tbf - there are certain posters, especially after a loss, that make me wonder sometimes...
Coordinators met with Media Today. Marco getting more reps than Deacon. Offense 85% installed
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
I get what you are saying. But I don't think these folks hate the team.....just circumstances.
I was primarily poking at f5 who thinks even the slightest criticism is "hate". He's a strange man.
I was thinking of a poster like Iowaslaw - have never seen him start a thread discussing anything positive about the hawks; his postgame recaps only ever come after losses, etc.
Kirk is all about scoring up to 18 points. Anything more than that is like driving 70 mph in a 65 mph zone. You just don't need that kind of risk in your life.
Marco's ability to run should have got him reps in games. DHs turnovers should have got him benched (in KFs own mind, TOs are THE stat).
You are trying awfully hard. I have to give you that.
Teams have contingency plans for if their QB goes down. The backup gets a few reps during the week, but it's very limited. There just isn't enough time. By rule, teams are only allowed to practice a certain amount of hours. Even in the NFL, with the most experienced and skilled QB's in the world, almost all of the weekly reps go to the starter. Reason being, they need the prep time. There just isn't enough time to warrant taking more practice reps away from the starter for the sake of getting a guy ready for a series or two. It's pretty simple math.
What if ML wasn't even close to ready to seeing the field? Would you being taking the starter's prep time away from him for the sake of a guy that isn't even close to ready? If Cade were healthy would you have sacrificed some of his weekly reps for DH or whoever happened to be the #2?
I think the most probable guess is that ML just wasn't ready yet. And it's what nobody really wants to say. The anti-KFers aren't going to say that because they're trying to perpetuate the narrative that he is getting it wrong with his QB again. And the KF supporters realize that he probably got it right but they don't want to downtalk Marco. I'm here to tell you that ML could have been nowhere near ready last season while at the same time having the potential to be a good player. It's called being a true freshman QB. It's the most complicated position in the game and this is an extremely normal rate of progression for a true freshman QB. And there are a handful of things that point to this probably being pretty true.
So it begs the questions: 1. Do you believe it possible that ML just wasn't ready yet? Simply, that it wouldn't have been a good idea to put him on the field (independent of how the starter was performing). 2. If an independent party throughout camp and the season had consistently and significantly graded DH better than ML, would you still feel as strongly that ML needed a chance on the field? If the answer to both questions is "no", then this all boils down to how you feel about Kirk.
What you are arguing against is so completely standard and commonplace it really causes one to wonder.
No, you don't leave Deacon in there solely for the sake of not breaking his confidence. But the chance that his confidence could be broken if you pulled him is part of the total risk that gets calculated.
And yes, every athlete performs worse when their confidence is lower. No explanation needed.
As for Labas... I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from on this one. Do you mean Labas concluded he would never get a shot while Cade was healthy? You would think Joey would at least see that he has a high chance to be the backup in case Cade got hurt. But even if not, and Joey just gave up super early in camp, you would think his competitive instincts would kick back in once Cade got injured in camp and while he was playing hurt.
Or do you mean Labas concluded this after Hill was inserted as the backup? If so, I can guarantee you KF didn't communicate to JL that DH was his guy no matter what. If JL concluded this on his own you would really have to question him as a competitor if he didn't think he could at some point force KF's hand to have him replace DH. Would you really want to argue that JL should have gotten any chances had he begun to pack it in in that scenario?
As it was, DH was already listed ahead of JL at the time CM went down. Given that JL is probably a better prospect than DH, and given the fact that JL had started the previous bowl game, I'm assuming if the rumors about JL were true, that the coaches had already moved him down on the depth chart because of it. So Labas beginning this behavior because DH was inserted ahead of him doesn't really add up. Hill was likely listed ahead of JL at that point in the season because the coaches already knew that Joey had been smoking pot and late to meetings.
So really, it again sounds like you're just trying to blame KF for Joey's lifestyle, had those rumors been true. There are a lot of players buried on depth charts. Almost none of them react by starting to puff the weed and arriving late to meetings.
So it seems like your take on a lot of topics may just boil down to some frustration or another you have with KF. The same applies for most of the football posters on this board. It leads to a lot of laughable arguments.
If you guys are going to come at Kirk, start by knowing that you are arguing against an establishment that has had consistent success for near the entirety of 25 years. Know that you need to come with something exceptionally strong; as nobody is coming into your office raising a fuss that you should do your job the way KF suggests.
