Iowas best offensive weapons this year are Stanley and Fant , they better at the very least be balanced .
David Bell hits nail on the head describing his own recruitment at Iowa.
- Thread starter Harbinger273
- Start date
I read this, knowing that we have 2 inexperienced running back coming back, and return the vast majority of our recieving core and think we are going to push closer to 50/50. What's going to be funny is we will be 50/50 and some fans will think we went full air raid. Thanks as always homer.
Coach Brown, Alford and unfortunately have to add Tom Izzo on that list now too. I used to respect him greatly and now......not so much. Bruce Pearl is sleazy as well. Brad Underwood and Sean Miller too.
I am guessing OSU gets their WRs before Bell makes commitment.
Wow..Ken Anderson..haven't heard that name in a long time..lol. I really can't wait until Marvin Lewis is fired, but I think he has some dirt on the owner, so that's why he has lasted this long. I lived in Iowa for 20 something years, I came out to go to school at Iowa Central in Fort Dodge and once school was over, I stayed out there for a while. I have been to many games at Kinnick, because my girlfriend at the time, graduated from Iowa and had season tickets, I had some good times there , everyone was nice to me even though they knew I was a Buckeye fan. I live in Dublin, Ohio now and I'm about 20 minutes away from the Shoe, which is nice on Game days..
Yes, I was hoping we could meet again in the BIG championship, but that's okay if we should happen to meet this coming season, I think you guys have Urban's full attention and it would be a much better game. Good luck to the Hawks and kick Wisconsin's ass this year!
David Bell might also recognize that we are possibly going to start 2 walk-ons at WR, which almost has to be unique amongst P5 universities. The WR talent brought in under the GD days was so bad that the WR room is really underwhelming and he truly could step in and be a big contributor from his true freshman year.
Go where you are needed the most, young man!
Go where you are needed the most, young man!
Part of it was poor player development under Kennedy. Furthermore, we suffered from pretty massive attrition at WR too. From just one year we lost Parker, Scheel, and J. Smith (following '16). Following '17, we lost Falconer, one of the few remaining Greg Davis era WRs (the very last is Devonte Young).
In '09, Adam Robinson was a redshirt freshman who had just slid over from safety. Brandon Wegher was fresh from high school and was a true freshman. To say that they were green would be an understatement.
In contrast, heading into '18, Toren Young will be a RS SO (starting his 3rd year on campus) and Ivory Kelly-Martin will be a TR SO. Each have over 150 rushing yards and 2 or more TDs EACH. While the experience level isn't necessarily ideal .... it isn't bad either.
Homer I mean no slight to either of them and believe me I want them both to be 1k rushers but to refrence 150 yards 2 TDs in mop up time isnt a big body of work. There is a big difference between running against north Texas/a submitted nebraska and wiscy when the chips are on the table.
Last edited:
Bell will visit OSU May 20-21. Hope we can get him in for another visit. There are other issues that hinder our high end receiver recruiting add well. A palpable timidity for letting receivers go out and play is obvious to some guys. I'm not saying they should not get.coached up, rather let an athlete play a little. Maybe we Will see more of that from ISM.
One point I'd disagree on this is that "letting guys go out and play" isn't what gets guys open. How well guys get out of their breaks ... that can not only get a guy open, it can net him STEPS on the defender! Also, if a WR can disguise his assignment - make it look like he's about to block .. and then make a quick cut and bolt up-field ... that can get a guy way-open too.
The point being, success at WR is typically predicated upon being on the same wavelength as the QB AND executing exemplary technique. Given the DBs that are out there ... it's pretty rare that a WR can simply just out-speed or out-athlete the defender. As a case-in-point ... look at Desmond King against LSU back in 2013! King was a talented true freshman ... but by most physical metrics, he's never been considered a "burner." All the same, Odell Beckham didn't tear the Hawks a new one either.
I think that many fans often erroneously blame the coaches for particular WRs not getting more targets ... when the truth of the matter is that Iowa's QB has a lot of autonomy. It's usually the Iowa QB who chooses to not pass the ball to a guy. Sometimes that is because the target doesn't have his full trust. Sometimes it's because the QB is being risk averse (which seemed to be all the time when Rudock was our QB). Sometimes it's because the WR simply isn't getting open. Lastly, while being risk averse and trust issues invariably feed into it ... sometimes the Iowa QB, for whatever reason, doesn't feel comfortable throwing the "jump ball." I remember back in 2014, even Marvin McNutt was lamenting (as a fan) how Iowa's QBs were willing to throw more "jump balls" to the WRs.
Hopefully, with guys like Brandon Smith, Noah Fant, and TJ Hockenson, hopefully the Hawks are willing to try a few more "jump balls." However, more importantly, hopefully the WRs go out there and execute great technique too!
