Statistical In-Ferentz, Week 9: Stuck Between Stations

by Horace E. Cow on Nov 1, 2011 10:00 AM CDT in Iowa Hawkeyes Football

The story of the Minnesota game is one that has been rehashed over and over again: a string of insane, hideous, frustrating missed opportunities. A good way to appreciate this is to look at the number of "Expected Points" Iowa left on the field. The concept of Expected Points allows us to estimate the number of points a team can be expected to score on average on a drive, given a certain down and distance.* Here's how Iowa rated on a few choice drives Saturday:

13:30 left in 1st quarter, 1st and 10 at the Minnesota 39. Expected Points: 2.72; Actual Points: 0 [turnover on downs]
8:15 left in 1st quarter, 1st and 10 at Iowa 49. Expected Points: 1.98; Actual Points: 0 [punt]
3:00 left in 1st quarter, 1st and 10 at Minnesota 14. Expected Points: 4.44; Actual Points: 0 [missed FG]
12:00 left in 2nd quarter, 1st and 10 at Minnesota 11. Expected Points: 4.65; Actual Points: 0 [missed FG]
3:45 left in 3rd quarter, 1st and 10 at Minnesota 20. Expected Points: 4.08; Actual Points: 0 [sack/fumble]

* All EP figures come from the Advanced NFL Stats calculator, and thus the usual caveats apply about the model being based on historical NFL stats, not college stats. But the general idea that most teams score either a touchdown or a field goal when they have a first and 10 from their opponent's 10-20 yard line probably carries over.

If you add all those missed points up, you get 17.87. And that total should probably be a little higher, because the strip sack/fumble recovery by Minnesota so drastically changed field position that it was in effect worth an extra point or so in expected points for Minnesota. Of course if that first drive had ended differently the rest of the game would have changed and those subsequent drives wouldn't have happened (yes, I've seen "The Butterfly Effect"), but looking at the numbers does give you a sense of just how many scoring opportunities Iowa let slip away. So how did this happen? Part of it was the dumb bad luck of missing field goals, but part of it was a clever defensive game plan by the Gophers that frustrated Iowa all day. I saw three main components to their plan:

Step 1: No Deep Stuff

Jerry Kill and his staff seemed to have taken the lesson that Iowa's offense was at its most dangerous in the long passing game, because they responded to Iowa with heavy use of deep cover 4 coverage, with the corners playing 8 yards off the line of scrimmage. Here's an example from the third quarter that also shows the unusual set-up of the defensive ends.

If Iowa was going to beat the Gophers, they would have to do it inch by inch, not in large chunks. Which you can see by the yards James Vandenberg passed for by area of the field:

VDB threw deep only four times, and not for a particularly great average (15 yds/pass).

Step 2: Crazy wide defensive linemen

It certainly seemed like Minnesota was copying the recently popular NFL concept of setting their ends up in the so-called "wide nine" stance, as in outside the tight ends. And unlike NFL teams, who prefer this look solely on passing downs, it certainly seemed like Minnesota went with this look all the time. Why go this route? Here's a good article on the concept, but the basic idea seems to be to pressure the quarterback. And Vandenberg did seem to face pressure all day, even when Minnesota didn't have an explicit blitz call on. It's hard to say if that was due to the alignment of the ends and how much was due to a mediocre day by the Iowa offensive line, but whatever it was, it worked: Vandenberg never seemed to have time or a lot of space to really set up and uncork his throws. The set-up of the linemen probably also frustrated Iowa's ability to run its standard outside stretch play and the play-action off that stretch play, as the ends were positioned perfectly to meet the running back going outside or the quarterback bootlegging it outside the other way.

There are obviously some weaknesses with this set-up, first being that it leaves an enormous gap between the defensive end and the defensive tackle. And as the Smart Football article above notes, this allows the offensive line to get out into the second level with ease. If you look at where Marcus Coker generated his yardage on Saturday, it wasn't outside, it was all straight up the middle. Minnesota had their linebackers lined up pretty narrowly, within the tackle box, so it was apparently their job to take care of the inside stuff when it inevitably got by the defensive line. That didn't work so well, as Coker went off for 250 yards in three quarters of work, and probably could have gone for more if given the opportunity. The deep corners and safeties actually wound up helping the Gophers here, because even when Coker broke through the linebackers, there was still a layer of defense to stop any long runs.

