Torbee's smokin' the good stuff ....

[ghostOfHomer777]

The Badgers went on to score, Iowa couldn't mount a comeback, and the Hawkeyes sputtered to a disappointing 7-5 regular season finish despite having a team full of NFL talent and legit pre-season BCS championship chatter. Sure, there was a dead cat bounce over 5th ranked Michigan State the next week, but the elements that cost Iowa the Wisconsin game that year - poor clock management, lack of any risk taking, being caught flat-footed by an innovative opponent, making critical mistakes with the game in the balance - became maddeningly familiar over the next four years of mediocre Ferentz football.

First off, I'm getting stuck on Torbee's remark that Wisconsin was an innovative opponent. Bret's brand of football is "smash-mouth" football ... and that is essentially a recipe that is mandated by Alvarez and imposed on all subsequent Wisconsin head coaches. What precisely is innovative about "pound the rock" and play tough defense? Amusingly, Wisconsin doesn't even require offensive balance. The key is to first establish a power running game ... then develop the passing game afterwards. They establish their niche - and they get REALLY good at it.

I get it ... he's pissed about the fake punt that effectively lost us the game. It's a bitter pill to swallow and I'd be lying if I said that I've gotten over it either. However, that loss to Wisconsin has no logical or causal impact on Iowa's last 3 games. Iowa had a number of factors that contributed to those last 3 losses. One of the most important being lack of depth. While Iowa fans like to play the "NFL card" to explain their incredulity concerning Iowa's seeming mediocrity (i.e. how can the Hawks have all that NFL talent but not have better records?), few fans seem to recognize that the 2nd stringers aren't always NFLers.

The most common refrain is that the fault lies with the coaches. Ferentz happily shoulders that blame, deflecting it from his players and his coaching staff - and some of it IS his burden to bear. However, as I've stated in other threads, the REAL driving force for success on ANY team still has to come from within, from the players. The ultimate burden is on them. Guys have to embrace the next-man-in MANTRA. While every 2nd stringer should prepare like he's a starter ... sadly, Iowa has suffered through several seasons where such guys hadn't. If you don't prepare like you're the starter ... you're not going to learn as fast ... you're not going to improve as quickly. And, ultimately, there will be an ever more significant drop-off from the 1st to 2nd stringers.

 

[DodgerHawki]

Wisconsin was an innovative opponent in that time period. You can play smash mouth football and be innovative. The year after Tolzein left, they adapted the offense for 1 year of Russell Wilson and improved the offense from where it was (which was very good). They found a good way to get both James White and Melvin Gordon on the field by making the jet sweep package a big part of the offense.

The 2010 season was a disappointment. And not all due to injury. Yes, the players play but the coaches are responsible for having them ready. If the coaches are not ever to blame, then why even have coaches? Or why pay them hefty salaries?

I've been as big a KF supporter as anyone, but the program from 2010 through 2014 was not something to be greatly proud of. It didn't fall off a cliff, but also not up to standards. If it was, why did KF spend time after the Taxslayer Bowl "examining everything" (his words)?

This weekend is a chance to see how far Iowa has come in righting the ship. A loss doesn't mean that Iowa isn't moving in the right direction. I want to see the team play well (and of course win). But playing well (in the context of the program) is more important to me than winning the game.

 

[DrVenkman]

Iowa has had success over the years up at Madison. One of my all time favorites was Iowa spoiling Barry Alverez's last game there. I too have felt that something almost cosmic happened that day in Iowa City when Wisky won after the fake punt. It did seem to turn the tide for Iowa football. that 2010 Iowa team was loaded. Then the next several years were rough as the program saw some tough recruiting and attrition results.

Simply asking for a team to go up to Madison and win is a big order but I think Iowa can and will win. It will be awesome if they do but this season, like all Iowa seasons, has to be won week to week.

 

[GT Hawkaholic]

The best Iowa teams have veterans at every position. The biggest weakness in the 2010 team was new linebackers just like last year's team. Spot individual talent doesn't always matter in football because teams will find your weakness and exploit it. Wisconsin, OSU, Arizona, Minnesota and NW that year all had defensive breakdowns late I believe.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Wisconsin was an innovative opponent in that time period. You can play smash mouth football and be innovative. The year after Tolzein left, they adapted the offense for 1 year of Russell Wilson and improved the offense from where it was (which was very good). They found a good way to get both James White and Melvin Gordon on the field by making the jet sweep package a big part of the offense.

Jet sweep is just a new wave name for end-around. Not new ... not innovative. It's a strategic move used by offenses to counter defenses that insist upon having their DEs crash in against the dive play.

Besides, my comment was in response to Torbee's comment about Bret's Badger squads being innovators. Wisconsin added the jet-sweep, getting both White and Gordon on the field under Gary Andersen. That innovation isn't Wisconsin's to own ... it was a simple reflection of the spread running attack that Andersen implemented back when he was at Utah State. However, arguably the biggest reason why Wisconsin utilized the jet-sweep so often was because they didn't have a mobile QB. Typically, a mobile QB will just read the DE ... and if the DE crashes in, then a mobile QB will burn him with his mobility. Wisconsin simply didn't have that Stave ... but McEvoy wasn't a good enough passer to pull off the passing side of what Andersen wanted to do. Thus, Andersen still had to find a way to keep the DE "honest."

 

[bagdropper]

I wouldn't call a jet sweep an end-around. A traditional end-around is misdirection and has at least one lateral and old-school style has two. The ball carrier gets the ball a good 7-8 yards behind the LOS and the line action goes the opposite direction.

A jet sweep is a sweep where a RB split out is in motion at full speed close to the QB backfield depth-wise, but the line action is the same way as the ball carrier. It's a traditional sweep except it gets the ball carrier to the edge faster.

But I WOULD argue that Wisconsin was innovative in their methods because they went old-school schematically. Teams just plain don't ground and pound like they did any more. They had success because coaches today just plain don't see that style combined with premium talent any more.

I always will claim...a team today could run the single wing and be successful IF they have the players to do it. In the end, it's how good a ballplayer from 1 to 85 that determines the success of a program/team/year, not necessarily the system they employ.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I always will claim...a team today could run the single wing and be successful IF they have the players to do it. In the end, it's how good a ballplayer from 1 to 85 that determines the success of a program/team/year, not necessarily the system they employ.

I agree with your contention there whole-heartedly. Scheme matters less than the "fit" of the players AND how well the players execute within the system. Wisconsin executes a sustainable system on O ... they'll always be able to find solid O-linemen ... and a strong running game is necessary in the midwest once the cold fall winds start blowing.

I think that Aranda's scheme is an intriguing twist ... because he doesn't require large D-linemen. That is rather novel for a 3-4 scheme. The benefit is that it's not that hard to find decent LBs. Thus, they're good as long as they keep well stocked at LB.