No doubt - there is definitely a difference between those reps and those of an every-down starter. However, because they were top back-ups, they also benefitted from prepping for the opponents with the upper teamers (1st and 2nd teamers). Now that they're a year more experienced, they likely know how to better break down film. They know better how to prep for the opponent - especially compared to how our RBs were in '09.
Furthermore, given that they do have live film on themselves, they know more about what they have to work upon. Ivory is explosive ... but he also has to secure the ball better. Toren is a bull-dozer... but he also has to be a little more patient and let his blocks develop. Those are things that first year guys wouldn't know about themselves.
Notice I said that they should be coached. All the techniques you touched on would fall into that. Im sure the coaches do this already and should continue to do so. My point is more about the ethos of the program and the rigidity that in some ways may limit the spontaneous improvisation capabilities of a receiver corp or larger team. I would never advocate letting them play in the manner you have portrayed. It less of an X's and O's concept than a atmosphere generated by program leadership (KF). I'm not blaming but I am observing and offering up some interpretation. Folks have touched upon the difference between Fry and Ferentz being Ferentzs' pragmatism. I believe this pragmatism has increased over time. All of the ability to improvise rests with the players ultimately as they are the ones on the field, however I feel unseen limits can end up holding a team/player back because of the mentality/demeanor of a Head Coach. Again, not blaming but constructively criticizing. Before I wax too philosophical I'll sign off this post.
Bottomline: If David Bell comes to Iowa and is a standout WR, he will see the ball plenty.
He would likely have less competition as compared to OSU=more touches.
He would be in a Pro Style offense which would prepare him best for the NFL, where they play what?.....that's right, Pro Style Offenses.
He would have a good OL, good QB, and healthy running game. All things that help a WR's chances at success. He would learn to become a complete WR.
I think McNutt got plenty of balls thrown his way. Because he played in a manner that justified it.
He would likely have less competition as compared to OSU=more touches.
He would be in a Pro Style offense which would prepare him best for the NFL, where they play what?.....that's right, Pro Style Offenses.
He would have a good OL, good QB, and healthy running game. All things that help a WR's chances at success. He would learn to become a complete WR.
I think McNutt got plenty of balls thrown his way. Because he played in a manner that justified it.
If you've read some of my posts concerning my hopes as it relates to the evolution of Stanley's game - the further development of being able to work "off-script" is one of them. This falls precisely in line with what you're saying about improvisation. However, one thing about improvisation in a sport at this level, is that you still need to really know the game. Thus, this both falls in line with what I said before about the WRs and QB being on the same page ... but, furthermore, it falls in line with film study ... and having the players understand what the defensive is doing well enough to know where to go and where to throw.
Curious why the article doesn’t mention Purdue as one of the main contenders seeing as they have the 4 most recent crystal ball picks. I think Brohm’s offense favors WR’s more than Iowa (and on the flip side, Iowa’s offense favors RB’s more than Purdue). I think Purdue and OSU are his top 2 and there’s a pretty solid chance he ends up a boiler.
David is a self described "popular loner" I dont see him as the come fit in with Ohio state type. Its impossible to know what is going through his head. Every writer is going to write to thier fanbase. Time will tell.
Curious if anyone here knows of stats source that could tell us what the range of catches (targets would be better) for each teams leading receivers in a big ten game get on average.
Lets say that the leading passers in the Big Ten average 24 out of 36 (66%). On average, how many targets does a leading receiver get? Maybe 10-12 at most? And, doesn't that depend on match ups against the opponents cover guys? Assume Receiver 1 gets covered by Cover Guy 1 as much as possible.
So assume at best 10-12 balls your way, if you are open all the time. That seems like a lot.
My point is top to bottom, that most Big 10 Teams want to run the ball and have a balanced attach. The difference in passing attempts to leading receiver for top 20 receivers in the league can't be that large.
Any given week's Game Plan will determine how many looks you get as a receiver. Opponents Defensive Philosophy, Match ups, etc. Your targets as a receiver could vary wildly, week to week.
I just think this "Prove they Pass the ball" thing is some negative recruiting put in his head. He is thinking about his opportunity all wrong.
My guess is that the average 1 receiver in the Big 10 gets
Lets say that the leading passers in the Big Ten average 24 out of 36 (66%). On average, how many targets does a leading receiver get? Maybe 10-12 at most? And, doesn't that depend on match ups against the opponents cover guys? Assume Receiver 1 gets covered by Cover Guy 1 as much as possible.
So assume at best 10-12 balls your way, if you are open all the time. That seems like a lot.
My point is top to bottom, that most Big 10 Teams want to run the ball and have a balanced attach. The difference in passing attempts to leading receiver for top 20 receivers in the league can't be that large.
Any given week's Game Plan will determine how many looks you get as a receiver. Opponents Defensive Philosophy, Match ups, etc. Your targets as a receiver could vary wildly, week to week.
I just think this "Prove they Pass the ball" thing is some negative recruiting put in his head. He is thinking about his opportunity all wrong.
My guess is that the average 1 receiver in the Big 10 gets
A pro style offense is likely only beneficial to the offensive line and possibly running backs/QB. You are nuts, if you think being a WR and running a pro-style offense benefits you in any way.
I'm not sure I can break it down to targets per game but there were 9 recievers with more receptions than our leading receiver (easley) which leaves a little to be desired but if we were spreading the ball around wouldnt be a big deal. The problem is our 2nd leading receiver was Fant (28) and there were 30 Big 10 "recievers", including easley, ahead of him. Another way to look at this was of the 6 starting quarterbacks who started and finish the season only Hornibrooke had less attempts than Stanley but he averaged a full yard and a half more per reception, which doesnt sound like much but his average reception was 8.5 yards (aka they run and then play action to a big pass)
A very telling stat was Iowa ran the ball 58% of the time. That isnt balanced. There was a reason our eyeballs were seeing us run into a loaded box so often, Iowa ran the ball, wether ir worked or not. This year that needs to be much closer to 50/50. I dare say if iowa went 50% pass some people would think we turned into Texas tech.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/conferences/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/id/5
boiler1987 -
At this juncture, I'd say that it is hard to say who's O favors WRs more. Brohm has a longer track-record as an offensive mind ... so that is his greater asset/advantage. Iowa's OC, Brian Ferentz, was new to the role ... so we still don't have a clear idea of what role the O plays in his O. Last season, the strength of Iowa's O was at RB and TE ... and Brian played to that strength. It would appear that he's a bit of a scratch-where-it-itches pragmatic sort of guy ... he'll try to exploit mismatches wherever his offensive personnel allows him.
Given that the foundations of Brian's O are based on the O of Ken O'Keefe (who has returned as our QB coach) - and Ken was a long-time OC under Kirk - that would suggest that the WR usage of that O would give us a window into what to expect. If you look at Iowa's WR usage in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2011 ... it would appear as though Iowa's O can be perfectly friendly to WRs. However, the usage of the WRs is largely predicated upon the talent on the roster. It's also predicated upon who is the WR position coach too. The Hawks also have a new WR coach ... and my initial impressions are that he's a highly capable and demanding guy. I personally am of the opinion that Iowa's WR situation is trending up!
Fwiw DJK and @iowarecruitting are recalling working on David and Craig young over the last 24 hours. DjK has done alot of videos talking about routes and IR has included those two in it.
With Greg Davis at the helm and with CJ Beathard at QB, the percentages were awfully close to 40-60 pass-rush split. In Brian's first year as OC, that number already shifted up to 43.5% pass.
if you look at the progression of Ricky Stanzi, in O'Keefe's O, the numbers tell the following story:
'08: 38.3-61.7 pass-run
'09: 46.4-53.6 pass-run
'10: 44.3-55.7 pass-run
Given that the Iowa coaches really trusted Wadley and Butler ... AND given that we had RB depth behind them ... that points to me that Brian would have been more willing to lean on his RBs. Given how the numbers played out, that likely impacted the number of rushing touches. Of course, one thing that the above numbers don't account for is the number of designated QB carries that originated as pass-plays. If we assume that the majority of Stanley's carries were either sacks or scrambles - then the pass-run ratio climbs up closer to 47-53.
Thanks for the telling stat. But that helps to make my point I think. Assuming max average of 70 offensive plays, that would be 41 run plays to 29 vs, 35 run / 35 pass at 50%. A swing of 6 run plays, 3 a half. That just doesn't seem to be enough to measure a team's desire to Pass the ball one way or the other.
As stated previously by many posters here, a receiver gets the attention he deserves by executing his assignments / all of them (including blocking). And if he blocks his man consistently, runs precise routes, gets separation, fights for the ball and catches it when it hits his hands? ..he will get plenty of attention. With a favorable match-up, all the attention he could hope to get.
In fact, I would think a more balanced attach (run at least as much as you pass) would translate to more potential for explosive pass plays (but that's another thread).
