The new question ... implementing the new/old O

[cmhawks99]

Please don't use my questions to get on your soapbox. You interjected your perspective and implied that I had some opinions that I haven't stated. If you have issues with other people's posts quote those. I asked a question and you answered one vaguely and didn't address the other. Save your 'smarter than everybody else ' approach for someone you are actually smarter than.

ooohhhh I like it when I irritate someone like you.....and please don't insult both of us by saying I didn't...

This "you answered this vaguely" and you didn't do this and this and this tripe is old and very tired. Surely someone as brilliant and fond of themselves as you can do better than that right?!

 

[cidhawkeye]

ooohhhh I like it when I irritate someone like you.....and please don't insult both of us by saying I didn't...

This "you answered this vaguely" and you didn't do this and this and this tripe is old and very tired. Surely someone as brilliant and fond of themselves as you can do better than that right?!

Congratulations you are irritating, you also have a pretty inflated opinion of your knowledge base. Usually you are pretty spot on. In this case I asked two questions seeking to gain insight, you ignored one completely and threw in a vague 'oak hill guy' comment. Not really much to discuss. Hopefully I can find someone who will actually discuss things rather than throwing out the same blather.

 

[DodgerHawki]

I'll shorten it, they HAD, emphasis on "had" good recruiting resumes at other stops. Iowa is hard to recruit to fellas, you pretending like it isn't, doesn't make it not so....

Of course your smart enough to know that (at least I hope) if not we should all stop talking now.

Have never said Iowa isn't hard to recruit to. I've been slammed for saying the opposite, that Iowa has disadvantages to most of the other teams in the Big 10 when it comes to recruiting. The point being belabored here was the two assistants who were let go.

 

[DodgerHawki]

On what basis do you claim "never?"

Here's an excerpt from an article ...

“I think that everybody has talent. I think talent is overrated. I think that when you bring kids in, there are certain kids that are four-star or that are five-star. They come from a certain school and they have a certain pedigree or their resume looks better. But then the intangibles, the stuff that’s hard to measure when you’re assigning stars to an athlete, is their grit, is the determination, is the family makeup. What’s going to happen when this kid faces some adversity?” - Chris Doyle

Link to the article: http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sp...-kirk-ferentz-joe-moore-chris-doyle/95474612/

I'll admit when I'm wrong. It happens often. I will say it appears that Iowa isn't afraid of talent, they offer lots of 4 and 5-star guys.

 

[Pepperman]

With regards to recruiting, I am in agreement that KF & Co haven't done a great job with it overall. That said, they really are playing a different game and I've posted many partial stories about what I know from the recruitment of Thomas Johnston, but he's the only one I really know anything about. To phrase it differently, I do believe that when a recruit "buys in" to the Iowa system and is willing to work hard, he can be a great player. This is why so many of our 2-stars have gone on to do extraordinary things, after all. Now, what bothers me is why can't we convince a few more higher-ranked kids to come to Iowa given the program's advantages, successes, alumni in the NFL, etc?

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I'll admit when I'm wrong. It happens often. I will say it appears that Iowa isn't afraid of talent, they offer lots of 4 and 5-star guys.

I agree that Iowa isn't afraid of pursuing talent ... the definitely do go after highly rated guys too. The problem is that the interest isn't always reciprocated.

Also, I think that it is obvious that the Iowa coaches, Doyle included, believe that raw talent is certainly an essential ingredient to a player being able to play at a high level. However, just as was indicated in Doyle's quote ... the point is that he believes that everybody has talent. In other words, some of the perceptions that have talent ... particularly linked to recruiting rankings ... is far from objective.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

I will be thrilled if I cannot predict every play of every drive for at least the first half of the season....