Step 3: Confusion on passing downs

Sticking with zone so heavily put a lot of pressure on James Vandenberg to make quick reads and find receivers, and he actually did a pretty good job of it: 16-24 for 177 yards, no interceptions, 7.7 yards per throw. Vandenberg generally did a good job of finding an open receiver on a short out or check down, and got the ball out accurately (his receivers didn't help him by dropping four or five of those passes). But the effective part of the Gopher scheme came not in making it impossible for Vandenberg to pass successfully, but in cajoling him into throwing it short rather than long. They did this three ways: first, by dropping very deep, second, by blitzing on obvious passing situations, most successfully on the crucial third down in Minnesota territory where Vandenberg was stripped of the ball:

As you can see, Kevonte Martin-Manley is open at the top of the screen, but the play is a sprint out away from that side of the field, and Vandenberg never sees the blitz coming. Minnesota has eight men coming against six blockers, and one defender slips totally free. If the first read (probably McNutt) had been open, Vandenberg would have been able to get the ball out quickly, but he hesitates a second, and it's all over. It was really a brilliantly timed blitz from Minnesota, one that came just late enough that the quarterback never saw it coming. The offensive play call also happened to mesh perfectly with the defensive play call, as the direction of the play led Vandenberg's eyes away from the blitz. Still, given Minnesota's tendencies, Vandenberg needed to be aware that pressure was likely coming, and that he would have to get the ball out of there post-haste. By the way, this was clearly the WP play of the game, taking Minnesota's WP from .13 to .31 in one fell swoop.

The third way Minnesota got into Vandenberg's head was by swarming a lot of men at the line of scrimmage as if they were going to blitz, then backing off into zone. And sure enough, whenever they presented this look, Vandenberg would check off to a short throw. On one occasion, this tactic tricked Vandenberg into throwing a four-yard throw on third and seven, and Iowa punted on the next play.

All in all, Minnesota's defensive strategy wasn't all that successful -- Iowa did go for over 400 yards and 21 first downs -- but it did enough in crucial situations, mainly third downs, to stall several promising Iowa drives (Iowa was 4-11 on third down). And relative to Minnesota's recent defensive efforts (giving up 41, 45, 58 and 37 points), it was a masterpiece. The biggest accomplishment of Minnesota's defense was to take away Iowa's strength -- the deep passing game -- and hope Iowa didn't punish their weakness -- the rushing game -- too horribly. The Gophers are, after all, not quite so terrible when it comes to defending the pass (68th in yards/completion), but are truly horrific when it comes to rushing defense (111th in yards/carry).

That Onside Kick

There's been some debate about whether Kirk Ferentz could reasonably have expected an onside kick in the fourth quarter. There was certainly a high pay-off for Minnesota to recover an onside kick: in Win Probability terms, a generic NFL team would improve their chances from .27 to .34 by recovering the onside kick at their opponent's 41. A failed onside kick, on the other hand, would reduce the generic team's chances of winning from .27 to .22. So it turns out the break-even probability to attempt the onside kick there was .42, or 42%. Given that surprise onside kicks are successful in the NFL about 60% of the time, Coach Kill had good reason to go for the kick there, assuming it would be a surprise. But should Ferentz have expected it? One way to look at the problem is to look at how other coaches have behaved in similar situations. In the article I just cited, Advanced NFL Stats guru Brian Burke produces a chart that shows onside kick success plotted against WP. When WP is low -- that is, when the kicking team has a low chance of winning and desperately needs to recover the kick in order to come back -- onside kicks are not very successful. Specifically, when the WP of the kicking team is below .2, the chances of recovering the kick are in the 20%-30% range, but when the WP goes above .2, the chances of success jump up to around 60%. Minnesota had a WP of .27 when they kicked off with eight minutes left, so they were just in the zone where most coaches are "surprised" by onside kicks. So in the generic NFL case, most coaches would have been surprised by an onside kick in that situation.

On the other hand... this wasn't a generic case. Given Iowa's success at running the ball and Minnesota's general difficulties passing the ball, kicking off to the Hawkeyes represented a bad bet for the Gophers. A very probable outcome was that Iowa would run 2-4 minutes off the clock and score 3-7 points, leaving Minnesota with only 5 minutes to drive the length of the field and score eight points at least. One rule for underdogs is that they need to do whatever they can to make sure the expected result doesn't happen, and Minnesota made a very smart gamble to upset the normal course of events here. With a little psychological insight, Iowa's coaches could have seen that an onside kick was at the very least a possibility coming from a coach as desperate for a win (and with as bad a defense) as Jerry Kill, and put in the appropriate personnel. It might have been impossible for Kirk Ferentz to know for certain that an onside kick was coming, but it's not like the downside to being ready for the possibility was that high. He could have looked at it as a cheap insurance policy against disaster, one that would have only cost him (at most) a few yards on the kickoff.

