Tim Lester has revealed his goal for Year 2

[eyesofhawk]

You explicitly said you were worried that we would lose too much of our identity in regards to Lester's desire to improve the pass game. Those were your words. Which of course, is both unfounded and preposterous as you can still be a run focused offense, while working on a different aspect of the offense. Are running drills not being done during practice? Is the team not practicing running plays? Of course they are. That isn't changing, and Iowa will continue to be one of the heaviest run offenses in football. Improving one aspect of the game does not correlate to the degradation of another. That is a total falsehood.


Iowa hardly passes at all, at least when you compare them to other teams. To say we pass too much sounds borderline psychotic. I think more people would respect you if you simply came out and said we should eliminate passing altogether. No matter what you believe, Iowa will never turn into Oregon. But we cannot completely abandon a vital part of the game. Passing is important. Passing matters. Passing helps the Run. The Run helps passing. These are fundamental truths in football, whether you like it or not.


Well, there it is. In your own writing. You've finally said that the installation of our new offense was part of the reason why our defense took a step back. Of course you have no actual data to back this up, you do realize that teams ebb and flow from year to year, right? Not every year we'll have a defense as salty as we did in 2023. This can be due to guys graduating, being moved to different positions, etc. Things won't be the same every single year, this happens with the best of programs. And that's because these players are human at the end of the day, not robots. But the implication that Tim Lester being hired and working with the offense is why our defense took a step back, is in no exaggeration, one of the most idiotic, unfounded, unlikely, and deluded things I have ever seen in regards to football. At this juncture, I can no longer take you seriously.


Quite the word salad. But again, you don't have definitive proof that Iowa will abandon its identity. Talking about Kirk and the future of Iowa is beyond what this thread is about anyway.


Oh trust me, we all know about your run the ball slogan and how it's your go to, even when it presents no point, argument, or even relevancy to the topic at hand. Your entire post explains your concern with Lester's focus on the pass, which directly opposes his goal when you tell him to focus on the run instead. So I didn't mischaracterize anything.

If you're such a genius, why don't you take your own advice and leave yourself out of this thread? We'd all be thankful for it.

P.S Tim is going to be passing the ball.

Listen man. I don't know how to do all this cut and paste stuff to break down what again amounts to consistent lack of reading comprehension and mischaracterization, on your part. I trust most others read better than you have consistently demonstrated on this forum.

Amongst your butthurt, you managed to make 7 major mischaracterizations. I don't have the time to break them all down, as overall you've become quite exhausting. But I'll give some overall cliff notes of your post, in vertical order from the its top.

1. I already broke down your mischaracterization of my concerns, as they pertain to identity, in my last post. And you have gone and now mischaracterized that breakdown. Simply, read better.

2. I never said you "can't be a run-focused offense while working on another aspect of the offense." In fact, I said that's exactly what needs to happen.

3. I never said "improving the pass game correlates to a degradation in the run game." I said, "run the ball."

4. I have in past said I would prefer almost no passing. Air Force puts up 47 points with 3 passes. I would have no problem with almost no passing. And yes, I have said this.

5. At no point have I suggested to "completely abandon the passing game." I have suggested to, "run the ball."

6. Of course I said installing the new offense last season was part of why the defense took a step back. I've been saying that all a long.

7. At no point did I, "imply a new OC is why the D took a step back."

8. I never said Iowa, "would abandon their identity."

9. "Talking about Kirk and the future", is not beyond my thoughts to contribute on this topic.

10. Run the ball is almost always THE point, THE argument, and the most relevant to almost every football topic.

11. The overall message in my post is to, "run the ball", which, as you have actually already pointed out, does not "directly oppose TL's goal."

13. Is there a reason you take an offended tone with me?

RUN. THE. BALL.

 

[2D_]

Listen man. I don't know how to do all this cut and paste stuff to break down what again amounts to consistent lack of reading comprehension and mischaracterization, on your part. I trust most others read better than you have consistently demonstrated on this forum.

Amongst your butthurt, you managed to make 7 major mischaracterizations. I don't have the time to break them all down, as overall you've become quite exhausting. But I'll give some overall cliff notes of your post, in vertical order from the its top.

1. I already broke down your mischaracterization of my concerns, as they pertain to identity, in my last post. And you have gone and now mischaracterized that breakdown. Simply, read better.

2. I never said you "can't be a run-focused offense while working on another aspect of the offense." In fact, I said that's exactly what needs to happen.