I mean, getting all worked up that KF didn't replace one incomplete QB with another? Getting all worked up that someone didn't get a try for a series or two? Are those two series really such a big deal? Going so far as to call it all coaching malfeasance? Don't bring such weak sauce. Don't fall into the trap of going to the bathroom with the girls. Don't allow your feelings about KF to govern how you feel about all things Hawkeye football.
I have no undying love for Hill. I've stated many times that his performance last season was poor and that I expect Lainez to end up the better player
Again, there are reasons to believe that DH gave Iowa its best chance to win last season. They have been spelled out in this and another recent thread.
Doesn't matter how bad DH was. If you don't believe the guy behind him gives you any better chance of winning, you don't put him in the game. Especially when it was obvious that Iowa was operating with zero margin for error
You are somewhat correct with saying a running QB can possibly get hurt. In today’s game they can slide at any given moment. Which is helping on injuries!
Kirk won 2 B1G Championships in his first 6 years.
We are now in a 20 year drought.
crazy.
Using that logic no back up should ever play. Practice determined that the starters give the team the best chance to win
Yes, everyone pretty much wins their spot in practice.
A coach isn't going to pull the plug on any position for a bad game if that player is consistently grading the best in practice. A couple bad games and now your looking to see just how hard the backup is knocking on the door. If he's been consistently performing well in practice, he will probably get a shot.
Plus, this is all position dependent. Some positions, such as interior lineman are more likely to rotate a group of players. QB is a position that a coach isn't looking to rotate at
They always could. Any player always could. But when you are a competitor and the game is tight.......... things happen. I dare to say most games are fairly tight. This whole running qb veer style ball is what Nebraska has had such a problem with. Because it worked for them in the old days, so the fans went nuts for it, thinking they are back. Well we have seen their w/l record. Plus they have been through a few qb's and you never knew who was going to be starting because they were always dinged up. Call me old school, but I think the goal for a OL is to keep your qb as clean as possible. Now, I have seen a video of a guy faking going down just enough for the defenders to pull up. So how are the refs and rules going to deal with that? It is not fair and yet it is not against the rules. You know what they say if there is a loophole someone will always find it. I mean they don't let up and hit him, they are going to say he was going down, you do let up and just like he did, they don't go down and keep running. I do not advocate for anyone to get injured, but a team that plays like that, is doing nothing but putting a target on their back and you would think everyone involved, including the player knows it. (when I say veer, I am talking about when the qb decides weather to keep it and run it himself or hand it off to the rb, based off reading what the DE is doing. Basically turning your qb into a rb)
Last edited:
Yes, the "veer" is pretty much called "read option" these days.
And it's something that could work well with Marco's skill set. But as you say it has its limitations. Puts the QB at risk for injury. And if it's all the offense is running it's probably not going to be enough.
The game should start slowing down for Marco at some point. Hopefully his skill set is rounding out as well
I think what people are trying to say is if Marco Laniez had the reps that DHill had we would have been better off. Simple as that. We can blame it on a lot of things I guess. Bottom line is DHill should not be playing QB imo. I'm also hopeful that Coach Lester will get it turned around.
Well, that’s also having the benefit of hindsight, knowing now that Cade would get injured and Hill would play poorly.
Have to remember that Marco didn’t arrive until august, and still did well enough to make him #2 by mid season behind Hill. Not to mention Cade had to take the bulk of the reps to get up to speed as well since he had not practiced in the spring. It’s not like there were a ton of reps out there that Marco could have gotten over what he got already.
It’s too bad Resar couldn’t have enrolled early and gotten reps this spring as well.
Was there Saturday, and it seemed like both got about the same number of reps. I saw many mentions that they had the offense dialed back (much more plain) than what it had been the preceding 14 practices. Didn't want a great deal on public vid yet.
Maybe, who knows. Defenses were going to pin their ears back on a second string qb, no matter who it was. That probably did not help our OL (that was subpar) either. Plus you had bad routes in the passing game, inexperienced wr's. It was kind of a dumpster fire all the way around. I agree with others, I would be surprised if Marco is not #2 going into fall. He could get beat out by a transfer, but so could Cade for that matter, but it would have to be someone pretty darn good and someone that good would be coming to win NC, (basically a ringer) especially with the Defense we have. I don't know the odds of someone like that coming in, so we will probably roll with what we have. Which for the entire month of Sept our defense should be able to keep almost anyone from hitting double digits on us and that would give them time to get whoever is #2 some good game reps and take some pressure off Cade. We might be alright this year, but we need everyone to get better (and they should). They need a big player sanctioned summer is what they need.
