There is no way you could have typed this sentence with a straight face.
For all you Brian Haters
- Thread starter tony0051
- Start date
We were also 128th in red zone TD %
Thank you Defense and Special Teams coaches.
You can't be a real person. You just can't.
in 2012 Brian Ferentz took over as O-Line coach for the Hawkeyes..
and in 2015 Iowa won the Joe Moore award for best offensive line in college football.
That is not what that award is for. They don't give it to crappy olines but their website is pretty clear
"recognizes the toughest, most physical offensive line in the country,"
KF's relationship with Joe Moore will always have some influence on that award.
FYI Brady may have had a little to do with those 2011 records as well.
Would be nice to have an offensive team that, when playing on TV, the announcers don't have to dance around and try to figure out how to respectably describe the offense as anything more than pathetic and predictable.
Last edited:
While Junior is subpar, nothing changes until the Old Man retires and the loathsome, miserable, offensive Offensive scheme is consigned to The Abyss.
I think the line goes: "With Iowa, you always know what you're getting, however, ..."
Translation: "Your sister/cousin/friend seems like a nice person, however, ..."
Sorry, but do you actually follow the Hawks? Why the hell would total O be the measuring stick for the O, given the style of O we play? We play ball-control, field-position ball ... that, ideally, attempts to be somewhat efficient as it relates to scoring. Furthermore, our offensive style attempts to complement the defense ... by minimizing turnovers ... while the D attempts to exploit errors/turnovers by the opposition. We also play a brand of ball where the special teams are every bit on the same footing as the O and the D ... our special-teams play helps to make the difference in games.
Here are what the numbers look like for scoring O ... which, even then, isn't the best metric ... but certainly it is better than total O!
1999 - 105/114 (Ken O'Keefe)
2000 - 101/116 (Ken O'Keefe)
2001 - 23/117 (Ken O'Keefe)
2002 - 7/117 (Ken O'Keefe)
2003 - 41/117 (Ken O'Keefe)
2004 - 70/120 (Ken O'Keefe)
2005 - 37/119 (Ken O'Keefe)
2006 - 58/119 (Ken O'Keefe)
2007 - 110/119 (Ken O'Keefe)
2008 - 33/119 (Ken O'Keefe)
2009 - 86/120 (Ken O'Keefe)
2010 - 49/120 (Ken O'Keefe)
2011 - 58/120 (Ken O'Keefe)
2012 - 113/124 (Greg Davis)
2013 - 80/125 (Greg Davis)
2014 - 71/128 (Greg Davis)
2015 - 53/128 (Greg Davis)
2016 - 95/128 (Greg Davis)
2017 - 66/130 (Brian Ferentz)
2018 - 44/130 (Brian Ferentz)
2019 - 88/130 (Brian Ferentz)
2020 - 40/128 (Brian Ferentz)
2021 - 99/130 (Brian Ferentz)
If you consider when Iowa had some of its worst OLs ... that often correlates most directly to our poorest scoring Os. Most notable being the '07, '12, and the '21 seasons. Also notice that whenever our scoring O is particularly bad one season ... it typically rebounds pretty significantly the following season. To bring you attention to this, hopefully obvious, observation:
'04 to '05: improved 33 spots
'07 to '08: improved 77 spots
'09 to '10: improved 37 spots
'12 to '13: improved 33 spots
'16 to '17: improved 29 spots
'19 to '20: improved 48 spots
Obviously historical precedent guarantees nothing ... the players have to channel their disgust from their play in '21 to BOTH their individual and team development. However, should they improve along the lines of historical precedent ... it's not unreasonable to suppose that the scoring O of the Hawks could jump into the upper 60s (in terms of scoring O ranking).
If we see that improvement on O ... and if the D can continue its high-level of play ... there's plenty of reason to justify why the Hawks sold-out their home slate.
So Homer you seem to know a lot about FB and I respect your opinion. But I don’t understand a point you always try to make. Ball control field position ball doesn’t mean you can’t be efficient and actually score points. You can gain big chunks of yards playing a pro style offense just as easily as playing any other offense. You also make it sound like just because our defense is trying to force turnovers and such our offense then has to play conservatively. They don’t have to go hand in hand is what I’m saying. I get that we like to be balanced and such but the numbers are frankly abysmal. What am I missing?
yea.. I agree that KF's style of team play will reflect poorly in comparison with these sorts of statistics.
I would like to add that.. these overall stats are being compared with teams like South Alabama and Tulane and other schools... that do not play against the same Defenses that Iowa does.
so couple that with the style of play.. those statistics are meaningless.
if you are ahead by 9 points in the 4th quarter..
are you going to try to quick score?... or run the clock and play field position?
if you try to quick score and throw a pick six...
now all of sudden you're ahead 2 points and the other team is a field goal away from beating you.
plus... even if you do score a touchdown... you're still only 2 scores ahead.
so situational football is key to winning football games..
and its all about Wins.
I think thats why Bill Belichick says "statistics are for losers"
This has less to do with formation and more to do with PACE. Iowa huddles and utilizes as much time on the clock on ALMOST EVERY snap of the ball.
Furthermore, Iowa's defense plays a bend-but-not break style of D. Thus, the purpose of the D isn't necessarily to force a quick 3-and-out ... but rather, to force the opposing O to have to traverse the entire field using as many snaps as possible. Furthermore, as the field compresses - it can get harder to score ... and ideally the D forces a FG rather than a TD.