3. I never said "improving the pass game correlates to a degradation in the run game." I said, "run the ball."

4. I have in past said I would prefer almost no passing. Air Force puts up 47 points with 3 passes. I would have no problem with almost no passing. And yes, I have said this.

5. At no point have I suggested to "completely abandon the passing game." I have suggested to, "run the ball."

6. Of course I said installing the new offense last season was part of why the defense took a step back. I've been saying that all a long.

7. At no point did I, "imply a new OC is why the D took a step back."

8. I never said Iowa, "would abandon their identity."

9. "Talking about Kirk and the future", is not beyond my thoughts to contribute on this topic.

10. Run the ball is almost always THE point, THE argument, and the most relevant to almost every football topic.

11. The overall message in my post is to, "run the ball", which, as you have actually already pointed out, does not "directly oppose TL's goal."

13. Is there a reason you take an offended tone with me?

RUN. THE. BALL.

I'm not going to stop. Your blatant stupidity and endless babbling nonsense deserves to be scrutinized at every turn. With every point I've made, I've directly quoted your words that you used. You simply lack the reading comprehension and nuance of the conversation. You have implied, time and again, that focusing on another aspect of the offense could lead to another, specifically the run, taking a step back. That's degradation. You specifically say that you believe Lester installing his new offense, in part, has lead to the defense losing it's identity. It's all there in the post. People other than you can read, despite what you believe.

No one believes Iowa's identity will change. Kirk is still in charge, and we all know how he operates. No one has an issue with winning in the trenches and grinding down the other team with the run and controlling the game clock. At the same time, you cannot argue against the fundamental truths of football. No matter how many times you yell run the ball or throw out the word mischaracterization.

The future head coach of Iowa Football has nothing to do with Lester's year 2 goal. Read better.

Run the ball is irrelevant to numerous topics, such as special teams, the performance of our kicker, the lack of depth in our secondary, the worry about replacing our long snapper. You have deluded yourself with this weird mantra, "run the ball", acting as if it's some catch-all answer to any football issue. It's not. It never will be.

Is there a reason why you don't take your own genius advice and not leave yourself out of the conversation? This is actually the one good thing you have said. Please, just go away.

P.S Tim is going to be passing the ball.

 

[QChawks]

it's been 5 years since we've had a WR go over 500 yards in a season

that would be a great start!

 

[eyesofhawk]

I'm not going to stop. Your blatant stupidity and endless babbling nonsense deserves to be scrutinized at every turn. With every point I've made, I've directly quoted your words that you used. You simply lack the reading comprehension and nuance of the conversation. You have implied, time and again, that focusing on another aspect of the offense could lead to another, specifically the run, taking a step back. That's degradation. You specifically say that you believe Lester installing his new offense, in part, has lead to the defense losing it's identity. It's all there in the post. People other than you can read, despite what you believe.

No one believes Iowa's identity will change. Kirk is still in charge, and we all know how he operates. No one has an issue with winning in the trenches and grinding down the other team with the run and controlling the game clock. At the same time, you cannot argue against the fundamental truths of football. No matter how many times you yell run the ball or throw out the word mischaracterization.

The future head coach of Iowa Football has nothing to do with Lester's year 2 goal. Read better.

Run the ball is irrelevant to numerous topics, such as special teams, the performance of our kicker, the lack of depth in our secondary, the worry about replacing our long snapper. You have deluded yourself with this weird mantra, "run the ball", acting as if it's some catch-all answer to any football issue. It's not. It never will be.

Is there a reason why you don't take your own genius advice and not leave yourself out of the conversation? This is actually the one good thing you have said. Please, just go away.

P.S Tim is going to be passing the ball.

Seriously, you need to chill, man.

I'm going to spell these out for you, otherwise your density will continue to carry this out.

From top to bottom of your posted confusion:

1. No, not all of your quotes were exact. And some of them not even that "direct."

2. Not only "implied", but I have flat out stated, as delineated in my last post, that "focusing on another aspect of offense COULD lead to FOCUS TAKEN AWAY from another aspect." NOT, "lead to the degradation of another aspect."

3. Yes, as delineated in my last post, I specifically said I believe, IN PART, the installation of a new offense came at a price to the defense. But, also as delineated in my post, I never implied the installation to be (the reason) "why" the defense took a step back.

These aren't hard distinctions to make at an average level of reading comprehension. Figure it out.

