In the past, Iowa's recruits we're not as highly touted by the so called experts but the coaching staff was able to coach them up. Thus, by the end of the season they were playing well. However, as indicated by last year especially in the bowl game it appears as though Kirk's mundane approach to the game and his stubbornness is beginning to catch up to him and most importantly killing Iowa football.
Alarming trend for Iowa football
- Thread starter redout
- Start date
I am glad we finally have a thread questioning Kirk's recent performance.
I can't tell if you think I am displeased with the original post or that I am displeased with the state of Iowa football, so, I will answer briefly as to what will make me happy with each.
Original Post: That threads and posts not be created that state the obvious, or, state that which has been stated 100s of times.
Hawkeye Football: That our head coach appears to have some fire left in him to reach for greater performance than we have seen generally over the last 4 (not 5) years.
So did the Hawkeyes not look good in the bowl game? Really? I was unaware of that. It hasn't really been discussed much here in the last 6 months.
Clean up you own mess. Click edit and delete. Isn't just like a Husker to take a shit in public and expect someone else to clean it up.
Or it's the same person posting the same stuff under different user names. The best is when "he" argues with himself in the same thread using multiple user names. Happens all the time on this board. Just a thought....
I've noticed an alarming trend. Ever since June 21st each day is getting shorter and shorter
I agree with Sigmainthawk. The same "guy" posts under a mind boggling amount of user names on here. There was a thread the other day where I believe 8 of the 9 responses at one point were the same guy all with different user names. Can't imagine the amount of time invested.
I think that trend has extended well beyond last season. My honest opinion, 2009 was a fluke and that fluke got KF his big payday and contract. College football has changed a lot in 10 years. Pretty much every team, even in the Big10, plays an uptempo, stretch the field style of play now. The teams who don't but are successful (like Wisconsin) get stud running backs and dominant offensive lines. Iowa continues to field average to below average talent playing such an outdated style of play that it takes next to no scouting and prep work by the opposition to be prepared for them come Saturday. KF consistently refuses to adapt or change. Thus, Iowa football (sans 2009's fluke season) has been mediocre about every season.
Ya! I'm that guy. I have 8 different e-mails and 8 different server points. At first I though I would just change my user name each time but I found out that that doesn't work. That's why I have eight computers in my house with eight different addresses. You caught me.
Making more threads questioning his performance so we can let off steam or whatever it is that we get out of doing it..........that sound about right?
Two blocked field goals in a row to start the season vs UNI, a pinball interception return for a TD to start a furious comeback vs. Indiana are very very fluky in and of themselves. They led to two wins that should have been losses. You'd have to remind me of what flukey plays or finishes occurred in 2012.
I see your point but the blocked field goals were legitimate blocks -good defensive plays by Iowa and not a shank, a mishandled snap, or some other blunder by UNI. It might be unusual but it wasn't "fluky". Iowa stopped UNI from scoring because they made great plays, end of story.
The INT was a fluke but even then, Iowa scored another 3-4 TDs (cant remember) and the defense did there job to hold the Hoosiers so you can't say definitively that the Indiana game would have been a loss but for that play. The game was not decided on that play alone but I will concede that it was a very big factor.
I'm certainly not trying to discredit the effort of the Iowa players and the job they did under those circumstances. With that said, I think the average, objective observer would say in both of those scenarios the outcome was very, very unusual and very unlikely to have occurred. I agree pretty much all teams who have ever had unexpectedly great seasons have had some bit of luck or fortuitous bounces go their way in order to stay unscathed. However, the way in which it occurred in 2009 goes beyond bizarre and therefore in my opinion "flukey." I'm a Hawk fan, but c'mon, no matter how good your special teams are, it's just unrealistic to expect them to block two field goals in a row like that. And it's not like the kick was a 50 yarder.
The deflected INT against Iowa State when we were already in FG range, Scherff breaking his leg against Penn State (I think we lost another lineman that game too), Kreiger-Coble (I believe it was) not going for the g***damn ball on the onside kick against Central Michigan, the wind being so friggin strong that both teams could only throw one direction in the finale against division champ Nebraska, who we lost to by 6 despite not having an offense, and Purdue benefitting from our poor play calling on a failed 4th down attempt and then driving into FG range in just 16 seconds......a lot of sh** went wrong in 2012 for us to end up 4-8.
While we're at it, why not turn 2002 into a fluke season as well? We had a close win at Miami, OH. We survived in OT at Penn State after benefitting from a bad call. We needed a 4th down completion to Dallas Clark to escape Purdue. 2002 must've been a very fluky season as well, huh.....
Damn that lucky Kirk Ferentz for all his fluky successful teams, right?............
As I stated before any team that has had a great run has benefited from "lucky breaks" or fortuitous bounces. In turn, the reverse can be true for teams having subpar seasons. The points you raised only further that point, which I already conceded. However, I don't believe any of that compares to the two examples I cited. Those were anomalies.
Sure buddy. Reading comprehension and cognitive dexterity are obviously not your strong suits, so sure, we'll go with that. Thanks. Smh.
No, I was just putting words in your mouth because the idea that you think 2009 was a fluke season is ridiculous.
That's what happened there, buddy.
Usually if things go your way it is because of talent and if they don't go your way it is lack of talent. In 2009 talent made plays and in 2012 they just didn't have the talent and needed to be perfect to win which they were far from. In 2010 it really was because of injuries and backups not being ready. That was a truly fluky season. If they could have stayed healthier at OL and LB they would have had a 10 win season. That's why I don't count that year as a down year. I think 2011 and 2012 they just weren't good. 2013 they started to improve again but last year they just didn't have the skill position players or lbs to get over the hump and my fear this year is that it will be the same as last. Hopefully Beathard can prove he is a good QB, a RB can step up and be a star and the LBs improve. If those things happen they can win a lot of games this year. if they don't then it could be another 7 win season maybe 6.
I agree that 2010 was disappointing and injury plagued. I agree with most of your analysis, but do think we just have different views of "flukey." To me injuries, especially in football, happen with regularity, some cases being more random or unusual than others. I would also agree that Iowa had good players in 2009 who made a lot of plays. However, the difference between the 10-2 regular season record vs. what could have easily been 8-4 (or worse) was due to some very, instead of fluke I'll say "extremely unusual" plays. I would also point out that in addition to barely surviving UNI Iowa barely beat Arkansas St. that year. My point is the kids get all the credit in the world for what they accomplished, but in my mind, 2009 was more of the same from a coaching standpoint. Ferentz's best coaching job, IMO, was 2004 and since that time I don't believe he's done much to merit any real praise.
Think what you want. You've done nothing to add credibility to your argument. You sound like your 16. "You're wrong because I don't like what you have to say." Duly noted. You can have the last word because at this point I couldn't care less what you have to say and won't even waste my time with it.
Similar threads