I would be thrilled if I could predict every play and we still get 5+ yards per carry and then just when I think I know what's coming.....boom playaction for a TD. That is when Iowa is good, that is when we have championship teams

 

[KennyPloen]

Sometimes you need to be able to lean on your D. The D knew that we were going to be forced to be limited on the OL in that game and they also knew that Beathard's mobility was limited. On top of all that, they knew that NDSU was a run-first team that liked physical play - thus, stopping the run HAD to be a priority. Given these considerations - the play on D was definitely a problem. It obviously wasn't quite as big of a problem as the offensive play ... however, the issues with the O were at least somewhat predictable.

Seriously??? Sometimes??? We have leaned on the defense for 18 years and the times
they've failed is when we get beat. We have virtually NEVER been able to depend on the offense to even carry it's share of the load. That has been the glaring weakness of this regime.

 

[Pepperman]

I would be thrilled if I could predict every play and we still get 5+ yards per carry and then just when I think I know what's coming.....boom playaction for a TD. That is when Iowa is good, that is when we have championship teams

Truth be told, we had the running game to do exactly that this year. I'm not sure if it was just the injury to MVB or not, but let's assume it was, and once that happened Iowa got nothing from the passing game.

It is mind-boggling to think a team that couldn't pass well somehow had TWO backs go for 1000 yards, isn't it? If we get ANYTHING figured out in the passing game, this offense could have been amazingly good.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Seriously??? Sometimes??? We have leaned on the defense for 18 years and the times
they've failed is when we get beat. We have virtually NEVER been able to depend on the offense to even carry it's share of the load. That has been the glaring weakness of this regime.

LOL! Under Norm ... part of our strategy certainly seemed to lean on the D. I purposely tried to make that post a little understated.

 

[Pepperman]

LOL! Under Norm ... part of our strategy certainly seemed to lean on the D. I purposely tried to make that post a little understated.

I think the issue is over a 17 year period, aside from 2002 I can't really think of an Iowa team that could suffer a bad day on defense and still easily win. Whereas this team has had many poor offensive games and still wins. One would think over 17 years, the proof would be in the pudding. And that's where I agree with KennyPloen that this "regime" has an offensive weakness. I certainly hope Brian can change that though.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

LOL! Under Norm ... part of our strategy certainly seemed to lean on the D. I purposely tried to make that post a little understated.

In all honesty what people do not understand or give credit too is that Iowa's offense actually supports our defense immensly and should at least get some credit for defensive success (when we have an "Iowa" offense). When effective our offense is able to eat up clock allowing our defense to face less snaps/possessions from opposing offenses while allowing our main personnel time to get their wind back

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

In all honesty what people do not understand or give credit too is that Iowa's offense actually supports our defense immensly and should at least get some credit for defensive success (when we have an "Iowa" offense). When effective our offense is able to eat up clock allowing our defense to face less snaps/possessions from opposing offenses while allowing our main personnel time to get their wind back

It's part of Ferentz's philosophy .... bend-but-not-break D ... in order to force the opponent to EARN every point they make. The O is all about ball control, ideally scoring ... but, at the very least, possessing the ball and flipping the field. This reduced the number of possessions for the opposition ... it keeps the game closer ... thereby keeping you in just about any game. The caveat of the approach is that if you're not punching the ball into the end-zone ... the weaker opposition also then can remain close and possibly win.

This contributes to Iowa's strange tendency to hold their own against perceived "tough teams" ... but sometimes lose games against perceived inferior teams.

 

[KennyPloen]

It's part of Ferentz's philosophy .... bend-but-not-break D ... in order to force the opponent to EARN every point they make. The O is all about ball control, ideally scoring ... but, at the very least, possessing the ball and flipping the field. This reduced the number of possessions for the opposition ... it keeps the game closer ... thereby keeping you in just about any game. The caveat of the approach is that if you're not punching the ball into the end-zone ... the weaker opposition also then can remain close and possibly win.

This contributes to Iowa's strange tendency to hold their own against perceived "tough teams" ... but sometimes lose games against perceived inferior teams.

The problem is that the O is NOT a ball control offense. They may think they are, and try to be,
but they are not. A team can't finish 12th in the conf in 3rd down conversations, 12th in the number of punts, 12th in plays per first down, 12th in plays per punt and last in 3rd / short conversations and even pretend they are a ball control team---actually probably the least ball control team in the conference.