4. By "fundamental truths of football", is assume you essentially mean passing game. As delineated in my last post, I've never "argued against the pass game." I've only said, "run the ball."

5. The less you mischaracterize me, the less I will, "throw out that word."

6. As delineated in my last post, the future coach does have something to do with my thoughts about TL's goal. And I even explained how, in-depth. Read better.

7. Imo, "run the ball", does have some relevance to every example you mentioned. Run the ball!

So overall, you are annoying as hell. But I appreciate your passion for the Hawkeyes. Slow down and read a little more closely. And be more careful with how you characterize the words of others.

If you are able to do so, you have no problems from me. If not, I'm not going to have much time for this nonsense. I give in-depth, supportive content to my takes. Then you, in-depth, pick them apart. And the fact that so much of the time, you either don't know what you've read, don't know what you're saying, or both, makes these exchanges too exhausting and not my problem.

Either way, I have better stuff to do with the rest of my day, so have a good one yourself.

That's all I've got to say. When it comes to football, I'm a simple man. I don't have much to contribute, in the way of thought, other than, "run the ball."

So I suppose you can take that or leave it. You don't have to take it. But at this point, unless you want to talk about it with others, you're going to have to leave it, because I don't have time for any more, so I'm leaving the thread.

Run the ball!

 

[83Hawk]

You explicitly said you were worried that we would lose too much of our identity in regards to Lester's desire to improve the pass game. Those were your words. Which of course, is both unfounded and preposterous as you can still be a run focused offense, while working on a different aspect of the offense. Are running drills not being done during practice? Is the team not practicing running plays? Of course they are. That isn't changing, and Iowa will continue to be one of the heaviest run offenses in football. Improving one aspect of the game does not correlate to the degradation of another. That is a total falsehood.


Iowa hardly passes at all, at least when you compare them to other teams. To say we pass too much sounds borderline psychotic. I think more people would respect you if you simply came out and said we should eliminate passing altogether. No matter what you believe, Iowa will never turn into Oregon. But we cannot completely abandon a vital part of the game. Passing is important. Passing matters. Passing helps the Run. The Run helps passing. These are fundamental truths in football, whether you like it or not.


Well, there it is. In your own writing. You've finally said that the installation of our new offense was part of the reason why our defense took a step back. Of course you have no actual data to back this up, you do realize that teams ebb and flow from year to year, right? Not every year we'll have a defense as salty as we did in 2023. This can be due to guys graduating, being moved to different positions, etc. Things won't be the same every single year, this happens with the best of programs. And that's because these players are human at the end of the day, not robots. But the implication that Tim Lester being hired and working with the offense is why our defense took a step back, is in no exaggeration, one of the most idiotic, unfounded, unlikely, and deluded things I have ever seen in regards to football. At this juncture, I can no longer take you seriously.


Quite the word salad. But again, you don't have definitive proof that Iowa will abandon its identity. Talking about Kirk and the future of Iowa is beyond what this thread is about anyway.


Oh trust me, we all know about your run the ball slogan and how it's your go to, even when it presents no point, argument, or even relevancy to the topic at hand. Your entire post explains your concern with Lester's focus on the pass, which directly opposes his goal when you tell him to focus on the run instead. So I didn't mischaracterize anything.

If you're such a genius, why don't you take your own advice and leave yourself out of this thread? We'd all be thankful for it.

P.S Tim is going to be passing the ball.

In today’s game, you MUST have a passing game:
1. To be able to come from behind late in a game.
2. To help move the sticks when trying to hold a lead in the 4th quarter.
3. To put a game out of reach.
4. To keep a defense “honest”….especially by throwing passes longer than 10-15 yards.
5. To prevent defenses from stacking the box on almost every down.

Iowa hasn’t been much of a threat in the passing game for several years. You can still “run the ball” while being able to throw it. And it won’t be “at the expense” of defense.

 

[BurgHawk87]

No. Pointing out how ridiculous you've made this thread. Many people won't read this far.

Spot on comprehension.

P.S.
No shit.
Run the ball

Have I done something to upset you?

Because most people have you on ignore. A lot of these threads have vast swaths of posts missing due to your inane "run the ball" or "0-0" shit posts.

 

[2D_]

Seriously, you need to chill, man.

I'm going to spell these out for you, otherwise your density will continue to carry this out.

