2* level players over 6 years did have an affect on the lack of success

 

[hawkeyeguy85]

Iowa doesn't get a ton of 4-5 stars. Iowa has been successful under Kirk's system for the past 10 years. I don't think your comment adds up.

See: NFL talent portion of the quote. It's always said the scheme is just fine, you just need better players (like a d-line full of guys now in NFL). But those same people also say it's unrealistic to expect Iowa to recruit like that.

Those two things don't jive to me. You're forcing yourself to where you either have to recruit NFL talent or rely on the fact that your batting average turning walk-ons and overlooked, not-so-highly regarded recruits into some of the best at their positions, which is not exactly a fair bet.

They do. Iowa plays ball control. Iowa is primarily a run-first team. Iowa rarely leaves its cornerbacks in straight 1-on-1 situations with top wideouts. Why? Speed. Iowa has long had to adapt its game plan for a lack of speed.

So they feel the need to give cornerbacks help because of the speed diff vs WR, but the LB corps is just fine against WR?

So when the offense is in a decent rhythm and driving in no-huddle against Penn State and then abruptly switching in mid-drive is putting their personnel in the best position? Not going back to it once the rest of the game? Ever again after NW?

Punting from the 38-yard line to play "field position" with the weakest defense in years?

There are things in every game you can nitpick, so I don't necessarily want to do that, but I think a pretty decent majority here would say there is a little too much stubbornness at times from this team/staff, rather than just go with the flow and what is working, even if that doesn't line up at the moment with the general, overall philosophy.

You're confusing talent with execution. I can be the biggest, baddest dude on the planet, but if I don't lower my pad level, get off the ball and get my hands/body in the right position, but you do, you're going to come across looking like the better player.

Two linebackers: Player X is a walk-on who listens to his coaches, trusts the game plan, keys off the guards like his coaches have taught him to and ends up in the right spot. Player Y is the top linebacker recruit in the country, but he feels like he can get by on pure talent rather than game plans and fundamentals. He flys around the field on instinct, sometimes ending up in the right spot. Who do you think looks like the better football player?

That's not to say I wouldn't want the 5-star coming out of high school because obviously his ceiling as a player is much higher. And, as an Iowa fan, I have complete faith that Kirk Ferentz and his staff would get him on the straight and narrow, turning him into an outstanding player.

You ignored, and failed to quote, most of my context here. Just arguing the fallacy that all 4 and 5 stars are lazy and all 2 stars and walk-ons bust their *** and turn into NFLers ain't going to cut it. There's a reason you hear about more 4 and 5 stars that are lazy and busts than two stars or walk-ons, because, well, walk-ons by definition can't be busts.

That wasn't my point anyway. The point was, in general, it is harder to get a certain level of execution from a less skilled player than it is a more skilled player all other things being equal. If you didn't cherry pick my quote, you would have read that.

Do you realize that when you play teams with better talent, you have to keep the game as close as possible for as long as possible to win? It's Sports 101. In football, that means ball control with an emphasis on a strong defense and a good running game. If you have less talent than Oregon, you can't go into the game with the idea that you're going to outscore them. You keep the ball out of their hands to win.

Kindly quote any post from me where I said Iowa should be attempting to "outscore" the opponent (though I thought that's how you win, by outscoring the other team). Snarkiness aside, you're going to waste your time trying to find a quote of me advocating going to some "high octane spread" which I think is what you're trying to twist my position into. Happy hunting though.

 

[Iowahawkeye1982]

Iowa will be fine at WR next year. They are going to have some size and speed.

I like that Davis, Martin Manley, Shumpert will be back. These guys are good group and I think Shumpert has a HUGE year next year. I believe we will see Bullock move to WR as well.