 

[cidhawkeye]

It's part of Ferentz's philosophy .... bend-but-not-break D ... in order to force the opponent to EARN every point they make. The O is all about ball control, ideally scoring ... but, at the very least, possessing the ball and flipping the field. This reduced the number of possessions for the opposition ... it keeps the game closer ... thereby keeping you in just about any game. The caveat of the approach is that if you're not punching the ball into the end-zone ... the weaker opposition also then can remain close and possibly win.

This contributes to Iowa's strange tendency to hold their own against perceived "tough teams" ... but sometimes lose games against perceived inferior teams.

So you are saying that Iowa runs an offense that Iowa defense would like to play every week? Makes perfect sense.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

The problem is that the O is NOT a ball control offense. They may think they are, and try to be,
but they are not. A team can't finish 12th in the conf in 3rd down conversations, 12th in the number of punts, 12th in plays per first down, 12th in plays per punt and last in 3rd / short conversations and even pretend they are a ball control team---actually probably the least ball control team in the conference.

I am not disagreeing with you at all because you are not incorrect, however; this is only part of the equation. Yes we need to convert on 3rd down more for the offense and defense to be optimized, however; the #1 priority is to not turn the ball over, not allow the field to be flipped on poor kick coverage, etc. Honestly and unfortunately our best offense last year was punting near mid field because it allowed the defense to hold the offense to minimal yardage and to put from deep in their own territory and allowed King to return a punt, the punter to botch a punt, or get a blocked punt, turnover, or safety most of the time.

 

[cidhawkeye]

The good news is that the ball control aspect came in well above the total offense ranking 105th.
2015 30th
2014 29th
2013 37th
2012 70th

It demonstrates just how far this offense fell this year.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

The good news is that the ball control aspect came in well above the total offense ranking 105th.
2015 30th
2014 29th
2013 37th
2012 70th

It demonstrates just how far this offense fell this year.

Nice numbers - thanks! What is particularly surprising about the observation is that we also managed to have 2 1000 yard rushers. I guess it just goes to show you how much worse we must have been on 3rd down conversions.

 

[sultanofsuede]

i wish i could go back in time and post a comment before the conversation turned to whatever this is.

i am hoping to see the kind of offense that o'brien had at penn st. i'm not a football coach (and i don't study the game), but i just remember them smoking us with an offense that was described as a current version of an NFL offense. seems like iowa has always run an nfl style, but that we've kind of been stuck in the 1999 NFL style (possibly 1990).

i don't see us completely changing direction, but if there is a way to update our current direction, that'd be cool with me.

 

[The Sleeping Dog]

The passing offense couldn't be much worse. The receivers were either poorly recruited or poorly coached or both.

There is every reason for optimism. Some younger guys and KOK is a very good QB coach. Transition without the need for a completely disruptive transformation.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

The passing offense couldn't be much worse. The receivers were either poorly recruited or poorly coached or both.

There is every reason for optimism. Some younger guys and KOK is a very good QB coach. Transition without the need for a completely disruptive transformation.

I've posited before that Kennedy's philosophy of rotating more guys than Iowa traditionally has done clashed with the fact that Iowa's slow tempo led each guy to see fewer reps on average. Consequently, that could contribute to a slower rate of ascending the WR learning curve (i.e. slower development at WR).

Also, less experienced guys ... particularly those who are freshmen and sophomore, have a tendency to play with less consistency. Thus, when Kittle and VandeBerg were injured ... Iowa's passing game had to rely upon more inconsistent players ... and that led to inconsistent results. To complement the above fact ... even some of the inexperienced guys .... like Scheel and Falconer, were themselves injured at various junctures ... and that impacted their development.