One other interesting aspect of the onside kick: when you combine it with Iowa's non-drive kneel down to end the first half, Minnesota had 11 drives in the game to Iowa's 9. You can only score when you have the ball, so those two extra drives gave Minnesota a small edge in the game. One more reason that abandoning possessions at the end of the half is a bad idea.

Even with all that going wrong for Iowa, however, when they got the ball back with 2:48 left to go, they were still in very good shape to complete a comeback. In the generic NFL model, teams in that situation win 51% of the time, which probably is due somewhat to the quality of NFL kickers, but also to the fact that 2:48 is a lot of time. Minnesota was still doing the same stuff it had earlier -- extra wide defensive ends, lots of deep zone -- so the time and opportunity was there to take advantage of that defense with inside running plays. Going for passes on four straight downs meant going away from what had been a strength against Minnesota's defense all day.

Stray observations

Credit where credit is due: the Hawks took a smart gamble going for it on 4th and 6 from the Minnesota 35. By my calculations, going for it made sense (as compared to landing a punt at the Minnesota 15) if Iowa felt they could make it more than 20% of the time. The break-even percentage for a field goal is roughly the same -- 21% -- so that would have been a decent option, too. It didn't work out, but it was still a decent bet. The problem is that none of the options are particularly good from the opponent's 35.
Missed field goals from 24 and 43 yards: more proof that field goals in college are for suckers. The one that came on 4th and 2 from the 6 was an especially dubious choice.
A lot of people have been talking about the decision by Iowa to sit on the ball going into the half, and I'm of two minds on the issue. Obviously, if the Hawks thought they had a better chance of scoring than getting scored on as a result of that drive, they should have tried to get some points. But given their struggles in obvious passing situations, I sort of understand why they are so skittish about the two minute drill. That's not really an excuse, though. The two minute drill is such a critical skill for any team to master that admitting you just can't do it is sort of like a pilot admitting he can fly the plane, just not at night.
Iowa's defense again had trouble with a running quarterback, and you can see how it's starting to affect Iowa's pass defense. On the 61-yard pass play that set up Minnesota's first touchdown, you can see on the replay that the Hawks are in quarters coverage, but that Shaun Prater's eyes are focused on MarQueis Gray as he rolls to his right. A second later and the pass is over Prater's head and complete for a big gain that got the Gophers back into the game. It's not totally clear if Tanner Miller was expected to help out over the top on that play (he certainly wasn't covering anyone else), but it looks like Miller is focused on covering the middle of the field, not the outside. There was also a play near the goal-line where Prater had his eyes on Gray and ignored a tight end breaking open late for a touchdown pass. There have been a few plays this year where Prater's eagerness to get to the ball and make a tackle (I'm thinking of the Sunseri run/pass option play against Pitt) has taken him out of position in coverage. It's a tough dilemma to be in, especially when the other option is letting the quarterback run free for 15 yards, but there needs to be some understanding between Miller and Prater on those plays.

Tweet Comment 56 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Wisconsin Badgers, Iowa Hawkeyes

Comments

Excellent work, HEC.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Nov 1, 2011 10:22 AM CDT reply actions

How do you pass >15 yards for 12 yards?

by 99FormationsButFourWideAin'tOne on Nov 1, 2011 10:28 AM CDT reply actions

I figured someone would ask that

It was the touchdown to McNutt that technically was 12 yards but traveled +15 yards. Should have put a note on that.

by Horace E. Cow on Nov 1, 2011 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Here's a statistic.

Our defense sucks. Poor tackling, poor coverage, not physical, no leaders, just a whole lot of meh.

by Stay thirsty, my friends. on Nov 1, 2011 10:38 AM CDT reply actions

Yeah, the defense isn’t very good. They gave up an 11-point lead in the 4th quarter. No excuses there, and I don’t disagree with you on anything you said about poor tackling, poor coverage, etc.

I believe this falls more on the offense. Minnesota had given up 37, 58, 45, and 41 points in their last 4 games. Iowa scored 21 points on Saturday. 21! Way too many points left on the field, poor blitz recognition from VDB, poor play-calling at the end, etc.

And FG’s are for suckers – Meyer’s been great this year, but misses a 24-yarder and toe-pokes one off the upright. Minnesota’s kicker, having never kicked a field goal at the college level, bangs a 28-yarder through with no problem. Sigh…

Comedy is where the mind goes to tickle itself.

by Nickhawk08 on Nov 1, 2011 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions

Outstanding

Looks like Minnesota was selling out to stop the deep pass and as a result was gashed with the run.