Consequently, the TOTAL NUMBER OF POSSESSIONS is limited for BOTH teams. If the number of possessions is limited ... that automatically places some limitations on the yardage that is attainable. It's not uncommon for Iowa's O to have just around 60 offensive snaps per game. Contrast that with other programs that have averages in excess of 80 snaps.
You're absolutely correct that a pro-style O is NOT limited in terms of yardage attainable. Hell, as Iowa's 2002 O demonstrated ... when the stars align for the Hawk O ... the O can not only move the ball well ... but we can also score very efficiently too!
Anyhow, the point I try to make NEVER implies that Iowa doesn't WANT to be efficient scoring. In fact, Iowa's best offenses don't need to compile a lot of yards ... BUT it DOES need to have excellent scoring efficiency!
A point I DO occasionally make is that Iowa can still win games ... even when their O struggles (i.e. when the O isn't super efficient). Therein lies the advantage of complementary football. It makes the program more robust to fluctuations in the quality of offensive play.
A classic example here is Iowa's 2004 victory over Penn State. 6-4 baby!
I wouldn't be shocked if Iowa leads the nation in having statistical "clunkers" on O ... yet still manages to win the game.
Even if the O doesn't score ... that doesn't imply that scoring is the ONLY role of the O. Part of the role of the O can also to "play keep-away" and to help flip field-position. I'm sure that an analytic study could be done of this and its merits. Of course, it would be predicated upon also minimizing turnovers (on O). Not shockingly ... that's also part of what Ferentz-ball attempts to accomplish.
Part of how the Hawks try to "eke out" extra advantage is having the zone-eyes of our defenders get interceptions ... we benefit from this when opposing QBs attempt to press against our D.
Secondly, via special teams ... we try to acquire as many "hidden yards" as possible. For example, if we can pin an opposing O deep - then that forces opposing Os to be more predictable. That then increases the chances that it will require fewer snaps for the opposing O to stall (or even to go 3 and out). Another example is that if our return game is clicking - then that serves the dual purpose of helping us to flip field-position, while also giving the O a shorter field to traverse (a shorter-field usually allows for more of the offensive playbook to be available too).
Yeah, so basically, rely on the D to hold and win the game for us.
No ... it's also about putting the D in good positions too. Furthermore, it's about allowing the D to return the favor to the O ... and giving the O shorter-fields to score upon too.
If you look at offensive recruiting ... the Hawks haven't historically recruited offensive "stars" consistently enough in order for us to be able count upon the O to "carry" the team.
Sorry this just sounds like a lot of excuse making. Apparently we were #128 in red zone TD % last year, so the D giving the O a shorter field to work with isn't doing much good.
Not excuse making ... I complete agree that the Iowa O was dog-shit last year.
However, on the flip side ... the Hawks still managed to win 10 games last season. Furthermore, I continue to hold that our QB play demonstrated marked improvement through the first 6 games (compared to the prior season).
Defense alone doesn't win games ... so there still has to be some logical rationale to explain our 10-wins (and close to an 11th win too).
In terms of wins ... it's trended better than you might acknowledge.
But those wins don’t look good. Not enough excitement. Winning doesn’t seem to do the trick. Must win pretty.
Unfortunately the truth.
The 3 Inevitable factors of life:
Death; Taxes; Ferentzi apologists.
That possible 11th win turned into an L 110% because of the offense. Two first downs is all we needed.
The last part of your post is true. Ask yourself why that is? We churn out db's, safeties, and now it seems lb'ers to the pros like they are going out of style. Most of them not even highly recruited guys like Hooker, Geno Stone, Hitchens, even Micah Hyde wasn't a highly rated recruit. We took Stone from what MAC school? On the other side of the ball we've obviously been very good at the tight end position and o linemen. However, even w/multiple good linemen we're still not very good on that side of the ball. At least not how most people look at the game. You are 100% right about fewer plays and less possessions. The problem w/playing like that is the Kentucky game last year. For us I actually felt we kind of dominated that game. Ran the ball well, sacked and pressured the QB from KY the entire game but when you need a playmaker at the QB position to make a play we couldn't. And then the D got tired and we couldn't hold a lead.
2015 (72/116) surprised me. That's not even mediocre according to many on this board.
😉
And the 4th is keyboard whiners who bitch about anything that's not perfect. 10 -2, well dammit you should have been at least 11-1 you stupid coaches! The only real stat that matters is is W-L. That's it.
Did you join the player NIL too so you can whine and bitch to them when they make a mistake?
I just stumbled upon a site that breaks down offensive stats from a number of different angles.
BCF Toys - 2021 Points Per Drive
www.bcftoys.com
It shows each team's rank on long, mid and short drives as well as a ton of other stats. If you just look at the overall offensive points per drive (to account for Iowa's fewer possessions than other teams) the rankings look like this since 2007 (that's as far back as it goes):
2007 | 95 | O'Keefe |
2008 | 36 | O'Keefe |
2009 | 79 | O'Keefe |
2010 | 34 | O'Keefe |
2011 | 35 | O'Keefe |
2012 | 116 | Davis |
2013 | 81 | Davis |
2014 | 72 | Davis |
2015 | 46 | Davis |
2016 | 81 | Davis |
2017 | 75 | BF |
2018 | 52 | BF |
2019 | 74 | BF |
2020 | 56 | BF |
2021 | 104 | BF |
I know you are but what am I..............................................................about the level of this discussion and the people that just nitpick about everything. 10 - 2. Most of us before the season probably pegged us at 8-4 or 9-3. I would call 10-2 exceeding expectations. Ran into a buzz saw in the BTCG.
Imagine what we could accomplish with an even average modern offensive scheme.
Apologists got to be apologists.