From top to bottom of your posted confusion:

1. No, not all of your quotes were exact. And some of them not even that "direct."

2. Not only "implied", but I have flat out stated, as delineated in my last post, that "focusing on another aspect of offense COULD lead to FOCUS TAKEN AWAY from another aspect." NOT, "lead to the degradation of another aspect."

3. Yes, as delineated in my last post, I specifically said I believe, IN PART, the installation of a new offense came at a price to the defense. But, also as delineated in my post, I never implied the installation to be (the reason) "why" the defense took a step back.

These aren't hard distinctions to make at an average level of reading comprehension. Figure it out.

4. By "fundamental truths of football", is assume you essentially mean passing game. As delineated in my last post, I've never "argued against the pass game." I've only said, "run the ball."

5. The less you mischaracterize me, the less I will, "throw out that word."

6. As delineated in my last post, the future coach does have something to do with my thoughts about TL's goal. And I even explained how, in-depth. Read better.

7. Imo, "run the ball", does have some relevance to every example you mentioned. Run the ball!

So overall, you are annoying as hell. But I appreciate your passion for the Hawkeyes. Slow down and read a little more closely. And be more careful with how you characterize the words of others.

If you are able to do so, you have no problems from me. If not, I'm not going to have much time for this nonsense. I give in-depth, supportive content to my takes. Then you, in-depth, pick them apart. And the fact that so much of the time, you either don't know what you've read, don't know what you're saying, or both, makes these exchanges too exhausting and not my problem.

Either way, I have better stuff to do with the rest of my day, so have a good one yourself.

That's all I've got to say. When it comes to football, I'm a simple man. I don't have much to contribute, in the way of thought, other than, "run the ball."

So I suppose you can take that or leave it. You don't have to take it. But at this point, unless you want to talk about it with others, you're going to have to leave it, because I don't have time for any more, so I'm leaving the thread.

Same to you, talking to you is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. It's not advised, painful, a waste of time, and may cause brain damage.

Run the ball!

 

[Iron Doc]

One thing that can be counted on is ol' Eyes questioning forum people's reading comprehension.
A goto question/comment from Eyes.
Are we ALL semiliterate?

 

[7thsummitcoach]

Is it safe to read this thread now, or should I come back tomorrow?

 

[GoB1G]

Run the ball

0-0.

 

[eyesofhawk]

One thing that can be counted on is ol' Eyes questioning forum people's reading comprehension.
A goto question/comment from Eyes.
Are we ALL semiliterate?

Go to? You think I want to have to tell people to read better?

Does your detection of the standard English printed in this thread bring you to a different conclusion?

 

[Iron Doc]

Go to? You think I want to have to tell people to read better?

Does your detection of the standard English printed in this thread bring you to a different conclusion?

PASS THE BALL!!! AIR RAID!

 

[uihawk82]

Run the ball

Yeah, you still run the ball but if your really confident in your passing game you can pass on 1st down 40% of the time.

If you have a very high completion rate doing that the defense will need to take 1 or 2 men out of the box.

Mix it up and run the ball into the lighter box.

We hope Mark G will be that OC on the field who will make the right decisions to hand off, keep it and look for a good pass or run it himself.

 

[uihawk82]

I specifically asked about thoughts on his goal of improving the pass game to be explosive. It sounds like you believe he is wrong, as you directly confronted his goal with arguing we should be doing something else, in this case, running the ball. So you believe Iowa should avoid improving the pass game? Do you have any reasoning behind this logic? Can you prove, definitively, that we can operate strictly on the run? Do you have data to back that up? What reasoning would you use if you were to speak to Lester in person and tell him to not pass the ball, but instead, just run it?

Of course we should all agree on making the passing game improve to lets say #80 or a bit better. An improved passing game opens so many options in play calling to mix run and pass. A much better passing efficiency and YPC will be needed to improve.

Lester is staking his reputation and a bigger pay day on this and maybe another head coaching job.

 

[uihawk82]

Run the ball

@2D_ , this thread really went off the rails. Well I posted a couple of times with what I think are the very good reasons to improve the passing game. Our best seasons came with great run/pass mix, Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Beather in 15 and 2016, some very good Stanzi moments.