My biggest problem with the game was the unwillingness to run the ball at the end of the game. I wanted to see us spread out with 3- 4 receivers and then run the ball. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess, but given how everything had played out to that point and with 2:48 remaining and at least one timeout, it seemed like the obvious call.

I just wanna see Kirk Ferentz cry.

by nattybumpo on Nov 1, 2011 10:42 AM CDT reply actions

Great article

Honest question – Why are you of “two minds” on the Iowa going for it at the end of the half? Do you really think that Ferentz made/makes the correct calculation here? We do have Marvin McNutt on our team, after all.

by StevenDS on Nov 1, 2011 11:12 AM CDT reply actions

My problem with the way the first half ended,

is that Iowa could have gotten the ball back with close to three minutes to go instead of 1:10. Could have used timeouts after Minn had 1st and goal inside the 6 yd line. With 2.5 to 3 min to go, they could have kept Coker involved in the offense to some degree.

By all accounts Iowa has a potent offense this year. If you can’t run a two-minute drill with a potent offense, when can you? I don’t think that Iowa punted the entire first half (I could be wrong there), so it seems like risk would have been at a minimum (even with the sack/fumble from earlier).

by encopresis on Nov 1, 2011 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Exactly

It isn’t just the decision not to go for it with a minute left on your own 20-something.

It is the decision to not put yourself in a situation where you are getting the ball back with 2:30 left in the half in the first place.

Just terrible.

by StevenDS on Nov 1, 2011 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Prater's eagerness to ... make a tackle

Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahahah oh god that’s comedy gold right there.

"You start to get out of bed, you say, 'Oh, [expletive], I only got one leg on, I better get the other leg on.'" -- Norm Parker

by nerdhawk on Nov 1, 2011 11:35 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

Suddenly I understand the 5 yard cushion.

by 99FormationsButFourWideAin'tOne on Nov 1, 2011 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions

Please do not make me associate the best Hold Steady album with that dumb game, thanks

And Vint if you reply with something about Separation Sunday I will punch you in your hack eye.

by NorseHawk on Nov 1, 2011 12:02 PM CDT reply actions

Great breakdown

it was obvious, to me at least, Kill was gambling on which poison to take, try to play a complete defensive game and try to stop the run and pass. And he’s a smart guy, he knows he doesn’t have the talent for that so he took away the passing game which was looking like a juggernaut the previous two games…the juggernaut being McNutt.

What’s not obvious to me is why our coaching staff couldn’t figure that out. Did they not watch what NEB did to them the previous week(346 rush yards)? Are we not known for a strong running game? Was Coker not in full-on WEREWOLF MODE, eating their children and burning their homes…???!!!

by IAinCA on Nov 1, 2011 12:36 PM CDT reply actions

Coaching staff couldn't figure it out?!

Coker ran how many times? For how many yards?

Unless you are referring to the 4 plays at the end of the game…

Jack Trice Stadium - Easily one of the Top 10 Stadiums in Central Iowa

by Not Marv Cook on Nov 2, 2011 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that's strongly implied

by the last sentence

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Nov 2, 2011 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions

My team leader played center for South Carolina State on scholarship

And I told him about Saturday’s game, and he was mystified why we weren’t giving Coker the fucking ball on every fucking play. If they can’t stop you, you keep going. Its that fucking simple.

Never *question* Bruce Dickinson!

http://www.thebirdcult.net

by The Bird Cult on Nov 2, 2011 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Running QBs

are problems for most defenses. That is why they are becoming (have been? Tommie Frazier?) so popular. I don’t think running QBs should be our main concern. I think offenses in general should be our concern.

As with all running QBs, the trick is to make them more of a QB, than a runner, since they are usually deficient in that area. For instance, Denard Robinson looks like he is playing 500 when he throws the ball (unfortunately, his receivers are really good at that game). Norm knows this and frequently tries to jam the box or bring in (keep in) run support for running QBs. We (kind of) shut down Denard last year, and Pryor beat us more through the air last year than by his feet. Norm has a reasonable game plan against running QBs, unfortunately his players don’t always EXECUTE. For example, on a certain 4th and 10 play last year v. Ohio State, we looked like 3 legged dogs chasing a Ferrari.