To go along with all of the above ... Iowa's OL battled their own injury issues and consequently the OL implemented multiple OL personnel configurations. In the process, not surprisingly, that impacted the quality of pass protection. Thus, Beathard didn't always have a lot of time to throw the ball. To make matters worse, his bum leg made it harder for him to avoid pressure.

If you look at J. Smith, Falconer, D. Young, and Scheel ... none of them were too lowly recruited. Besides, we've had converted QBs who've fared well at WR ... so the problem rarely deals with talent and typically deals more with development.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

i wish i could go back in time and post a comment before the conversation turned to whatever this is.

i am hoping to see the kind of offense that o'brien had at penn st. i'm not a football coach (and i don't study the game), but i just remember them smoking us with an offense that was described as a current version of an NFL offense. seems like iowa has always run an nfl style, but that we've kind of been stuck in the 1999 NFL style (possibly 1990).

i don't see us completely changing direction, but if there is a way to update our current direction, that'd be cool with me.

I doubt that it will look like O'Brien's iteration ... however, I do anticipate that it will be an updated version of what we last saw back in 2011. O'Keefe has obviously had exterior influences and experiences since then ... so that could update how he views things. Brian obviously has his own opinions ... and they were clearly influenced O'Brien (which could make some elements of your hope eventually be realized) ... and Polasek has worked with a whole other version of a pro-set O. Thus, the brain-trust of that trio will likely come up with something updated for the Hawks ... even if it doesn't superficially look different to us as fans. Updated route-trees ... different reads ... different ways of approaching your progressions ... they can all impact how the O is executed.

 

[Banks Fan]

Something else I want to adress here, this is just a pure logic thing doesn't have nothing to do with football knowledge or like or hatred of the football staff or anything....

We all think our staff are a bunch of knuckleheads and idiots and predictable but ask yourself if that's the case how the hell do they ever win any games at all.....

And Interestingly enough they oftentimes beat the better competition and seem to underperform against the weaker competition. So apparently Big Jim ain't as good a coach as KF?

It's a consistency and execution issue boys period!!!!

No. We all think you are a knucklehead.

 

[cmhawks99]

No. We all think you are a knucklehead.

No YOU may but that isn't shared by ALL....carry on.

Congratulations you are irritating, you also have a pretty inflated opinion of your knowledge base. Usually you are pretty spot on. In this case I asked two questions seeking to gain insight, you ignored one completely and threw in a vague 'oak hill guy' comment. Not really much to discuss. Hopefully I can find someone who will actually discuss things rather than throwing out the same blather.

Well fair enough, and I'll confess I rarely get involved in behind the scenes tell alls and homer started that thought. I just know the oak hill kid was told something different than what transpired and honestly I'm not going to say more than that. I wasn't told not to share it but honestly my reputation and/or style should garner me the respect needed to know I'm not just pulling crap out of the sky, per this source...

Now what I/we don't know is he full of crap (he is a friend and business associate that I see a couple times a month) or is the Oak hill kids dad full or crap...but what we do know is the kid transferred. I'll also say, I don't gather he was told he'd start but what was expected of him to play a lot was different than what transpired.

If its still to crytpic so be it...as for the other question, I had no answer nor did I care per se...

 

[bagdropper]

Sheesh, this thread went down the slope a bit too fast.

In short, Iowa's passing offense can't get worse, so it has nowhere to go but up. I'm more worried about finding a partner for Wadley than anything else. Running AW into the ground is probably the worst thing Iowa could do to the guy and to the offense in 2017.

But the single most important thing I think that needs to happen is having the o-line be relatively injury-free all season. That happens, I believe we will be pleasantly surprised how improved Iowa's offense will be.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Sheesh, this thread went down the slope a bit too fast.

In short, Iowa's passing offense can't get worse, so it has nowhere to go but up. I'm more worried about finding a partner for Wadley than anything else. Running AW into the ground is probably the worst thing Iowa could do to the guy and to the offense in 2017.

But the single most important thing I think that needs to happen is having the o-line be relatively injury-free all season. That happens, I believe we will be pleasantly surprised how improved Iowa's offense will be.

