With Garmon committing..

[DDStretch]

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.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, I will just say this: Iowa has had NFL-type players in recent history because Iowa has turned a lot of guys into NFL-type players. No, they weren't all walk-ons, but guys like Pat Angerer and Chad Greenway were not heavily recruited by Division I programs. It's unrealistic for anyone to believe Iowa will come away with a recruiting haul like LSU/Alabama/Florida in any given year. And, I say that in terms of having one of the nation's top classes based on the pundits' rankings. That doesn't mean Iowa can't turn its lesser players into a team full of guys who can compete against those teams.

It's a bit of a high school football comparison. Even though (most) high schools have to work with what they've got every year, some are successful every year because some coaches have a great knack for teaching their kids how to win, even if it means pounding that square peg into a round hole once in a while.

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?

One of the basic fundamentals of Iowa's defense that I wholeheartedly, completely and utterly disagree with and will actually complain about. I can still picture Mike Klinkenborg getting torched by Anthony Gonzalez play after play a few years back.

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.

How many football coaches have you ever known to " just go with the flow." I can't think of one. Football coaches are generally control freaks by nature.

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.

Didn't ignore it at all. You said the level of execution is different. I said, no, the level of talent is different, but that doesn't always mean the level of execution is different.

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.

Of course, if you can get a more skilled player over a less skilled player, you'd want the more skilled player. That's pretty obvious. That's talent. Not execution.

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.

Did I accuse you of saying that? No. Simply used Oregon as an example in a statement about game planning. And, I'm not trying to twist any position of yours whatsoever. I'm not really sure what you're after, to be honest. Most people around here who believe Iowa needs some sort of change believe Iowa needs to open up the playbook.

People also complained a lot about not using the no huddle more. By using the no huddle, you're suggesting a quick-score offense. Well, guess what that means? Your defense is on the field much quicker each series. The defense (and lack of execution in the red zone) was Iowa's problem this year. The talent was lacking on that side of the ball. Do you want that unit on the field more? If I were a coach, I know I wouldn't.

To me, clearly Iowa needs the system it currently uses. It keeps games close against the better teams and, in theory, will wear down weaker teams and allow for a nice 17-24 point victory. Does it always work? No. Mistakes do creep in and change the game. But, that's true no matter what system you run. You can't turn the ball over, and fail in the red zone and expect to win no matter if you run the ball religiously or sling the ball all over the field.

I guess I don't really get what people want. Maybe you can enlighten me.

 

[herbyhawk]

i am not saying we don't need 2* just that KF relies to heavy on the Diamonds in the rough
Alvis is a 2*, KMM was a 2* sp there are players that are not actually 2* players but one of the overlooked players
lets face you are risking alot on getting 8-12 2* players every year

 

[hawkfarmer]

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

Iowa will always have 2* players, but when Iowa has more 4 and 5* players that is when they are good. You have to look 2-3 years down the road to see the impact of recruiting.
2004 lots of 2*- 2006-2007 bad years
2008-2009 lots of 2* recruits, 2011-2012??

2* can turn into Dallas Clarks or Bob Sanders, but the majority are Drew Clark and Scott Coverts.

The reason that Iowa goes through these cycles is due to recruiting, not the scheme.

i am not saying we don't need 2* just that KF relies to heavy on the Diamonds in the rough
Alvis is a 2*, KMM was a 2* sp there are players that are not actually 2* players but one of the overlooked players
lets face you are risking alot on getting 8-12 2* players every year

 

[DDStretch]

Yes, and that's always going to be the case, no matter who the coach is. People make it sound like recruiting is easy. It's not. At all.

First of all, there are so many kids to recruit compared to the number of recruiters a school has. You can't recruit everybody, so you have to choose. Considering a school has to make a choice, Iowa naturally isn't going to go after kids who are viewed as more of a long shot. That eliminates a lot of the nation's top prospects. You'll see the Hawks cherry pick and take their chances with some top guys like Seantrell Henderson, Cyrus Kouandjio, etc., but that's only a couple of guys a year.

Then you talk about competition. Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Texas, Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, Arkansas, Auburn, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Oregon, USC.

That's 22 schools right there who are in line for the best recruits each year. Each school will sign roughly 20 players. That's already 440 high school athletes off the board just from those schools. And, we've only touched 1/6 of D-1 football and there are still plenty of good, top flight schools that I didn't mention. How many combined 4-5 star guys can there be? With those types of numbers, it's easy to see why Iowa is always looking for the diamond in the rough.