I guess my point is, Norm’s main strategy will always be to take away the legs of the opposing QB. Too soon? How many “this team doesn’t have a lot of heart” comments do I have to wade through before I get to make a Rogers joke?

by TangerinePony on Nov 1, 2011 1:12 PM CDT reply actions

That 4th and 10 last year against Ohio State

was obviously a bad defensive call. We followed every one of their recievers downfield thirty yards. So unless you expect a 260 pound d-lineman to “execute” running down one of the fastest players in the country in the open field, then it was a bad call. Line up a DB as a spy and then we can talk about “execution” when he gets the first down. Not putting players in a position to succeed is why Ferentz loses the close ones.

"The more I get hit, the more they git hit" - Marcus Coker

by Nature Boy on Nov 2, 2011 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions

Good stuff, esp this part...

Even with all that going wrong for Iowa, however, when they got the ball back with 2:48 left to go, they were still in very good shape to complete a comeback. In the generic NFL model, teams in that situation win 51% of the time, which probably is due somewhat to the quality of NFL kickers, but also to the fact that 2:48 is a lot of time. Minnesota was still doing the same stuff it had earlier — extra wide defensive ends, lots of deep zone — so the time and opportunity was there to take advantage of that defense with inside running plays. Going for passes on four straight downs meant going away from what had been a strength against Minnesota’s defense all day.

Totally agree.

You Like Twitter? Me too! Awesome Fun Time K Thanks Bye! @storminspank

by storminspank on Nov 1, 2011 1:41 PM CDT reply actions

What I take from all of this

is that Kirk is an absolutely miserable in-game coach. Kill came out with a gameplan that he wasn’t prepared for, and yet Kirk made absolutely NO adjustments to counter what the LOLphers were doing.

And seriously, Kirk need to re-think his punt/kick-off coverage schemes. On the onside kick there was a grand total of ONE IOWA GUY on that side of the field. That poor player had NO CHANCE going up against several gopher players.

From now on, Kirk needs to institute a new policy. If it’s the fourth quarter and we are ahead, just go ahead and assume the other team is going to fake punt/onside kick the ball and plan accordingly.

Also, I will be happy to give Kirk some pointers on clock management. I am no football expert, but I can do math exceedingly well. I can GUARANTEE you I will be huge upgrade in that area.

by DrHenryKillinger on Nov 1, 2011 1:48 PM CDT reply actions

Kirk is a systems coach

it’s what he is and what he does. He reacts to games after they are over, and almost in the off-season. He does not, in the middle of a game, try things he did not try in practice beforehand. He has very little faith in that approach. That’s not new. He also believes execution is the issue 98% of the time. He does not think being emotionally “up” for a game is a coaching issue. I believe he is like an NFL coach in this regard. If a kid can’t get up 12 times a year on his own, then he will be banished to the bench to rot.

I don’t see any wholesale changes. Last year we lost all our games because of two or three plays. This year our worst whipping was a 10-point loss. In his mind we who are freaking out are freaks and he laughs. He is in full-on development mode again and likely is prepared to go winless the rest of the way in his own mind.

The rubber will hit the road if he get blown out a couple times this year by 28 points or so. If that happens, he may have to face the music. But, if we lose to MSU and UM by 10 points and then to Nebraska by 14 and Purdue by less than 10 he will say, “we’ll we had a lot of injuries, lot of first time starters, and we were not that far away so we will go back to work over the off-season.” Then sign-off.

"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.

by StoopsMyAss on Nov 1, 2011 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree with all of this

and that makes me very, very sad.

by CarrollHawk on Nov 1, 2011 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions

I hate to say this, but I'm praying for us to get blown out the rest of the way

I think KF is a nice guy, but his time has passed and it would make it easier to remove him and get somebody in here who’s not in fat and happy mode…

Never *question* Bruce Dickinson!

http://www.thebirdcult.net

by The Bird Cult on Nov 1, 2011 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Bird Cult I am really shocked at this statement

I’m guessing that there is a generous amount of hyperbole in that statement. You want us to think that this Saturday when Iowa lines up against Michigan that you will be hoping for a Michigan rout. If this is how you really feel then I suppose its okay but I have a hard time believing it.

by encopresis on Nov 1, 2011 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions

No, he's been very up front & vocal about wanting KF gone for quite some time now.

"Pursue happiness... with diligence."

by Bucketochicken on Nov 1, 2011 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions

The problems that are pissing everyone off have been there for years

I honestly think had KF not had the great season in 2009… that he would be on much hotter seat that he is right now for losing Minnesota. That OB win bought him some time, but I don’t think Iowa fans will put up with 6-6 and 7-5 seasons for very much longer. Expectations are much, much higher.

If there was evidence that he was addressing those problems, I don’t think people would be so angry. I just don’t see the evidence forthcoming, so why should we waste time and money when we can get someone just as good for $4 million a year? I highly doubt we would end up with a ‘worse’ coach.