I agree - developing a strong #2 RB to unburden Akrum a little will be critical. I know that guys on the squad were really impressed with Toks last year ... however, it still seemed like he was still getting a feel for how to run within our system. He needs to develop his vision and learn to slow down a little ... he was often just running right into his blockers without letting his blocks develop.

What was rather surprising last year was how few stories emerged out of the offense last year. Usually guys "emerge" and provide us with feel-good stories ... and those stories provide anecdotal evidence for the successes we observe. McCarron, our RBs, and our OL overcoming adversity were the main positive stories coming out of the O in '16. We desperately needed more pass-catchers to supply us with such stories ... but we had no such luck.

What we saw was almost akin to what happened to Michigan State in 2012. Michigan State had a young and talented group of WRs ... but the group lacked leadership and consistency. It wasn't really until '13 ... when both Cook emerged at QB and Fowler, Lippett, and Macgarrett Kings stepped up ... then their passing game went from stumbling to formidable in big hurry.

I'm not willing to give up on J. Smith, Falconer, and D. Young and their capacity for improvement. Hopefully those guys improve their consistency and VandeBerg can build on where he left off.

 

[cmhawks99]

Sheesh, this thread went down the slope a bit too fast.

In short, Iowa's passing offense can't get worse, so it has nowhere to go but up. I'm more worried about finding a partner for Wadley than anything else. Running AW into the ground is probably the worst thing Iowa could do to the guy and to the offense in 2017.

But the single most important thing I think that needs to happen is having the o-line be relatively injury-free all season. That happens, I believe we will be pleasantly surprised how improved Iowa's offense will be.

Agree on all accounts, with that said, I do believe our OL depth will be well above average. However talented depth can't account for chemistry and cohesion. As for Wadley I completely agree and I'm on record that the people who were wildly upset he didn't play enough last year will be the same ones who will be pis&^%ed off if he gets hurt this year because "that dumb ol' Kirk"
played him to much....

Proving once again, the coaches can't win.He can NOT play every snap nor even the majority I would wager.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Agree on all accounts, with that said, I do believe our OL depth will be well above average. However talented depth can't account for chemistry and cohesion. As for Wadley I completely agree and I'm on record that the people who were wildly upset he didn't play enough last year will be the same ones who will be pis&^%ed off if he gets hurt this year because "that dumb ol' Kirk"
played him to much....

Proving once again, the coaches can't win.He can NOT play every snap nor even the majority I would wager.

I'm not remembering right off hand ... but entering the '16 season myself and a few other posters shared a concern about the drop in the experience-level and/or quality of our peripheral blockers. Not only were we losing stalwart interior linemen in Blythe and Walsh ... but we also lost Krieger-Coble, both our top fullbacks, our prior #2 TE (Outsey) to attrition, and big, physical WRs in T. Smith and Hillyer ... both of whom were very good at blocking on the edges (particularly Hillyer).

While we DID manage to have 2 1000+ yard rushers in '16 ... we also had trouble running the ball when we NEEDED to run it. Reminiscent of '14 ... we had plenty of 3rd down and reasonable yardage to go ... and we failed to keep our O on the field. Not surprisingly, our O wasn't its usual ball-control self. Obviously part of that was attributable to our anemic passing game ... however, another element of it was that our running game wasn't as "multiple" as it was the prior year.

If you noticed early in the season, we ran much more effectively to the right side of the field than the left. When the QB sees a numbers advantage to one side of the field than the other ... you need to be able to exploit it. Furthermore, when we had Canzeri in '15 ... he was a threat running to either side ... or on the interior OR the exterior. Entering '16 ... opposing Ds could game-plan against Iowa's running game ... not just based on what side we were more effective running the ball ... but also based on personnel, they knew that Wadley was more our "edge" runner ... while Daniels was more our interior runner. Admittedly, the coaches did their best to try to break that tendency ... but given all the varied personnel configurations on the OL ... that impacted the effectiveness of having our RBs run against their tendency.

Now, as we enter the '17 season ... I cannot help but notice the following about our peripheral blockers:

• Part of the reason why Jerminic Smith managed to remain among our top WRs is that he clearly made positive strides in his down field blocking. His blocking and that of some of our other WRs helped to spring big plays for our running game.
• While we lost an excellent blocker in George Kittle ... we gain a TE unit that, as a whole, should be improved. Both Wieting and Pekar saw extensive reps as blockers for O ... that could end up paying dividends in '17.
• We entered '16 with all new FBs ... we enter '17 with tough, proven FBs. I'm very confident now with what Kulick and Ross bring to the table. Those two could be difference-makers for our O in '17.
• While it doesn't count as peripheral blocking ... we should field a healthy QB without limitations to his mobility. That provides the O a whole other dimension that it lacked in '16. While a healthy Beathard is an excellent threat in terms of mobility ... Beathard's mobility was nullified due to his bum knee.
• Lastly, the remarks about Iowa's depth on the OL should be a positive attribute in '17. Hopefully they can remain healthy ... and thus the depth can mainly be a feature that simply keeps the OL "fresh."

If the above observations ring true to their potential ... then Iowa's running game really could be tougher to defend ... and that could help out the passing-game in the process.

 

[Suterman]

It's part of Ferentz's philosophy .... bend-but-not-break D ... in order to force the opponent to EARN every point they make. The O is all about ball control, ideally scoring ... but, at the very least, possessing the ball and flipping the field. This reduced the number of possessions for the opposition ... it keeps the game closer ... thereby keeping you in just about any game. The caveat of the approach is that if you're not punching the ball into the end-zone ... the weaker opposition also then can remain close and possibly win.

This contributes to Iowa's strange tendency to hold their own against perceived "tough teams" ... but sometimes lose games against perceived inferior teams.

This is 100% correct. Your proverbial good news/bad news situation. Coach Ferentz' philosophy allows bad teams to stick around sometimes, and allows us to stick with teams that maybe we shouldn't.

 

[hawkhen]

It's part of Ferentz's philosophy .... bend-but-not-break D ... in order to force the opponent to EARN every point they make. The O is all about ball control, ideally scoring ... but, at the very least, possessing the ball and flipping the field. This reduced the number of possessions for the opposition ... it keeps the game closer ... thereby keeping you in just about any game. The caveat of the approach is that if you're not punching the ball into the end-zone ... the weaker opposition also then can remain close and possibly win.

This contributes to Iowa's strange tendency to hold their own against perceived "tough teams" ... but sometimes lose games against perceived inferior teams.

This is 100% correct. Your proverbial good news/bad news situation. Coach Ferentz' philosophy allows bad teams to stick around sometimes, and allows us to stick with teams that maybe we shouldn't.

 

[walleye hunter16]

Hopefully they change the audible lingo. Other teams were on it all year.

No, just change what it means . Keep them off balance. calls like those are something that should never be the same or predictable for any period of time.

 

[cmhawks99]

No, just change what it means . Keep them off balance. calls like those are something that should never be the same or predictable for any period of time.

Well for what its worth, considering we won our last 3 games of the season sans letting the bowl game get away from us I'm struggling to agree with that statement...Not yours but the one you responded to. I initially avoided responding to it but the more I think about it...

Lets drill down on it, a Michigan team, one that gave up 10 or less points 8 times, including the likes of Wiscy, PSU and Indiana, gave up 14 to our anemic offense. All this with 18 Sr's and everyone's favorite genius coach (I don't agree incidentally) and then against a Nebbie, who needed the win badly and with similar talent yet we torched them for 40...

I mean honestly I get poor play calling consistency, I even get being stale per se, but when I hear they knew what side of the field we were going to (by the way, so what, you never "really" know 100%) or they knew our audibles or formations I think to myself....

Then A) it must not matter or doesn't every team have an idea, that is why they scout.... OR...B) how the hell did we score at all, which brings me right back to A)!!