 

[bobchawk]

@2D_ , this thread really went off the rails. Well I posted a couple of times with what I think are the very good reasons to improve the passing game. Our best seasons came with great run/pass mix, Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Beather in 15 and 2016, some very good Stanzi moments.

yes---the stated goal of KF has been to be a 50/50 run/pass offense to keep the D off balance---what happened to our passing has forced us to run in situations where we normally would not because we do not want ot take a sack or turn it over--
we appear to be working our way out of this and hope we can get the vertical game going again. we saw flashes last yr--the Sully pass in the UCLA game being one.
On a side note--there is nothing better in the game than having your opponent know you are going to run it and you still impose your will on them.....

 

[nu2u]

Go to? You think I want to have to tell people to read better?

Does your detection of the standard English printed in this thread bring you to a different conclusion?

You’re an idiot.

2D spooning you some of your own medicine - take it like the simpleton that you are.

 

[Iron Doc]

PASS THE BALL!!! AIR RAID!

Formal response this time.

The near universal questioning of various posters' reading comprehension when commenting on/replying to their posts/responses/taunts/ridicule MOST DEFINITELY make me think you have a DEEP SEATED NEED to question their reading comprehension/cognitive ability/booklarnin'. Intellectual arrogance comes to mind, warranted or not.

 

[icwesthawk]

Man, wish I'd never looked at this thread

 

[eyesofhawk]

Yeah, you still run the ball but if your really confident in your passing game you can pass on 1st down 40% of the time.

If you have a very high completion rate doing that the defense will need to take 1 or 2 men out of the box.

Mix it up and run the ball into the lighter box.

We hope Mark G will be that OC on the field who will make the right decisions to hand off, keep it and look for a good pass or run it himself.

Run the ball

 

[eyesofhawk]

Formal response this time.

The near universal questioning of various posters' reading comprehension when commenting on/replying to their posts/responses/taunts/ridicule MOST DEFINITELY make me think you have a DEEP SEATED NEED to question their reading comprehension/cognitive ability/booklarnin'. Intellectual arrogance comes to mind, warranted or not.

I'm already aware of the mass stupidity (more accurately, probably triggeredness) out there.

Are the ways in which my posts in this thread have been mischaracterized not detectable throughout standard English? Furthermore, have they not been thoroughly delineated and corrected through standard English in this thread.

Yes or no?

 

[2D_]

>"I'm leaving this thread"
>Continues to post

Eyes of Retard strikes again.

 

[Iron Doc]

I'm already aware of the mass stupidity (more accurately, probably triggeredness) out there.

Are the ways in which my posts in this thread have been mischaracterized not detectable throughout standard English? Furthermore, have they not been thoroughly delineated and corrected through standard English in this thread.

Yes or no?

No
and
No

 

[desihawk]

Run the ball

i’ve been coming across this line a lot lately and i believe (though i could be wrong) from several posters. i don’t get the reference…is there a backstory?

 

[eyesofhawk]

>"I'm leaving this thread"
>Continues to post

Eyes of Retard strikes again.

Fair.

It would have been more accurate to say I was done going back and forth with you to an exhausting extent.

If others present the same dynamic, I will discontinue going back and forth with them as well

 

[eyesofhawk]

No
and
No

Read better.

And you wonder why I can get condescending

 

[eyesofhawk]

i’ve been coming across this line a lot lately and i believe (though i could be wrong) from several posters. i don’t get the reference…is there a backstory?

Run the ball. When it comes to football, those are pretty much my thoughts.

The others have only been mocking me

 

[Zooropa_NCR]

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Tim Lester knows this is a run first offense, and no one is disputing that. At all. But as a professional, he knows that the performance of our passing game is not where it should be. And to be an effective offense, we need to be a threat with both the run and the pass. Use one to open up the other, and vice versa. Kaleb Johnson was just outside of the top 10 for RATT, only missing it by 17 attempts. That doesn't include snaps to other RBs on the team. Meaning we run the ball at minimum, in the top 5th percentile of college football. Anymore, and we'll turn into a military academy.

If we keep the pass game as poor as it is, we'll keep running into what happened with Ohio State or Nebraska. Where we couldn't move the ball no matter what we did on the ground, because defenses were selling out on the run, and it worked. It was only thanks to a pass play, and Kaleb's incredible skill, that we won against Nebraska. If you think we'll lose our identity simply because Lester wants to improve the passing game, then I can't help you. And I suggest we leave it at that.

According to this poster the only way we can have a good defense is if we have the worst offense in the history of sport

And for our offense to improve in any shape or form, be completely 1 dimensional

If I’m any Iowa opponent, i continue to stack the box and dare an Iowa QB to throw over the top. I bank on Iowa OL not being able to protect long enough to throw the ball further than 10 yards

If Iowa doesn’t replace some of KJ explosive plays in 2025, the offense is going to take a major step back. The guy accounted for nearly half the offense and scoring.

Now if whoever the QB ends up being (for the entire year, I’m not sold an Iowa QB coming off surgery can sustain health) makes teams pay for loading and blitzing….then hats off to Lester.

 

[2D_]

According to this poster the only way we can have a good defense is if we have the worst offense in the history of sport

And for our offense to improve in any shape or form, be completely 1 dimensional

If I’m any Iowa opponent, i continue to stack the box and dare an Iowa QB to throw over the top. I bank on Iowa OL not being able to protect long enough to throw the ball further than 10 yards

If Iowa doesn’t replace some of KJ explosive plays in 2025, the offense is going to take a major step back. The guy accounted for nearly half the offense and scoring.

Now if whoever the QB ends up being (for the entire year, I’m not sold an Iowa QB coming off surgery can sustain health) makes teams pay for loading and blitzing….then hats off to Lester.

Correct, Eyes of Retard misunderstands how the game of football works on a base, fundamental level. He believes that simply running the ball because we're good at it is enough to overcome any defense and any point deficit. Which of course, we all know that isn't the case. History has proven that. And there's a reason why coaches don't do it. Iowa will always be a ground and pound offense, but when the pass game is not a threat in any capacity, teams have no reason to do anything other than stack the box and stop the run. Real world examples include Ohio State and Nebraska. I emphasize real world because dipshit will try and justify that isn't true by using a word salad of nothingness to justify his reasoning. These are REAL games that happened, with REAL statistics to back it up. If passing becomes a threat, our run will open up. A fundamental truth in football.

And of course, his reasoning for our defense taking a step back because our offense improved is not only a statistically impossible to prove, it's also an outright lie. To think that for a defense to remain elite, the offense must not improve is psycho-ward level thinking. But this is why he lives on this forum, and not working on a football coaching staff.

 

[Iron Doc]

Read better.

And you wonder why I can get condescending

Dude, you asked a 2 part question.
First, we have not mischaracterized you, we have your obtuseness figured out. 95% of us can't be simultaneously wrong.
Second, you haven't corrected diddly-squat (to paraphrase Opus the Penguin).

Lastly, i kin reed gud.

 

[Iron Doc]

Correct, Eyes of Retard misunderstands how the game of football works on a base, fundamental level. He believes that simply running the ball because we're good at it is enough to overcome any defense and any point deficit. Which of course, we all know that isn't the case. History has proven that. And there's a reason why coaches don't do it. Iowa will always be a ground and pound offense, but when the pass game is not a threat in any capacity, teams have no reason to do anything other than stack the box and stop the run. Real world examples include Ohio State and Nebraska. I emphasize real world because dipshit will try and justify that isn't true by using a word salad of nothingness to justify his reasoning. These are REAL games that happened, with REAL statistics to back it up. If passing becomes a threat, our run will open up. A fundamental truth in football.

And of course, his reasoning for our defense taking a step back because our offense improved is not only a statistically impossible to prove, it's also an outright lie. To think that for a defense to remain elite, the offense must not improve is psycho-ward level thinking. But this is why he lives on this forum, and not working on a football coaching staff.

I'm beginning to worry about ol' Eyes. Senility is tough, though he is probably younger and less decrepit than I am.

 

[eyesofhawk]

According to this poster the only way we can have a good defense is if we have the worst offense in the history of sport

And for our offense to improve in any shape or form, be completely 1 dimensional

If I’m any Iowa opponent, i continue to stack the box and dare an Iowa QB to throw over the top. I bank on Iowa OL not being able to protect long enough to throw the ball further than 10 yards

If Iowa doesn’t replace some of KJ explosive plays in 2025, the offense is going to take a major step back. The guy accounted for nearly half the offense and scoring.

Now if whoever the QB ends up being (for the entire year, I’m not sold an Iowa QB coming off surgery can sustain health) makes teams pay for loading and blitzing….then hats off to Lester.

I've said neither and you know it

 

[eyesofhawk]

Correct, Eyes of Retard misunderstands how the game of football works on a base, fundamental level. He believes that simply running the ball because we're good at it is enough to overcome any defense and any point deficit. Which of course, we all know that isn't the case. History has proven that. And there's a reason why coaches don't do it. Iowa will always be a ground and pound offense, but when the pass game is not a threat in any capacity, teams have no reason to do anything other than stack the box and stop the run. Real world examples include Ohio State and Nebraska. I emphasize real world because dipshit will try and justify that isn't true by using a word salad of nothingness to justify his reasoning. These are REAL games that happened, with REAL statistics to back it up. If passing becomes a threat, our run will open up. A fundamental truth in football.

And of course, his reasoning for our defense taking a step back because our offense improved is not only a statistically impossible to prove, it's also an outright lie. To think that for a defense to remain elite, the offense must not improve is psycho-ward level thinking. But this is why he lives on this forum, and not working on a football coaching staff.

Even after extensive and continuous mischaracterization from you, going back over a year, I've been more than patient with you, and more than generous with my time, to clarify and delineate the exact nature of your misinterpretations.

But at this point, you're pretty much an asshole. Either that, or you're even far more stupid than I've realized, or both. Another 3 things in your latest post I've attached, that you are attributing to me, that I have never said.

All of my post history is archived in plain English. Wtf is your problem? This has gotten beyond old

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

I didn't expect my comment was going to be badgered.

Again, I haven't badgered any of your perspective.

I didn't say "Iowa would lose their identity simply because TL wants to improve the passing game." That is a mischaracterization.

Again, to me, Iowa already passes too much. Last year got a little better, in terms of less passing attempts. But I also understand that not to be Lester's plan going forward. I fear Iowa could lose too much of an identity that has been successful, not by wanting to improve the passing game, but by actually ending up a program that passes too much/doesn't run enough.

I fear Iowa could lose too much of their identity by losing their identity. Desires to take "the next step" in the passing game, although somewhat necessary, end up spending time, energy, desire, focus, emphasis, attention, to try to achieve. Just like installing the offense last season was necessary, but required time, and attention, and desire, and emphasis.

Identity can't be at all scattered. Identity is a level of mastery and focus. Iowa lost it's identity last year as a team with a dominant defense. Not a whole lot of people were predicting that before the season, on paper. I have every confidence believing the loss of identity was at least in part due to time, and energy and attention at a program level, given to the task of installing a new offense.

Will Iowa take the step forward in the passing game? Probably so. But what gets spent where in the process? Can Iowa take that step while primarily remembering who they are? That is what needs to happen.

The primary focus needs to be on who you are, just as it's always been. And build with the "advanced" steps incrementally and organically by way of being good at being who you are.

So, ultimately it's upon KF to ensure that Iowa remains Iowa. And he has done an unbelievably consistent job of that. But he won't be around forever. Iowa was/is in a transition period with a newish OC. Probably in a few more years Iowa will be in another transition period with a new HC. How much will Iowa remain Iowa? These are my overall concerns. And part of why my thought about your OP is, "run the ball." Rather than explosive passing, I hope the primary thoughts of the staff are on an identity that has been successful.

And I don't know if you've been paying attention, but, "run the ball", in part or in totality, is going to be my thought in pretty much any and every football conversation. Pretty much everything can come back to running the ball. If something doesn't, I'm still probably only really interested in running the ball. That's how I see the game. And it's also my default taste. Run the ball. Those are my thoughts.

And you did also mischaracterize my OP of, "run the ball", by asserting I "directly confronted and challenged TL's goal." And that, I was imposing to "only run the ball."

RUN. THE. BALL.

Last year was perhaps the only season in recent memory when the Hawks had more rushing yards than passing yards. In the KF era, they typically have more running plays but more passing yards. Given their propensity to run the football, your response to Lester's desire to improve the passing game is a non-sequitur.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Dude, you asked a 2 part question.
First, we have not mischaracterized you, we have your obtuseness figured out. 95% of us can't be simultaneously wrong.
Second, you haven't corrected diddly-squat (to paraphrase Opus the Penguin).

Lastly, i kin reed gud.

Well then, simply, read better.

At the very least, posts #41 and #44 break down many of 2Dense's mischaracterizations, and point out many more.

This doesn't have a thing to do with how many of you can possibly be wrong. It's all laid out in clear English in this thread, and the rest of my post history is archived verbatim.

My best guess as to why many people seem to mischaracterize my posts is because:
1. I can make long posts. Any many people already don't care for a lot of my takes, so they sloppily and quickly read through my posts. They simply need to read better.
2. It's sad how triggered people are by anything that isn't immediately recognizable as standard bashing, or something else that's been echoed in the girls' bathroom. They literally lose the ability to understand what they are reading.

I am being more than generous with my time, to present you reasons why people might have arrived at their misinterpretations. It is above and beyond what is necessary.

Simply, my posts are presented thoroughly and in-depth. I use English that is plenty understandable. It's all archived verbatim. And when people have been confused about what I've said, I've almost always provided clarification.

Read better

 

[eyesofhawk]

Last year was perhaps the only season in recent memory when the Hawks had more rushing yards than passing yards. In the KF era, they typically have more running plays but more passing yards. Given their propensity to run the football, your response to Lester's desire to improve the passing game is a non-sequitur.

Given the thorough reasoning I've already given in this thread for my response, it was not a non-sequtor.

Also, in my mind, "run the ball", is relative to pretty much every football discussion, which I have also thoroughly explained in this thread.

So take it, or leave it, but, "run the ball"' is the thought I have to contribute

 

[Iron Doc]

Well then, simply, read better.

At the very least, posts #41 and #44 break down many of 2Dense's mischaracterizations, and point out many more.

This doesn't have a thing to do with how many of you can possibly be wrong. It's all laid out in clear English in this thread, and the rest of my post history is archived verbatim.

My best guess as to why many people seem to mischaracterize my posts is because:
1. I can make long posts. Any many people already don't care for a lot of my takes, so they sloppily and quickly read through my posts. They simply need to read better.
2. It's sad how triggered people are by anything that isn't immediately recognizable as standard bashing, or something else that's been echoed in the girls' bathroom. They literally lose the ability to understand what they are reading.

I am being more than generous with my time, to present you reasons why people might have arrived at their misinterpretations. It is above and beyond what is necessary.

Simply, my posts are presented thoroughly and in-depth. I use English that is plenty understandable. It's all archived verbatim. And when people have been confused about what I've said, I've almost always provided clarification.

Read better

I swear by all that is holy, you have been reincarnated as my JH Principal. Twilight Zone stuff!

 

[iafan44]

As good as eyes reads I hope he uses his skills teaching kids how to read because apparently all of our teachers failed miserably on the rest of us.

 

[2D_]

As good as eyes reads I hope he uses his skills teaching kids how to read because apparently all of our teachers failed miserably on the rest of us.

It's funny, seemingly everyone mischaracterizes what he's saying. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone. Young or old, man or woman, brand new user or a veteran of the forum, we all seem to be unable to understand what he's saying.

Makes you wonder, is it an everyone else issue, or is it just that the dumbass' only defense against his points is "read better" or "mischaracterization"? Due to how nearly every post he makes he's butting heads with someone, I'm willing to bet it's the latter. It's easy to defend what you say when you tell the person they aren't smart enough to understand what you're saying.

When Kirk retires, someone better send him a link to a suicide prevention website.

 

[eyesofhawk]

It's funny, seemingly everyone mischaracterizes what he's saying. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone. Young or old, man or woman, brand new user or a veteran of the forum, we all seem to be unable to understand what he's saying.

Makes you wonder, is it an everyone else issue, or is it just that the dumbass' only defense against his points is "read better" or "mischaracterization"? Due to how nearly every post he makes he's butting heads with someone, I'm willing to bet it's the latter. It's easy to defend what you say when you tell the person they aren't smart enough to understand what you're saying.

When Kirk retires, someone better send him a link to a suicide prevention website.

Dude, I've pointed out almost every one of your mischaracterizations in this thread. Many of them, I've even broken down for you exactly what your misinterpretation has been.

It's all laid out in this thread. It's all been explained in detail. Why does it make you "wonder you if it's a (me) or (them) issue"?

Wtf is the confusion? The issue has already been thoroughly broken down and explained. And is IN THIS THREAD for anyone to read.

If anyone should be baffled, it's me. Just what is the confusion? There are no opinions here. It's a matter of recorded text, that for some reason was confusing, so I've taken the time to add RECORDED TEXT that has pointed out almost all of your mischaracterizations and broke down exactly how some of them were being misinterpreted.

There isn't some psychological mystery here. Your answers are in plain English within this thread.

I initially contributed 3 simple words to this thread. "Run the ball." How did it turn into all of this? I never had an intention of contributing anything other than 3 words.

Again, you think I want to have to tell people to read better? Of course not. It's incredibly annoying. Somehow you managed to significantly mischaracterize 3 simple words. It continued throughout the thread and here we are