Never *question* Bruce Dickinson!

http://www.thebirdcult.net

by The Bird Cult on Nov 1, 2011 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Sadly, there is nothing incorrect in your post, SMA.

Kirk is really a big picture, look at not only this year, but next year kind of coach. We as fans are always in ‘win now’ mode, regardless of what it means for tomorrow. Where we see a dumpster fire, he sees teaching opportunities and growth potential. GRRR!!!

"No I'm not going to 'limber up'. You ever see a lion stretching before it takes down a gazelle?"

by Swarley on Nov 1, 2011 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions

But if we have the same issues

year-to-year-to-year, isn’t he just squandering those “teaching opportunities”. Lessons learned is only valuable if, you know, you actually learn the lesson.

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Nov 1, 2011 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions

You'll get no argument from me there.

"No I'm not going to 'limber up'. You ever see a lion stretching before it takes down a gazelle?"

by Swarley on Nov 1, 2011 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Unless a majority of those folks he's taught in previous years

are not fucking playing on his team anymore, due to injury, graduation, leaving team. This is where i see a majority of the defensive issues. It is hard to teach first or second year players cover-2, bend but don’t break defenses. One mistake and you’ve let the team score. A really young defensive line, teach them contain and try to pressure the mobile QB at the same time…not easy. They appear to be in contain mode, ‘cause there is no pressure. It is that pressure that causes the mistakes by the QB’s. Ask our safeties over the past 10 years how many easy INT’s they’ve gotten beacuse the QB made a bad read, cause his eyes were in the back of his head instead of downfield.

by DaaCF on Nov 1, 2011 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes, but HE's not learning from them

by which I mean Ferentz himself. If putting a 20 year-old kid in as a first-time starter in a system that requires multiple years to truly learn doesn’t work, then why are we running such a system in a sport where we will have that exact kind of repeated re-cycling. I don’t expect James Morris to come in and be a senior-year Pat Angerer type MLB, and he shouldn’t be asked to be by the coaches.

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Nov 1, 2011 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions

KIrk sees this year and last year VASTLY different

last year we lost all our games in the last 2 minutes one way or another. He sees those losses as “them the breaks.” I recall him saying at the end of last year that the previous year we won games that we could have easily lost. It’s cynical to argue this as he does, I think. He is saying “well, you play close games and inevitably you win some and you lose some.” As though he is a genius for getting Iowa to play every team closely. Kirk would tell you we are rebuilding this year. Next year after losing all our star players except Coker and Vandenberg he’ll say the same thing. Then Ruddock will become the QB and he’ll say it again the following year.

The whole thing is almost as cynical as ALWAYS electing to receive when we win the coin toss, in an effort to maximize possessions, and then making no attempt to score at the end of a half.

"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.

by StoopsMyAss on Nov 1, 2011 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Hmm

He is saying "well, you play close games and inevitably you win some and you lose some."

That might be more palatable if we actually WON some close games once in a while. Instead, we have one of the worst close game records in football.

The more accurate descrption would probably be “well, you play close games and inevitably you lose some and you lose some more.”

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Nov 1, 2011 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Well, except for 2009

When I recall being incredulous for several straight weeks that Iowa was ranked as high as it was, watching those games.

by nhradar on Nov 1, 2011 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions

2009 would be the "once in a while," I suppose.

And, yes, we won close games that year and, yes, that was awesome.

We lost quite a few of them in 2008 and 2010, though. And the record is the record: from 2005-2010 the only good program worse in close games than Iowa is Clemson. We’re currently 1-2 in those games this year, moving us to 13-21 since 2005.

The fact that we still won enough games in that span to be considered one of the top programs is a good thing and a testament to KF’s skill. But no matter how you slice it, losing 60% of your close games is a bad thing. It’s even worse when you consider that ten of those losses came against Iowa State (2), Northwestern (4), Indiana (1), Minnesota (2), and Illinois (1). Win just HALF of those games — and we were favored in all of them (except maybe the ’08 Illinois game) — and our close game record is 18-16. Still not good, but far more respectable.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Nov 1, 2011 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Losing 60% is unacceptable, particularly when you're getting killed by bottom feeders

I think college kids work much better with emotional coaches – and there’s evidence that more often than not that works at the pro level too… See what Harbaugh did at Stanford, and what he’s doing now with the 49ners – and essentially the same players in SF that were there the year before.

We ought to be thanking God he’s not coaching Michigan right now, because they’d be undefeated and ripping every team in their path a new asshole.