That last part may have had credence before last year. Moving the god damned ball and getting first downs, regardless of how, or scoring more points….never hurts the defense…..ever
Complimentary football always has credence.
Obviously the offense the last couple seasons wasn't very complimentary, although many correct decisions were made that played to the team's strengths(defense and special teams).
The point I was making is if such a thing as complimentary football exists, and there's a way to play offense that helps your defense, then there is also a way to play offense that can hurt your defense.
And this is what people haven't really taken into account when they've moaned and groaned about how much better Iowa could have been if they had just had a better offense. It's an oversimplification. What are the answers to achieving a better offense? And do those answers have the potentiality of compromising the defense? If so, the "just add offense" narrative loses a lot of its steam
Wetjen is a burner, his kick off returns looked like they sped up the frame rate.
I don't pretend to know what Iowa could be if we'd just had a better offense the past few years - but you're arguing as tho Iowa had had even just an average one of late. You know that's not true.
We've all certainly seen countless examples over the years of where teams sacrificed defense for the sake of scoring quickly for example. Many of those teams then went to waste once they encountered a team that could hold up to their offense. In two of BF's best games as OC, Iowa did just that, utilizing a defense that would not get overpowered by the opposing offense and allowed it's own offense to take advantage of those weaker defenses.
I don't care about raw stat totals - with our style of play we'll never avg 500 yards or 40 ppg, nor do we need to.
What we do need, is an offense that can protect the ball, not leave its defense exposed via poor turnovers or exhaustion; as well as being effective and efficient when it does have the ball, taking advantage of the good field position it will often have as a result of the defense. We haven't had that the past few years, and without question it has cost us games. The way we've won games in recent years is one that comes with a definite ceiling, and is not ultimately sustainable in the long run. A bad year due to injuries, or heavy losses in the transfer portal, would gut this team.
And frankly, even the best defense will have bad days. It's not unreasonable to argue we will need an offense that can pick up the slack when needed otherwise.
Agree with most of what you said.
The only thing I'm arguing is that the "just add offense" narrative is oversimplified and incomplete.
The reason I'm arguing that is because I feel the level of fan negativity the past couple years has been way over the top, undeserved, and has lacked constructivism, if not actually having been destructive in intent and potentially even reality.
Quite often I've been mistaken for defending the offense when, in actually, I'm just calling out fan behavior.
Last season was one of my favorite Hawkeye teams of all time. I think a lot of fans missed and overlooked a hell of a lot about that team and season that was purely special.
It honestly doesn't matter to me if Iowa averages 10 points a game as long as they are winning. I get that a bad offense is going to make it awfully hard to win against the elite teams. I also get that even when Iowa has had serviceable offenses they've usually lost to the elite teams.
Of course I want to have the occasional seasons where Iowa beats the elite teams. Iowa has certainly had some of those moments under KF. I also understand it's an oversimplification to say that can happen simply by having a better offense.
And I understand that 10 wins is a great season at Iowa. I believe that team should be celebrated to no end, especially when you consider most of those wins came with a backup QB.
And most importantly, I feel the level of negativity from the fan base has been completely undeserved for a 10 win team(and again, with most of that using a backup QB). The negativity is coming from the fact that fans aren't entertained and that makes it wrong.
KF's job isn't to entertain but rather to win games. And he's done just that
Or maybe some fans would hope for an 11 win season, 12 win season? That would be even more entertaining than 10 don't you think? Doesn't mean we didn't enjoy the season or see the great things......just looked at the could have beens that were missed.
"I don't care about raw stat totals - with our style of play we'll never avg 500 yards or 40 ppg, nor do we need to."
Maybe they can avoid being in contention for being the worst offense in D1? It hasn't been a 'style' issue.
I'm talking about the LEVEL of negativity. It's been way over the top and simply disproportionate to the success Iowa's been having.
The overall tone of the fan base shouldn't be negative when the team just executed one of the most successful seasons in the history of the program; period.
Everyone wants an extra win or two. But is that reason to act as if Iowa just won 4 games?
If after everything, you're still looking at the "could have beens", you're simply coming from a place of negativity. Again, especially when having played most of the season with a backup QB.
Do you think if Iowa had averaged 25 points and still had the same record, that people would still be lamenting about the "could have beens"? No, they would actually recount it as a good and fun season. All of the bitching is simply because fans haven't been entertained by the offense.
And again, if Iowa had tried some of the crap that a lot of you have suggested, they wouldn't have even have had the success that they did
The "could have been" narrative is nothing more than fans justifying their negativity.
They know Iowa's record doesn't deserve the negativity. So they justify it in terms of performance vs an ideal.
Again, the negativity only exists because fans aren't entertained by the offense. How else do you explain an all-time high level of fan negativity during one of the most successful seasons in program history?
College football in its current form exists solely for entertainment (and as a training ground for the NFL).
So I can understand if people don't feel entertained and have a desire to complain.
So I can understand if people don't feel entertained and have a desire to complain.
I think your last few posts in this thread miss an important point. If the hawk offense had a better qb and OLine the past few years the many close wins would have been blowouts or easy wins.
And that is where you can get your 2nd teamers game day reps at qb, WR and Oline to get them the experience they need. This is one reason why really good teams stay really good as their backups get more experience.
Yeah the hawks have won a lot of games lately but I think it is still poor coaching to not have played Marco last year more when getting blown out like against penn st, mich, Tenn. Play him some against Rutgers which was a 20 pt lead iirc. But dont blow his redshirt
‘And again, if Iowa had tried some of the crap that a lot of you have suggested, they wouldn't have even have had the success that they did’
Yeah but what’s the upside? Ball security is a core concept of Iowa football. That wasn’t followed. Radical change? Wasn’t needed. Any tweaks, maybe a select change up packet of plays for the backup qb. Some teams have done that. The ‘best during practice’ trope gets old. Now the goal is to chant ‘we’re not last’?
The KF does no wrong crowd like most of you profess is as annoying as the everything must change crowd
The negativity has been directed solely at the offense and Kirk's desire to make no changes it taking a new AD to fire the head coach's son who led . In what world has the negativity about the offense not been deserved???
The brilliance of the defense and special teams does not mean the offense does not deserve all the criticism it has received. Yes, Iowa's record has been good the last 3 years (28-13). Iowa has also cumulatively had the worst offense in all of college football the last three years.
The stats are actually remarkable:
- Iowa has averaged 263 yards per game over the last 3 years. Only 3 teams have averaged less than 300 yards (UConn and New Mexico are the others).
- The gap between Iowa and 2nd to last is 27 yards per game. The next biggest gap between any two teams ranked next to each other is 7 yards, and the average gap between two teams ranked next to each other is 1.7 yards. Iowa is the severe outlier!
- The standard deviation for all teams over the last 3 years is 47 yards, which means Iowa is a full standard deviation away from ranking 126th in the country.
- Iowa still ranks last if you include the last 4 years. Iowa moves up to 2nd to last if you include the last 5 years.
Again, the negativity around the offense that has literally been dead last in the country for the last 4 years has been over the top and undeserved??? 4 years is not a small sample size. If being dead last out of 133 teams over 4 years does not deserve loud criticism, then what the hell does?
No one is saying the negativity isn’t deserved. We are saying shut the eff up and talk about something different . You are all broken records.
Perhaps the broken record is just mirroring the broken record of
‘No changes needed, just need to get better’ ?
How did that unprepared QB do for us vs Kentucky a few years ago?
When you have an opponent that you should be rolling (and Iowa has those every year) and fail to do so, that takes away the "game time" snaps for the 2nd stringers. KF has rarely, if ever kept his foot on the gas to give those opportunities to the 2s. If you can score 70 against an opponent, that is a "them" problem, not an Iowa problem.
DH was a turnover machine, which goes against every fiber in KF's mantra. When a RB fumbles, he yanks them for a game or 3. DH was turning it over at a clip we haven't seen, that was on KF and BF for not benching DH. ML was at least able to run, I'd take a 3yd gain over repeated turnovers.
Sure, blame fans negativity for bitching because the offense has been the worst or almost the worst in the past several years. Really?
Literally from the post I quoted: "The reason I'm arguing that is because I feel the level of fan negativity the past couple years has been way over the top, undeserved..."
eyesofhawk said:
And this is what people haven't really taken into account when they've moaned and groaned about how much better Iowa could have been if they had just had a better offense. It's an oversimplification. What are the answers to achieving a better offense? And do those answers have the potentiality of compromising the defense? If so, the "just add offense" narrative loses a lot of its steam
How does having a better offense compromise the defense?
And this is what people haven't really taken into account when they've moaned and groaned about how much better Iowa could have been if they had just had a better offense. It's an oversimplification. What are the answers to achieving a better offense? And do those answers have the potentiality of compromising the defense? If so, the "just add offense" narrative loses a lot of its steam
How does having a better offense compromise the defense?
Latest posts
-
-
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
