Could the '18 season prove to be a replay of the '14 season?

[ghostOfHomer777]

This is actually one of my fears ... and as we all probably recall, the '14 season went down as an exceedingly disappointing season too.

Why bring up the comparison? Firstly, obviously there is the similarity that both seasons featured a returning starter at QB ... Rudock in '14 and Stanley in '18. Furthermore, both squads featured a complete "rebuild" at LB ... we graduated all 3 starters at LB after both the '13 and '17 seasons.

However, the superstitious part of my brain is "pinging" because the last time I was really amped about the potential of our O was in '14 ... and that season the group obviously underwhelmed. In fact, in many respects, the '14 O looked quite a bit better than the '18 O on paper ... we returned a productive starter at RB, our OL looked like it should be in "beast-mode" because the group featured Scherff at LT and the guys who complemented him were darn good too (Blythe, Donnal, and Walsh). The '14 WR group actually had be excited about the group. We had a veteran who I felt we could trust in Martin-Manley. We had some "speed guys" in Tevaun Smith and Powell. On top of that, the youth seemed pretty promising with guys like Willies, VandeBerg, and Mitchell. Even though we had lost Fiedorowicz to graduation, we saw Duzey emerge in the OSU game in '13 ... so the TEs looked more than solid (Hamilton, Duzey, Krieger-Coble, and Kittle). On paper, the '14 O looked like it could make a real statement for the Hawks .... and perhaps give the new LBs some "wiggle-room" in their development.

What is different? Why might the '18 squad not earn the same tag as the '14 squad ... and that was one of being a disappointment.

• A top one (difference) that comes to mind is that the '14 squad suffered from a QB competition. Both fans and players alike were split in loyalty between Rudock and Beathard. The '18 squad features Stanley as the unquestioned leader of the O.
• Another top one was that Ferentz made the mistake of letting himself get distracted by his other responsibilities (relating to our facilities, fundraising, and the like) ... and so the '14 squad suffered from his relative inattention and seeming indifference. Since '15, we've seen the emergence of "new Kirk" ... a guy who recognized his past failings and took significant steps to "freshen-up" the program.
• The '14 D not only had to break in new LBs ... but we also had a DL that was only relatively deep at DT. We were critically thin at DE ... and Meier was an all-new starter at DE. Our #3 DE was Hardy ... and, with all due respect, Hardy would likely be the #6 DE on the '18 squad. The '18 Hawks are deep and experienced on the DL ... and that is even with us losing Bazata.
• We also featured an all-new starter in '14 at CB in Mabin ... and Mabin was converted over from WR ... so he had no prior college CB experience for us. While King had a stellar TR FR season for us in '13 ... he honestly didn't set himself up very well heading into the '14 season (a reflection that he had some maturation to do) ... this is likely why he ultimately had a little bit of a SO slump for us. While the Hawks will feature a new regular starter at CB in '18 ... the Hawks return 3 corners who each have seen starts and extensive game experience. Furthermore, our depth at CB might be as good as I've ever seen at Iowa (thanks to King, Jackson, and Phil Parker for that).
• Lastly, in '14, we featured an all-new starting FS in Lomax. While Lomax ultimately developed into an excellent FS for us ... Iowa's secondary play invariably tends to be on the shakier side when we don't return experience at the position. The Hawks return 3 starters at safety ... and a 4th who played like a starter against Nebraska (reference to Stone).

In 2014, the Hawks had a QB "controversy" ... and that's obviously a bad position to have unsettled. Furthermore, the "QBs of the D" ... the MIKE LB and FS were both inexperienced. All the same, the '14 squad finished the regular season at 7-5 ... and had they not experienced collapses against Maryland and Nebraska ... it is arguable that they "should have" finished no worse than 9-3.

In 2018, the schedule sets up similarly ... but what will we end up seeing on the field?

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

 

[anon_8rcdnbko1jbe0]

Awesome analysis as always Ghost! It did seem like you talked yourself back from the edge as you continue to write down the pros and cons of this year's team. I see more maturity at some valuable positions this year that you have mentioned. QB, safety, corner, D-end and of course the security blanket of having the best tight end group in the nation. I'm sure we will see some struggles early on at linebacker and interior oline. I like this defense and I think that we will see a couple of wrinkles early on especially from the safeties to protect the linebacker group a little bit more as they mature.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

If this offense looks anything like a Greg Davis offense we are in for a program overhaul. That 2014 O was 66 out of 124. The defense is going to take a step back this year. "We" are replacing 2 all Americans on D, and you cannot just expect Phil to pump out another Thorpe award when the offense is not held accountable at all. It's time for the O to carry the load.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort01.html

 

[anon_2zMXH429BhxV1Npk]

The '18 offense has two quite notable advantages:

Stanley
No GDGD and his merry men

Those two things in combination relieve most any fear I would have of a repeat of '14 on offense. Not to say this year we will definitely succeed, but on paper those two things are clearly better now vs. then.

On defense I think you hit the most important factor when facing the same LB situation: the '18 DL overall should be much better, especially starting the season where they won't be growing into their positions. While I don't know for certain off hand, I feel like our LBs this year are coming in slightly more talented/better off than in '14. I could be completely wrong, but feel like our recruiting leading up to '14 was not bountiful by any means.

Good topic ghost.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

If this offense looks anything like a Greg Davis offense we are in for a program overhaul. That 2014 O was 66 out of 124. The defense is going to take a step back this year. "We" are replacing 2 all Americans on D, and you cannot just expect Phil to pump out another Thorpe award when the offense is not held accountable at all. It's time for the O to carry the load.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort01.html

A better metric would be scoring O as compared to total O. Greg Davis still was constrained by Kirk's philosophy of "Ferentz ball" ... wherein Iowa tries to possess the football, limit the number of possessions ... and ultimately score (TDs) with greater efficiency than our opponents.

If you look at 2015, even with Greg at the controls, Iowa executed Ferentz-ball very well ... we could kill the clock (at least against lesser foes) on O, we scored points more efficiently than we had previously done, and our bend-but-not-break D still held up their end of the bargain.

I agree that our scoring O in both '13 and '14 wasn't what it ideally should have been ... and that DID impact the outcome of games. I also agree that it would be nice to see MORE out of our O. However, seeing more out of O doesn't require that Kirk break from his philosophy ... and that is likely why we've seen Iowa "go for it" on 4th downs at a much higher clip than before. Iowa arguably lost to Pitt in 2008 because they were willing to go for it on 4th downs ... and that extra assertiveness was the advantage they needed to ultimately win the game.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

A better metric would be scoring O as compared to total O. Greg Davis still was constrained by Kirk's philosophy of "Ferentz ball" ... wherein Iowa tries to possess the football, limit the number of possessions ... and ultimately score (TDs) with greater efficiency than our opponents.

If you look at 2015, even with Greg at the controls, Iowa executed Ferentz-ball very well ... we could kill the clock (at least against lesser foes) on O, we scored points more efficiently than we had previously done, and our bend-but-not-break D still held up their end of the bargain.

I agree that our scoring O in both '13 and '14 wasn't what it ideally should have been ... and that DID impact the outcome of games. I also agree that it would be nice to see MORE out of our O. However, seeing more out of O doesn't require that Kirk break from his philosophy ... and that is likely why we've seen Iowa "go for it" on 4th downs at a much higher clip than before. Iowa arguably lost to Pitt in 2008 because they were willing to go for it on 4th downs ... and that extra assertiveness was the advantage they needed to ultimately win the game.

+1 for the going on 4th. I think we will see even more of it . While I understand there is a way KF wants to play, this year, if they are going to be competitive in the west, he is going to need to be willing to get into some shootouts and win them. A couple 10 and 14 point games and "we" will struggle to get to 8 wins regular season.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

This is actually one of my fears ... and as we all probably recall, the '14 season went down as an exceedingly disappointing season too.

Why bring up the comparison? Firstly, obviously there is the similarity that both seasons featured a returning starter at QB ... Rudock in '14 and Stanley in '18. Furthermore, both squads featured a complete "rebuild" at LB ... we graduated all 3 starters at LB after both the '13 and '17 seasons.

However, the superstitious part of my brain is "pinging" because the last time I was really amped about the potential of our O was in '14 ... and that season the group obviously underwhelmed. In fact, in many respects, the '14 O looked quite a bit better than the '18 O on paper ... we returned a productive starter at RB, our OL looked like it should be in "beast-mode" because the group featured Scherff at LT and the guys who complemented him were darn good too (Blythe, Donnal, and Walsh). The '14 WR group actually had be excited about the group. We had a veteran who I felt we could trust in Martin-Manley. We had some "speed guys" in Tevaun Smith and Powell. On top of that, the youth seemed pretty promising with guys like Willies, VandeBerg, and Mitchell. Even though we had lost Fiedorowicz to graduation, we saw Duzey emerge in the OSU game in '13 ... so the TEs looked more than solid (Hamilton, Duzey, Krieger-Coble, and Kittle). On paper, the '14 O looked like it could make a real statement for the Hawks .... and perhaps give the new LBs some "wiggle-room" in their development.

What is different? Why might the '18 squad not earn the same tag as the '14 squad ... and that was one of being a disappointment.

• A top one (difference) that comes to mind is that the '14 squad suffered from a QB competition. Both fans and players alike were split in loyalty between Rudock and Beathard. The '18 squad features Stanley as the unquestioned leader of the O.
• Another top one was that Ferentz made the mistake of letting himself get distracted by his other responsibilities (relating to our facilities, fundraising, and the like) ... and so the '14 squad suffered from his relative inattention and seeming indifference. Since '15, we've seen the emergence of "new Kirk" ... a guy who recognized his past failings and took significant steps to "freshen-up" the program.
• The '14 D not only had to break in new LBs ... but we also had a DL that was only relatively deep at DT. We were critically thin at DE ... and Meier was an all-new starter at DE. Our #3 DE was Hardy ... and, with all due respect, Hardy would likely be the #6 DE on the '18 squad. The '18 Hawks are deep and experienced on the DL ... and that is even with us losing Bazata.
• We also featured an all-new starter in '14 at CB in Mabin ... and Mabin was converted over from WR ... so he had no prior college CB experience for us. While King had a stellar TR FR season for us in '13 ... he honestly didn't set himself up very well heading into the '14 season (a reflection that he had some maturation to do) ... this is likely why he ultimately had a little bit of a SO slump for us. While the Hawks will feature a new regular starter at CB in '18 ... the Hawks return 3 corners who each have seen starts and extensive game experience. Furthermore, our depth at CB might be as good as I've ever seen at Iowa (thanks to King, Jackson, and Phil Parker for that).
• Lastly, in '14, we featured an all-new starting FS in Lomax. While Lomax ultimately developed into an excellent FS for us ... Iowa's secondary play invariably tends to be on the shakier side when we don't return experience at the position. The Hawks return 3 starters at safety ... and a 4th who played like a starter against Nebraska (reference to Stone).

In 2014, the Hawks had a QB "controversy" ... and that's obviously a bad position to have unsettled. Furthermore, the "QBs of the D" ... the MIKE LB and FS were both inexperienced. All the same, the '14 squad finished the regular season at 7-5 ... and had they not experienced collapses against Maryland and Nebraska ... it is arguable that they "should have" finished no worse than 9-3.

In 2018, the schedule sets up similarly ... but what will we end up seeing on the field?

The biggest difference IMO is we have a new offense staff that is hungry to improve. GD just didn't seem super motivated.....good dude, good offensive mind but it seemed to me his lets work our butts off days were long behind him. Say what you want about BF, but the dude is going to push to get better.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

On defense I think you hit the most important factor when facing the same LB situation: the '18 DL overall should be much better, especially starting the season where they won't be growing into their positions. While I don't know for certain off hand, I feel like our LBs this year are coming in slightly more talented/better off than in '14. I could be completely wrong, but feel like our recruiting leading up to '14 was not bountiful by any means.

I've been trying to talk myself into that position too. After all, our top 2 LEOs that year were Bower (a RS FR) and Perry (a JR). Ultimately, at the end of the season, Niemann stepped up as a true freshman and were getting situational reps at LEO ahead of the others.

At WILL, Spearman was a true sophomore ... and he was constantly out of position. He had played as a TR FR in our raider package back in '13 ... so he had some prior game experience.

Additional LB personnel we had were Kenny (although I believe he was helping us out at FB that season as a RS FR), Outsey (an aspiring TR FR LEO), Mends (a TR FR at WILL, a raw one at that), Fisher (a guy who had mostly just been a special teams guy), and Jewell. Jewell was a RS FR who had caught Phil's attention ... and he ultimately won the WILL spot through the latter portion of the season.

At MIKE, we had Alston, who was a SR ... and he had about the same amount of prior experience as maybe Hockaday ... maybe a little more. He was a solid MIKE for us ... but not one without issues (as you'd expect from a first-year starter).

I'm curious as to how the contrasting LB-coaching styles will work. In '14, Coach Reid had huge packets for the players to digest ... and given their inexperience, I could definitely see them "thinking too much" when they hit the field. In contrast, Coach Wallace is a bit more out of Norm's school of coaching ... where he'd rather simplify things so that guys can play faster. Of course, he doesn't have Coach Reid's resume either ... so while I might agree with his philosophy more ... Coach Reid's track-record is pretty undeniable. Of course, Coach Reid thought highly enough of Wallace that he tried to pull him out to BC with him.

As for the LB personnel in '18, we have:
SR - Hockaday
JR - Jones, Welch
SO - Niemann, Wade
RS FR - Colbert
TR FR - Doyle, McDonald
(and, mind you, I'm only listing guys who I feel have the best chance of seeing the field)

The first observation to make is that the '14 group of LBs only had 2 guys who had been on campus for more than 2 years - and only relative "veterans" were Alston and Perry (and neither had seen much prior positional action either).

In contrast, Hockaday, Jones, Welch, Niemann, and Wade have each been on campus for 2 or more years. Thus, there arguably will not be quite as much reliance on a relative "youth movement" to man the LB spots. Also, while Ben Niemann's accomplishment of playing like he did as an undersized TR FR (at LEO) was impressive ... I'm willing to bet that both Doyle and McDonald bring comparable skill-sets to the table ... and neither of them are as undersized as Niemann was.

However, while I believe the above post is strongly prejudiced in favor of the '18 group of LBs ... I think that it is worth mentioning that I was extremely high on John Kenny at the time (look back at his high school tape - quite impressive) and, on paper, Spearman and Outsey appeared to be high-quality LBs too. Michigan State tried to lure Outsey away late in the recruiting game ... but they liked him at DE. I think that Iowa liked Outsey at TE ... but we were willing to give him a shot at LB since it was his preferred position. I also liked Mends a lot too ... but it was known from his recruitment that he was a high caliber athlete ... but he was a bit raw as a football player (i.e. it was known that he'd likely be a bit of a developmental prospect).

All I know is that coming out of the spring of '14 ... internal to the program, there was already buzz about Josey Jewell. From his recruitment alone, you would have never seen it coming. But, from the whispers leaking out from Ft. Kinnick ... the word was that Jewell was always near the ball. He's just one of those guys who had that "knack."

The '18 LBs might feature more "star power" and perhaps more speed/athleticism ... however, will any of them even have glimmers of the "knack" that we saw from Jewell? That, I don't know ...

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

+1 for the going on 4th. I think we will see even more of it . While I understand there is a way KF wants to play, this year, if they are going to be competitive in the west, he is going to need to be willing to get into some shootouts and win them. A couple 10 and 14 point games and "we" will struggle to get to 8 wins regular season.

I don't know about shootouts as much as simply exhibiting the ability to "trade-punches." I think that the 2017 Iowa State game demonstrated that.

I think that the bigger thing is that if Iowa can demonstrate better scoring efficiency ... then we're less likely to experience close games against perceived lesser foes. Then, when we pull our usual close games against high-level opponents ... hopefully we can score enough to win.

 

[anon_8rcdnbko1jbe0]

I've been trying to talk myself into that position too. After all, our top 2 LEOs that year were Bower (a RS FR) and Perry (a JR). Ultimately, at the end of the season, Niemann stepped up as a true freshman and were getting situational reps at LEO ahead of the others.

At WILL, Spearman was a true sophomore ... and he was constantly out of position. He had played as a TR FR in our raider package back in '13 ... so he had some prior game experience.

Additional LB personnel we had were Kenny (although I believe he was helping us out at FB that season as a RS FR), Outsey (an aspiring TR FR LEO), Mends (a TR FR at WILL, a raw one at that), Fisher (a guy who had mostly just been a special teams guy), and Jewell. Jewell was a RS FR who had caught Phil's attention ... and he ultimately won the WILL spot through the latter portion of the season.

At MIKE, we had Alston, who was a SR ... and he had about the same amount of prior experience as maybe Hockaday ... maybe a little more. He was a solid MIKE for us ... but not one without issues (as you'd expect from a first-year starter).

I'm curious as to how the contrasting LB-coaching styles will work. In '14, Coach Reid had huge packets for the players to digest ... and given their inexperience, I could definitely see them "thinking too much" when they hit the field. In contrast, Coach Wallace is a bit more out of Norm's school of coaching ... where he'd rather simplify things so that guys can play faster. Of course, he doesn't have Coach Reid's resume either ... so while I might agree with his philosophy more ... Coach Reid's track-record is pretty undeniable. Of course, Coach Reid thought highly enough of Wallace that he tried to pull him out to BC with him.

As for the LB personnel in '18, we have:
SR - Hockaday
JR - Jones, Welch
SO - Niemann, Wade
RS FR - Colbert
TR FR - Doyle, McDonald
(and, mind you, I'm only listing guys who I feel have the best chance of seeing the field)

The first observation to make is that the '14 group of LBs only had 2 guys who had been on campus for more than 2 years - and only relative "veterans" were Alston and Perry (and neither had seen much prior positional action either).

In contrast, Hockaday, Jones, Welch, Niemann, and Wade have each been on campus for 2 or more years. Thus, there arguably will not be quite as much reliance on a relative "youth movement" to man the LB spots. Also, while Ben Niemann's accomplishment of playing like he did as an undersized TR FR (at LEO) was impressive ... I'm willing to bet that both Doyle and McDonald bring comparable skill-sets to the table ... and neither of them are as undersized as Niemann was.

However, while I believe the above post is strongly prejudiced in favor of the '18 group of LBs ... I think that it is worth mentioning that I was extremely high on John Kenny at the time (look back at his high school tape - quite impressive) and, on paper, Spearman and Outsey appeared to be high-quality LBs too. Michigan State tried to lure Outsey away late in the recruiting game ... but they liked him at DE. I think that Iowa liked Outsey at TE ... but we were willing to give him a shot at LB since it was his preferred position. I also liked Mends a lot too ... but it was known from his recruitment that he was a high caliber athlete ... but he was a bit raw as a football player (i.e. it was known that he'd likely be a bit of a developmental prospect).

All I know is that coming out of the spring of '14 ... internal to the program, there was already buzz about Josey Jewell. From his recruitment alone, you would have never seen it coming. But, from the whispers leaking out from Ft. Kinnick ... the word was that Jewell was always near the ball. He's just one of those guys who had that "knack."

The '18 LBs might feature more "star power" and perhaps more speed/athleticism ... however, will any of them even have glimmers of the "knack" that we saw from Jewell? That, I don't know ...

I think what will help this group of linebackers the most versus other years is The Edge pressure you will see from the defensive ends. Hopefully AJ can play The Run as well.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

I've been trying to talk myself into that position too. After all, our top 2 LEOs that year were Bower (a RS FR) and Perry (a JR). Ultimately, at the end of the season, Niemann stepped up as a true freshman and were getting situational reps at LEO ahead of the others.

At WILL, Spearman was a true sophomore ... and he was constantly out of position. He had played as a TR FR in our raider package back in '13 ... so he had some prior game experience.

Additional LB personnel we had were Kenny (although I believe he was helping us out at FB that season as a RS FR), Outsey (an aspiring TR FR LEO), Mends (a TR FR at WILL, a raw one at that), Fisher (a guy who had mostly just been a special teams guy), and Jewell. Jewell was a RS FR who had caught Phil's attention ... and he ultimately won the WILL spot through the latter portion of the season.

At MIKE, we had Alston, who was a SR ... and he had about the same amount of prior experience as maybe Hockaday ... maybe a little more. He was a solid MIKE for us ... but not one without issues (as you'd expect from a first-year starter).

I'm curious as to how the contrasting LB-coaching styles will work. In '14, Coach Reid had huge packets for the players to digest ... and given their inexperience, I could definitely see them "thinking too much" when they hit the field. In contrast, Coach Wallace is a bit more out of Norm's school of coaching ... where he'd rather simplify things so that guys can play faster. Of course, he doesn't have Coach Reid's resume either ... so while I might agree with his philosophy more ... Coach Reid's track-record is pretty undeniable. Of course, Coach Reid thought highly enough of Wallace that he tried to pull him out to BC with him.

As for the LB personnel in '18, we have:
SR - Hockaday
JR - Jones, Welch
SO - Niemann, Wade
RS FR - Colbert
TR FR - Doyle, McDonald
(and, mind you, I'm only listing guys who I feel have the best chance of seeing the field)

The first observation to make is that the '14 group of LBs only had 2 guys who had been on campus for more than 2 years - and only relative "veterans" were Alston and Perry (and neither had seen much prior positional action either).

In contrast, Hockaday, Jones, Welch, Niemann, and Wade have each been on campus for 2 or more years. Thus, there arguably will not be quite as much reliance on a relative "youth movement" to man the LB spots. Also, while Ben Niemann's accomplishment of playing like he did as an undersized TR FR (at LEO) was impressive ... I'm willing to bet that both Doyle and McDonald bring comparable skill-sets to the table ... and neither of them are as undersized as Niemann was.

However, while I believe the above post is strongly prejudiced in favor of the '18 group of LBs ... I think that it is worth mentioning that I was extremely high on John Kenny at the time (look back at his high school tape - quite impressive) and, on paper, Spearman and Outsey appeared to be high-quality LBs too. Michigan State tried to lure Outsey away late in the recruiting game ... but they liked him at DE. I think that Iowa liked Outsey at TE ... but we were willing to give him a shot at LB since it was his preferred position. I also liked Mends a lot too ... but it was known from his recruitment that he was a high caliber athlete ... but he was a bit raw as a football player (i.e. it was known that he'd likely be a bit of a developmental prospect).

All I know is that coming out of the spring of '14 ... internal to the program, there was already buzz about Josey Jewell. From his recruitment alone, you would have never seen it coming. But, from the whispers leaking out from Ft. Kinnick ... the word was that Jewell was always near the ball. He's just one of those guys who had that "knack."

The '18 LBs might feature more "star power" and perhaps more speed/athleticism ... however, will any of them even have glimmers of the "knack" that we saw from Jewell? That, I don't know ...

With 14' season just like this year replacing LBs you hit the nail on the head. We are more prepared with better depth and experience at LB and aren't starting a guy who turned 18 in fall camp with Spearman and a walk on red shirt with Bower. I think just like his brother stepping in as a Soph. Niemann will solid and I know he isn't Josey Jewell but I'm still very excited about Amani Jones. Not saying he will be but he reminds me a lot with being similar size to Hodge and you always hear how hard of a hitter he is like Abdul.

3 things on offense working in our favor this year. First 2 already stated. 1 no Greg Davis. 2nd Stanley at QB is an upgrade over Rudock and only expect him to get better along with ISM, Brandon Smith and Easly. Plus we have arguably the best TE in college football with Hockenson who could start for a lot of teams. Last difference I think is even with 2 RBs who are only going to be sophomores they are still a huge upgrade over what we had in 14' over Weismann and Bullock. Canzeri was hurt for lot of games and he was our best talent. Thinking about it Wadley from a talent standpoint probably our 2nd best that year but fumbling issues hurt playing time after that 100 yard game vs ISU. Couple of games like ISU where our RB play was atrocious with our OL doing a good job opening holes where they weren't capitalizing in Weismann & Bullock.

 

[anon_2zMXH429BhxV1Npk]

I don't know how much of it is based on truth vs. pure message board rumors/wishful thinking, but if Parker and staff are indeed looking at implementing one of the safeties in more of a hybrid LB/S role even for certain downs, that will also help ease some of the LB transition given our relative strength in safeties. It could relieve some of the coverage stress, which imo is easily the biggest issue we have with breaking in new LBs.

As the post above me references, having AJ, Nelson, and/or Hesse on the outside has me quite hopeful that we are going to generate enough pressure on passing downs to take some pressure off our LBs in coverage.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

A number of things make me feel better about this year.

First, as you noted, was the QB controversy. I think this led Rudock to be more conservative due to the feeling that mistakes would result in getting "the hook". Perhaps more so then than now, a conservative QB is not a good thing with this O. Given that a huge percentage of our passing game then was really glorified runs, we were, from a defens's perspective, a very run heavy team. We needed a QB that would keep D's honest and Rudock's conservative play was not a good fit. We saw Beathard open it up early in '15 and the results speak for themselves.

Second, we were on the tail end of some marginal recruiting mixed with high attrition. We were thin on experience and the D-line may have been the heaviest hit. Our squads depend on excellent line play....'14 was not a good year for D-line.

I suspect Brian may be finding a nice balance between Kirk's ball control with a measured dose of aggression. If it evolves like I think it will, the result may be potent.

While we had good names at TE in retrospect in '14, we were young and had shown only flashes of goodness. This years TE's are proven commodities....proven to be very high caliber.

Injuries are always a concern for developmental teams and this year's is no different. There's a lot of potential but a couple key injuries and we end up with a team as disappointing as the '10 team, where injuries and defections began in fall camp and decimated what could have been a great team.

Time will tell, but I think it'll take some key losses to be as disappointed as we were in '14.

 

[paladinhawk]

If this offense looks anything like a Greg Davis offense we are in for a program overhaul. That 2014 O was 66 out of 124.

???

Last's year's offense was 117th; are you expecting a jump into the top 50 this coming year?

I hoping for a top 30-ish defense; with strong special teams and an offense that ranks north of 70 I think it could be a pretty good year.

That would mean an improvement of about 70 yards per game (based on 2017 stats).

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I don't know how much of it is based on truth vs. pure message board rumors/wishful thinking, but if Parker and staff are indeed looking at implementing one of the safeties in more of a hybrid LB/S role even for certain downs, that will also help ease some of the LB transition given our relative strength in safeties. It could relieve some of the coverage stress, which imo is easily the biggest issue we have with breaking in new LBs.

As the post above me references, having AJ, Nelson, and/or Hesse on the outside has me quite hopeful that we are going to generate enough pressure on passing downs to take some pressure off our LBs in coverage.

Great point and great post. Should the Hawks actually implement the hybrid OLB/safety ... that plays to our strength personnel-wise ... and that may give our LBs a little more wiggle room in their development. Ideally for inexperienced players ... you want them to play fast ... even if they're playing fast while making mistakes. If a guy is surrounded by other guys who are playing their assignments correctly ... then that might be more forgiving than in if a bunch of guys are not playing their assignments correctly.

Once counter-point to that ... is that I'm pretty confident that Nick Niemann will turn out to be a solid player for us. I would perceive that having the hybrid LB spot would largely help benefit us if we had issues at LEO as compared to WILL. Maybe Phil decides to keep our MIKE and LEO on the field ... and then the WILL goes off when the hybrid LB comes on? I don't know ...

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

???

Last's year's offense was 117th; are you expecting a jump into the top 50 this coming year?

I hoping for a top 30-ish defense; with strong special teams and an offense that ranks north of 70 I think it could be a pretty good year.

That would mean an improvement of about 70 yards per game (based on 2017 stats).

Yes I am. There is no reason the offensive woes have been acceptable as long as they have. If the offense finished in the 30s and the defense finished 117th the fans would lose thier mind. If Brian doesnt finish in the top half of offensive production I fully expect him to be shown the door. The university isnt there for handing out O.C internships and I fully believe BF will be KF's last O.C. Fwiw, I dont think it's actually that large of a hill to climb and think Brian will do it. There are alot of ways to get to a .596 win percentage, not all of them involve an offense that makes it's own fans fall asleep or "one more stop" out of a dog A$$ tired Defense that has been on the field all day because 17 out of 19 years the offense cant put the game on it's own shoulders.

 

[kceasthawk]

If this offense looks anything like a Greg Davis offense we are in for a program overhaul. That 2014 O was 66 out of 124. The defense is going to take a step back this year. "We" are replacing 2 all Americans on D, and you cannot just expect Phil to pump out another Thorpe award when the offense is not held accountable at all. It's time for the O to carry the load.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort01.html

I might not expect it, but I wouldn't be suprised to have another Thorpe finalist in the next year or two. We've had basically three in the last four years, and Jackson especially came out of no where. Phil has put together a very solid looking group in the DB room. Another thing to remember is that schools become "known" for certain positions being award caliber on a regular basis. At Iowa, OL, TE, and DB's get a solid look over annually because of Iowa's tradition of quality players at those positions. LB is becoming a strength as well.

 

[anon_2zMXH429BhxV1Npk]

Once counter-point to that ... is that I'm pretty confident that Nick Niemann will turn out to be a solid player for us. I would perceive that having the hybrid LB spot would largely help benefit us if we had issues at LEO as compared to WILL. Maybe Phil decides to keep our MIKE and LEO on the field ... and then the WILL goes off when the hybrid LB comes on? I don't know ...

Certainly hope this is the case, or with any of the new LBs as that would be ideal.

Will be quite interesting to see if they do go with a LB/S hybrid after so many years of refusal to ever take a LB off the field in obvious passing downs to go with a nickel back. That's always been one of my biggest frustrations, but understand the philosophy behind it.

 

[birdman1973]

I believe with teams trying to take away Fant , that will open up Easley and Hockenson to really rock and roll. Another little area of improvement on offense will be Stanley tucking the ball and running for first downs and after a while it should freeze a linebacker thus opening up a back out the backfield. To me the only way the offense is to open up is to trust players to make plays when it's their call. We have talent and they will get better thru accomplishments and repetition. Ready for the season yesterday!

 

[anon_8rcdnbko1jbe0]

I believe with teams trying to take away Fant , that will open up Easley and Hockenson to really rock and roll. Another little area of improvement on offense will be Stanley tucking the ball and running for first downs and after a while it should freeze a linebacker thus opening up a back out the backfield. To me the only way the offense is to open up is to trust players to make plays when it's their call. We have talent and they will get better thru accomplishments and repetition. Ready for the season yesterday!

Agree. Especially with the trust. I think so much of it hinges on Stanley trusting his receivers and getting the ball out a little earlier. It's funny because last year his interviews he seemed like a nervous wreck but so far the ones I've seen this year and certainly getting more confident! Can't wait to see the results on the field

 

[SpartanJD]

No. Stanley isn't as mobile as Beathard was and you don't have the overall talent of the 2014 team in your starting 22 this year.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

No. Stanley isn't as mobile as Beathard was and you don't have the overall talent of the 2014 team in your starting 22 this year.

Rudock was the Iowa QB in 2014. This team has different strength's and weaknesses than '14, but I wouldn't come close to saying they have less talent. To the contrary, I think this team has better talent overall.

 

[Johnsoda123]

No. Stanley isn't as mobile as Beathard was and you don't have the overall talent of the 2014 team in your starting 22 this year.

Wrong. Conservatively there are 8 future NFLers in the starting 22.
Fan't, Hockenson, Wirfs, Jackson, Stanley, Nelson, AJ and Hooker.

And a corner to be named latter.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

No. Stanley isn't as mobile as Beathard was and you don't have the overall talent of the 2014 team in your starting 22 this year.

You're getting your years mixed up ... the question isn't whether the '18 season will replicate the 2015 season (where Iowa went undefeated during the regular season) ... but rather comparing it to the 2014 season that was a very disappointing one where the Hawks went 7-5 during the regular season.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Guys on the 2014 depth chart who were draft picks:
Josey Jewell (2nd string ... ultimately winning starting spot)
Desmond King (starter)
Jaleel Johnson (primary backup DT)
CJ Beathard (2nd string QB, occasional starter)
George Kittle (2nd string TE, backup to Duzey)
Austin Blythe (starter)
Carl Davis (starter)
Andrew Donnal (starter)
Brandon Scherff (starter)

Guys on the 2014 depth chart with a draft grade of 5.0 or higher:
OL: Welsh, Boettger, Blythe, Donnal, Scherff
TE: Kittle, Krieger-Coble
QB: Beathard
RB: Wadley
LB: Jewell
DL: Davis, Johnson, Trinca-Pasat
DB: King
WR: T. Smith

 

[SpartanJD]

You're getting your years mixed up ... the question isn't whether the '18 season will replicate the 2015 season (where Iowa went undefeated during the regular season) ... but rather comparing it to the 2014 season that was a very disappointing one where the Hawks went 7-5 during the regular season.

I did get my years crossed my bad

 

[SpartanJD]

You're getting your years mixed up ... the question isn't whether the '18 season will replicate the 2015 season (where Iowa went undefeated during the regular season) ... but rather comparing it to the 2014 season that was a very disappointing one where the Hawks went 7-5 during the regular season.

I think you are better than 7-5 this year. Win 3 out of 4 against ISU, NU, NU and Wisky at Kinnick and you can drop a few road games.

 

[beans 33]

I was not a Rudock fan; he always played "tight" in my mind. When the game was close Rudock/Kirk played way to conservative. Think the Wiscy game in Kinnick; Iowa gets down trying to play Kirk Ball, then a comeback throwing it in the 2nd half but too late. We were down 16-3 at half, started slinging it and lost 26-24. Another egg of a game plan. Bethard came on at the end of the year in bowl game to replace Rudock or my guess is CJ would have been gone.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Guys on the 2014 depth chart who were draft picks:
Josey Jewell (2nd string ... ultimately winning starting spot)
Desmond King (starter)
Jaleel Johnson (primary backup DT)
CJ Beathard (2nd string QB, occasional starter)
George Kittle (2nd string TE, backup to Duzey)
Austin Blythe (starter)
Carl Davis (starter)
Andrew Donnal (starter)
Brandon Scherff (starter)

Guys on the 2014 depth chart with a draft grade of 5.0 or higher:
OL: Welsh, Boettger, Blythe, Donnal, Scherff
TE: Kittle, Krieger-Coble
QB: Beathard
RB: Wadley
LB: Jewell
DL: Davis, Johnson, Trinca-Pasat
DB: King
WR: T. Smith

As for guys on the current roster who will get a grade of 5.0 or higher:

OL: Wirfs, Jackson, and possibly Kallenberger (potentially Banwart too)
TE: Fant, Hockenson (and possibly Beyer)
QB: Stanley
RB: Kelly-Martin
WR: maybe somebody out of Smith-Marsette, B. Smith, or T. Tracy
S: Hooker (and potentially a back-up)
CB: Hankins (and possibly somebody else too)
DL: A. Nelson, Epenesa (and possibly M. Nelson and Lattimore too)

I'd say that likely 13 guys would be a conservative estimate. Overall the talent level may be somewhat comparable ... but I'd anticipate that more of the talent in '18 will be starters (as opposed to developing 2nd-teamers).

 

[Harbinger273]

This is actually one of my fears ... and as we all probably recall, the '14 season went down as an exceedingly disappointing season too.

Why bring up the comparison? Firstly, obviously there is the similarity that both seasons featured a returning starter at QB ... Rudock in '14 and Stanley in '18. Furthermore, both squads featured a complete "rebuild" at LB ... we graduated all 3 starters at LB after both the '13 and '17 seasons.

However, the superstitious part of my brain is "pinging" because the last time I was really amped about the potential of our O was in '14 ... and that season the group obviously underwhelmed. In fact, in many respects, the '14 O looked quite a bit better than the '18 O on paper ... we returned a productive starter at RB, our OL looked like it should be in "beast-mode" because the group featured Scherff at LT and the guys who complemented him were darn good too (Blythe, Donnal, and Walsh). The '14 WR group actually had be excited about the group. We had a veteran who I felt we could trust in Martin-Manley. We had some "speed guys" in Tevaun Smith and Powell. On top of that, the youth seemed pretty promising with guys like Willies, VandeBerg, and Mitchell. Even though we had lost Fiedorowicz to graduation, we saw Duzey emerge in the OSU game in '13 ... so the TEs looked more than solid (Hamilton, Duzey, Krieger-Coble, and Kittle). On paper, the '14 O looked like it could make a real statement for the Hawks .... and perhaps give the new LBs some "wiggle-room" in their development.

What is different? Why might the '18 squad not earn the same tag as the '14 squad ... and that was one of being a disappointment.

• A top one (difference) that comes to mind is that the '14 squad suffered from a QB competition. Both fans and players alike were split in loyalty between Rudock and Beathard. The '18 squad features Stanley as the unquestioned leader of the O.
• Another top one was that Ferentz made the mistake of letting himself get distracted by his other responsibilities (relating to our facilities, fundraising, and the like) ... and so the '14 squad suffered from his relative inattention and seeming indifference. Since '15, we've seen the emergence of "new Kirk" ... a guy who recognized his past failings and took significant steps to "freshen-up" the program.
• The '14 D not only had to break in new LBs ... but we also had a DL that was only relatively deep at DT. We were critically thin at DE ... and Meier was an all-new starter at DE. Our #3 DE was Hardy ... and, with all due respect, Hardy would likely be the #6 DE on the '18 squad. The '18 Hawks are deep and experienced on the DL ... and that is even with us losing Bazata.
• We also featured an all-new starter in '14 at CB in Mabin ... and Mabin was converted over from WR ... so he had no prior college CB experience for us. While King had a stellar TR FR season for us in '13 ... he honestly didn't set himself up very well heading into the '14 season (a reflection that he had some maturation to do) ... this is likely why he ultimately had a little bit of a SO slump for us. While the Hawks will feature a new regular starter at CB in '18 ... the Hawks return 3 corners who each have seen starts and extensive game experience. Furthermore, our depth at CB might be as good as I've ever seen at Iowa (thanks to King, Jackson, and Phil Parker for that).
• Lastly, in '14, we featured an all-new starting FS in Lomax. While Lomax ultimately developed into an excellent FS for us ... Iowa's secondary play invariably tends to be on the shakier side when we don't return experience at the position. The Hawks return 3 starters at safety ... and a 4th who played like a starter against Nebraska (reference to Stone).

In 2014, the Hawks had a QB "controversy" ... and that's obviously a bad position to have unsettled. Furthermore, the "QBs of the D" ... the MIKE LB and FS were both inexperienced. All the same, the '14 squad finished the regular season at 7-5 ... and had they not experienced collapses against Maryland and Nebraska ... it is arguable that they "should have" finished no worse than 9-3.

In 2018, the schedule sets up similarly ... but what will we end up seeing on the field?

Sure hope things don't go the way of the 2014 team. I think we will do alright and be 9-4 by the end of the bowl game.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

The difference this year will be the coordination. That year was poorly coordinated if i recall. So many bad play calls where Ruddock stayed in the pocket and got creamed. we had to give up 45 sacks that year. Ruddock wouldnt get rid of the ball. Stanley can avoid tackles and make plays.

 

[Hawkeyeinsoutherncalifornia]

Very well said Ghost.. excellent post but to be short and sweet about the comparison I say I hope the hell not!

This is actually one of my fears ... and as we all probably recall, the '14 season went down as an exceedingly disappointing season too.

Why bring up the comparison? Firstly, obviously there is the similarity that both seasons featured a returning starter at QB ... Rudock in '14 and Stanley in '18. Furthermore, both squads featured a complete "rebuild" at LB ... we graduated all 3 starters at LB after both the '13 and '17 seasons.

However, the superstitious part of my brain is "pinging" because the last time I was really amped about the potential of our O was in '14 ... and that season the group obviously underwhelmed. In fact, in many respects, the '14 O looked quite a bit better than the '18 O on paper ... we returned a productive starter at RB, our OL looked like it should be in "beast-mode" because the group featured Scherff at LT and the guys who complemented him were darn good too (Blythe, Donnal, and Walsh). The '14 WR group actually had be excited about the group. We had a veteran who I felt we could trust in Martin-Manley. We had some "speed guys" in Tevaun Smith and Powell. On top of that, the youth seemed pretty promising with guys like Willies, VandeBerg, and Mitchell. Even though we had lost Fiedorowicz to graduation, we saw Duzey emerge in the OSU game in '13 ... so the TEs looked more than solid (Hamilton, Duzey, Krieger-Coble, and Kittle). On paper, the '14 O looked like it could make a real statement for the Hawks .... and perhaps give the new LBs some "wiggle-room" in their development.

What is different? Why might the '18 squad not earn the same tag as the '14 squad ... and that was one of being a disappointment.

• A top one (difference) that comes to mind is that the '14 squad suffered from a QB competition. Both fans and players alike were split in loyalty between Rudock and Beathard. The '18 squad features Stanley as the unquestioned leader of the O.
• Another top one was that Ferentz made the mistake of letting himself get distracted by his other responsibilities (relating to our facilities, fundraising, and the like) ... and so the '14 squad suffered from his relative inattention and seeming indifference. Since '15, we've seen the emergence of "new Kirk" ... a guy who recognized his past failings and took significant steps to "freshen-up" the program.
• The '14 D not only had to break in new LBs ... but we also had a DL that was only relatively deep at DT. We were critically thin at DE ... and Meier was an all-new starter at DE. Our #3 DE was Hardy ... and, with all due respect, Hardy would likely be the #6 DE on the '18 squad. The '18 Hawks are deep and experienced on the DL ... and that is even with us losing Bazata.
• We also featured an all-new starter in '14 at CB in Mabin ... and Mabin was converted over from WR ... so he had no prior college CB experience for us. While King had a stellar TR FR season for us in '13 ... he honestly didn't set himself up very well heading into the '14 season (a reflection that he had some maturation to do) ... this is likely why he ultimately had a little bit of a SO slump for us. While the Hawks will feature a new regular starter at CB in '18 ... the Hawks return 3 corners who each have seen starts and extensive game experience. Furthermore, our depth at CB might be as good as I've ever seen at Iowa (thanks to King, Jackson, and Phil Parker for that).
• Lastly, in '14, we featured an all-new starting FS in Lomax. While Lomax ultimately developed into an excellent FS for us ... Iowa's secondary play invariably tends to be on the shakier side when we don't return experience at the position. The Hawks return 3 starters at safety ... and a 4th who played like a starter against Nebraska (reference to Stone).

In 2014, the Hawks had a QB "controversy" ... and that's obviously a bad position to have unsettled. Furthermore, the "QBs of the D" ... the MIKE LB and FS were both inexperienced. All the same, the '14 squad finished the regular season at 7-5 ... and had they not experienced collapses against Maryland and Nebraska ... it is arguable that they "should have" finished no worse than 9-3.

In 2018, the schedule sets up similarly ... but what will we end up seeing on the field?

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

The difference this year will be the coordination. That year was poorly coordinated if i recall. So many bad play calls where Ruddock stayed in the pocket and got creamed. we had to give up 45 sacks that year. Ruddock wouldnt get rid of the ball. Stanley can avoid tackles and make plays.

Opposing teams only had 22 sacks that year. Rudock would make very quick decisions pre-snap ... and he'd get the ball out of his hands quickly most of the time. As I recall, there were plenty of very good calls ... to go along with your "normal" number of mediocre ones. I remember a disappointing number of drops by Martin-Manley. Our scoring efficiency wasn't quite as great as we'd might hope. Also, if the O got behind schedule and Rudock was the QB ... we had very little hope to sustain the drive. We were pretty decent when the scenarios were 3rd and manageable ... but if we got caught in a 3rd and long ... it almost always ended in a punt.

Lastly, for as excited as I was about the potential of guys like Powell and Willies ... I was greatly disappointed with their consistency and production on the field. I'm even more disappointed that they didn't take ownership of THEIR issues ... and instead they attempted to deflect blame at others. Of course, with that said, I was rarely all that impressed with Kennedy.

 

[Johnsoda123]

As for guys on the current roster who will get a grade of 5.0 or higher:

OL: Wirfs, Jackson, and possibly Kallenberger (potentially Banwart too)
TE: Fant, Hockenson (and possibly Beyer)
QB: Stanley
RB: Kelly-Martin
WR: maybe somebody out of Smith-Marsette, B. Smith, or T. Tracy
S: Hooker (and potentially a back-up)
CB: Hankins (and possibly somebody else too)
DL: A. Nelson, Epenesa (and possibly M. Nelson and Lattimore too)

I'd say that likely 13 guys would be a conservative estimate. Overall the talent level may be somewhat comparable ... but I'd anticipate that more of the talent in '18 will be starters (as opposed to developing 2nd-teamers).

The 2018 starting 22 are a a higher level of NFL potential talent. In my opinion.

 

[GunnerHawk]

I was not a Rudock fan; he always played "tight" in my mind. When the game was close Rudock/Kirk played way to conservative. Think the Wiscy game in Kinnick; Iowa gets down trying to play Kirk Ball, then a comeback throwing it in the 2nd half but too late. We were down 16-3 at half, started slinging it and lost 26-24. Another egg of a game plan. Bethard came on at the end of the year in bowl game to replace Rudock or my guess is CJ would have been gone.

Rudock did not have the pocket presence that Stanley does. Stanley has a much stronger arm plus our TE's are much better, great to have a safety valve to dump off to.

I do think Wadley will be missed, made a lot of really big plays for us.

Lost two really good OL, won't be easy to replace,

Our DL is asked to take up space, the LBers make tackles. The outlaw will be really hard to replace, was always around the football, hope Jones has the same ability.

I hate getting too optimistic, whenever Iowa is picked to be decent, we lay a turd. Hope this year is different.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Opposing teams only had 22 sacks that year. Rudock would make very quick decisions pre-snap ... and he'd get the ball out of his hands quickly most of the time. As I recall, there were plenty of very good calls ... to go along with your "normal" number of mediocre ones. I remember a disappointing number of drops by Martin-Manley. Our scoring efficiency wasn't quite as great as we'd might hope. Also, if the O got behind schedule and Rudock was the QB ... we had very little hope to sustain the drive. We were pretty decent when the scenarios were 3rd and manageable ... but if we got caught in a 3rd and long ... it almost always ended in a punt.

Lastly, for as excited as I was about the potential of guys like Powell and Willies ... I was greatly disappointed with their consistency and production on the field. I'm even more disappointed that they didn't take ownership of THEIR issues ... and instead they attempted to deflect blame at others. Of course, with that said, I was rarely all that impressed with Kennedy.

Make good point about Rudock about when being behind. I still remember watching that Maryland game when down 7 with a minute and no time outs thinking even a Junior High QB would know you have to take chances and throw the ball downfield and JR led one of the most epic 2 minute failed drives I've ever seen. As for WRs Willies will always be a legend on this board as what would have been. Some still like to use him as a knock on KF but the guy quite on the team during the season. Says all you need to know. But he had the talent I honestly thought he would be just as productive as a college player as Lazard from ISU when they were both freshman. I was wrong on that one. Quitting and injuries derailed any chance of that.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

I think what will help this group of linebackers the most versus other years is The Edge pressure you will see from the defensive ends. Hopefully AJ can play The Run as well.

I could see edge rushers helping young DB's in coverage and to some extent helping LB's, however; the interior lineman are the key to helping our LB's roam free. If we are talking perimeter run game....sure, the DE's and OLB need to be on same page, sometimes DE has contain, sometimes it is OLB and obviously the corner would be secondary contain.