I don’t care if our coach is an asshole as long as the team is kicking ass – I really don’t. Hayden could be a HUGE asshole at some times, people have just forgotten about it because he is also a charming guy.

Kirk is moving into the territory of being a Belichick style asshole that doesn’t win enough games. This is very, very bad.

Never *question* Bruce Dickinson!

http://www.thebirdcult.net

by The Bird Cult on Nov 1, 2011 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions

The thing is, is.....

……that in 2009 we won a lot of close games because we had a lot of kick-ass players playing at their peak. We also had a little luck along the way, too (the IU game and UNI games come to mind).

Well, in 2010 we had talent but something was….off.

But as I once said, KF seems to TRULY BELIEVE that a three point loss is better than a 13 point loss, like getting a “leaner” in horseshoes. He’s a believer in moral victories, and I can see that maybe being okay once a year (if you lose by 1 to the #1 team when you’re crap) but you can’t have a season with five “moral victories” where you lost a lead in the 4th qtr in each of them, and then claim that at least you’re competitive. At some point, you “just have to win, baby.”

The problem with KF might be that he truly doesn’t see that there’s a problem. And that’s a problem.

"Apparently, riding Joe Paterno like a small horse is FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT!"

by The Director on Nov 1, 2011 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions

In respect to Al Davis, I should probably....

…..correctly give his famous quote, which is “Just win, baby.”

RIP Al, even though I think in the end you were kind of bad for the NFL.

"Apparently, riding Joe Paterno like a small horse is FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT!"

by The Director on Nov 1, 2011 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions

The 2005-2010 thing is so lame

Say that we are bad in close games, whatever, the data still supports that point – but Iowa was (IIRC) 5-0 in close games in 2004. Arbitrarily making 2005 the starting point for that sample paints an unfair picture of what we’re looking at.

I’ve seen this stat cited numberous times and it drives me UP THE WALL.

Jack Trice Stadium - Easily one of the Top 10 Stadiums in Central Iowa

by Not Marv Cook on Nov 2, 2011 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions

I think 2005 gets chosen because it was the beginning of a notable change in close game fortune.

Iowa was pretty good (if not very good) in close games from 2002-2004 or so, but 2009 aside, they’ve been pretty poor since then. (And in this case 2005-2010 wasn’t chosen by me, but by Bill C at Football Study Hall.)

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Nov 2, 2011 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions

also, we lost Philbin on 03

and he’s gone on to be pretty ok in the NFL. looking at our program after he left, after the players he developed left and looking at our program as Parker’s health has declined is more than fair

the twitter

by sailorjerry on Nov 2, 2011 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions

To respond to the argument itself now...

The problem isn’t in losing the close games – every study I’ve seen on this suggests that winning and losing in close games is a largely unrepeatable pattern.

The problem is in getting into close games with these teams in the first place.

Jack Trice Stadium - Easily one of the Top 10 Stadiums in Central Iowa

by Not Marv Cook on Nov 2, 2011 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions

The problem is in getting into close games with these teams in the first place.

Well, if nothing else, I think we can all agree on that point.

"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"

by RossWB on Nov 2, 2011 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Yep.

Ferentz is the Lickliter of football. It’s fun and “the way football is supposed to be played” when they’re winning, but it’s infuriatingly boring and conservative when they’re not.

meh

by tyger1147 on Nov 3, 2011 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions

Your last paragraph

I had never really thought about it that way. Now I’m even more pissed off and depressed.

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Nov 1, 2011 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions

"The whole thing is almost as cynical as ALWAYS electing to receive when we win the coin toss, in an effort to maximize possessions, and then making no attempt to score at the end of a half."

those few sentences may sum up why so many of us are so disillusioned with KF for the past few years now.

by IAinCA on Nov 1, 2011 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Unfortunately

I agree with you. This year isn’t a rebuilding year. This is a year that is somewhat down year in talent, yet has 6 starting seniors on defense and plenty of starters on offense in their 4th or 5th year in the program (Ferentz, Zus, Reif, McNutt, Vandenberg, Gettis, Herman, etc.).

Next year will be a rebuilding year.

by StevenDS on Nov 1, 2011 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions

EVERY year is a rebuilding year in college football

It is inevitable in any system that constantly cycles through players who are around for 4 or 5 years max, and often only playing regularly for 2 (maybe 3). Some years the rebuilding will be more fundamental as you have to replace more players, like this year.

That’s why its such a cynical cop-out, it will explains away anything, anytime. Except last year, when wanting better than 7-5 was just “our” expectations, not the team’s.