No homo, I heart you homer and if you are ever willing to share whatever it is your drinking I would love a glass. How you just added Stanley's runs to throws is some ultimate kool aid. I agree they put the weight on a proven commodity last year but this year the "proven" will be the WR group. We ran into loaded boxes ALOT, to the point announcers were saying it during games. Stanley needs to air it out more to be balanced and the recievers need to catch the ball to keep drives moving. I would love to see the math you worked up for a JT barrett or a t.tech offense. I'm willing to bet with that mindset JT "threw" the ball 60% and tech would be in the 80s.
The intention wasn't to say that Stanley or a hypothetical JT Barrett threw the ball THAT often ... but rather, the point was to reflect the balance of play-calling by the OC. There is no kool aide (or spiked kool-aide per your innuendo) in pointing out the actual distribution of how things were called by Brian.
Suppose that Brian calls the plays perfectly 50-50. Just because he calls it that way doesn't imply that the percentages on the field end up that way. Suppose we give up 20 sacks ... suppose that he has to scramble on another 20 plays ... that can already shift the percentages probably to things appear like 47-53 pass to run. If you go a step further - with our less experienced QBs, usually the audibles are checks to particular run plays to particular sides of the field. Thus, while it's possible that the occasional play that was originally called a run by Brian gets switched by Nate to a pass via making an audible .... the majority of those changes at the line of scrimmage likely check the play to a run. That admittedly changes as the QB gains more experience and can act more as the field general. However, for a less-experienced QB ... I'm willing to bet that the checking of plays can swing the percentages even greater to run plays ... probably by a few percent. Thus, the arguments above can easily point to how Brian could call things 50-50 ... but how they get realized by the stats, it turns out to look something much more like 45-55 pass to run.
Of course, the argument could be made that for a more pass-oriented team ... more checks might lean towards the pass-game. Alternatively, for teams that run more post-snap RPOs ... the decision is ultimately dictated by the QB's read of his keys post-snap.
Teams that stink and are consistently playing from behind would skew any such stats , having to throw the ball early and often .
IMO, we are viewing the concept of "balanced attack" up-side down. Balance should
not be .the "plan", but rather the "result" of an offense that is constituted to take advantages of defensive weaknesses and overplays wherever and whenever they exist,
in either the running game or the passing game. As the defense adjusts to our running/passing success, then we swing more to passing/running. Balance is thus generated automatically.
The key is to develop a consistent, dependable running game and a consistent, dependable passing game so that we have the tools to come from behind, to drive successfully late,... to be a threat, to be an offensive offense rather than a defensive offense.
So Purdue is a passing team? Then last year with a new HC, OC and no proven talent, how did they have more rushing yardage than we did? They did it by focusing on developing the ability to "scratch where it itches" and at the end, found out that the result was that they had been quite balanced.
not be .the "plan", but rather the "result" of an offense that is constituted to take advantages of defensive weaknesses and overplays wherever and whenever they exist,
in either the running game or the passing game. As the defense adjusts to our running/passing success, then we swing more to passing/running. Balance is thus generated automatically.
The key is to develop a consistent, dependable running game and a consistent, dependable passing game so that we have the tools to come from behind, to drive successfully late,... to be a threat, to be an offensive offense rather than a defensive offense.
So Purdue is a passing team? Then last year with a new HC, OC and no proven talent, how did they have more rushing yardage than we did? They did it by focusing on developing the ability to "scratch where it itches" and at the end, found out that the result was that they had been quite balanced.
HR podcast said in 20 years KF has had 2 WR get drafted. That's several oC's and only 2. Iowa needs to put more emphasis on throwing with or without David. I would argue NFL today isnt run to set up the pass its pass to set up the time killing run. Good news, Brian can show that is the new Iowa.
A 20 year body of work has indeed proven that the O-line is the strength of KF and the staff. We knew this way back when KF first became head coach. The running attack has been the primary beneficiary of the OL. Would be great to have a real passing attack guru type coach who could integrate the staffs OL acumen with a lethal ability to throw the ball. We have had a number of good receivers despite the NFL draft numbers but, as of late the performance has not been adequate.
problem is if you don't have any other good targets on your team, it'll be a lot easier to shut you down as well.......
hopefully ism, smith or someone else has a solid year!
That is simply a myth that has caught on with a large segment of the fan base. They have developed some very good linemen, but the OLs as a whole have actually been subpar. Check the number of times in the last 20 years that we have led the B10 in rushing, or even finished second or third. Then check how many times we've finished in the bottom half and even 8th or worse. Then check the passing sacks and hurrys.
You now have actual proof rather than imagined proof.
Many factors to consider. Maybe the skill positions are fine but the OL has sucked and ultimately the program is lacking in that dept. Would that be a result of coaching or not have competent and capable guys playing OL?
Can he catch the ball consistently? Gotta say aside from our expectation that he becomes a serious outside threat, ISM needs to be returning KO's. He's a serious threat back there.