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Nov 1, 2011 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Ferentz kind of wants things both ways.

He wants an NFL system—and all that entails—playing with college kids. And when they screw up, it’s always execution and not schemes. “We’ll work on that, clean that up.”

But in the NFL, single PLAYS get people canned. Mike Vanderjagt misses a 40+ yarder against Pittsburgh in a playoff game and the Colts shit-can him. The Giants call a hand-off, Joe Pisarcek fumbles the exchange, Herm Edwards returns it for a TD—all in garbage run-out-the-clock-time—and the guy who called the play is shit-canned.

Kirk expects the kids to almost coach themselves on gameday, as if they are playing for a paycheck and playoff spot and no firing-up is needed. Then, when the team comes out flat, he’s stumped. He seems unable to grasp that college athletes NEED some fire on some gamedays.

Change is slow in the NFL, but in college where the talent disparities are more pronounced, people scheme in gimmicky ways all the time. Some seem to work well (Wildcat, spread schemes) and some I am doubtful of (rugby punts, weird punt formations). In NFL slow and steady often wins the race, but in college innovators sometimes gain tactical advantages until others catch up.

In the NFL, your talent doesn’t usually massively change year to year but is on a continuum. In college, you KNOW you’ve got an expiration date on each and every player. You can’t sit back and run schemes with one inferior set of players that worked with another superior set.

We could go on and on. I don’t want KF to go, but it sure might help us win a few more games if he suddenly realized he was coaching emotionally immature college kids rather than the NE Patriots, and acted accordingly.

"Apparently, riding Joe Paterno like a small horse is FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT!"

by The Director on Nov 1, 2011 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Good points, but how do you explain Jim Harbaugh's success then?

We ought to be thanking The College Football Gods that he did not get the Michigan gig, because that guy can motivate. He rebuilt Stanford into something fearsome in a fairly short period of time, he’s got the 49ners decent with the same players from last year, and I fully believe if he’d gone to Michigan instead they’d be undefeated right now and we would have NO fucking hope whatsoever for victory on Saturday.

What I’m poking a hole at is the NFL theory stuff. I think for the most part, you are correct, but coaches that are emotional and fiery – as long as its controlled and not like a Bill Lynch temper tantrum on every play – fire up their players. If we do decide to shove KF out the airlock – actually, I’m in the camp that thinks its going to happen sooner than people think – we need to go after an asskicker like Harbaugh. I don’t see Barta – if he’s still AD when Kirk is fired – picking someone like Ferentz to be our football coach – I think he learned his mistake with Lickliter and corrected it with Fran, and he’s not going to make the same mistake with football when the boosters come up with the cash to buy out Ferentz’s contract.

Never *question* Bruce Dickinson!

http://www.thebirdcult.net

by The Bird Cult on Nov 2, 2011 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions

great work, thanks

impossible is nothing

by RGates on Nov 1, 2011 1:49 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

Unmatched,, insightful,,,

I keep thinking about my job, and how I have to be accountable
I don’t get paid what Captain Kirk does
Nor do i have his responsibility
but I do get paid well for what I do
and I am accountable to my management
and my company for the results of my labors
I get this creepy feeling that part of the equation
has disappeared from the four million dollar man
The sad puppy dog look talking with dolph every week
the geez that’s football
no longer has the luster
if someone could light a fire
and bring back that desire
we all would do a lot better

Go Hawks

Long Live the Pellican Whore - like FOREVER

by OhioHawk on Nov 1, 2011 6:59 PM CDT reply actions

i think it speaks for all of us when the song says

i like the warm feeling
but i’m tired of all the dehydration.

the twitter

by sailorjerry on Nov 1, 2011 11:00 PM CDT reply actions

"EVERY year is a rebuilding year in college football"

by HawkFanGutPunch on Nov 3, 2011 9:25 AM CDT reply actions

I disagree. This year stands out as a rebuilding year because of the characters we lost. Stanzi was the leader of this team and the leader is gone. Its the intangables that we lose with these guys that is never talked about. I’ve seen alot of posts about “whos going to step up and light a fire” or some bullshit, and the answer my friends, is no one. This team lacks the charasmatic jock that inspires others to “play through the pain”. Theres no Stanzi, no Greenway, no Bobby, no Dallas, no Timmy D, etc. All these players were the same mid level recruits coming out of high school that mirror this team, but they all became great because of their work ethic and ability to rally the troops. I’d take leadership(Stanzi) over athletic ability(Christiansen) any day.

by HawkFanGutPunch on Nov 3, 2011 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions