Harty: New Kirk really isn’t much different than Old Kirk
IOWA CITY, Iowa – In case you haven’t noticed, the Iowa football team is predictable under Kirk Ferentz.
It always has been and always will be as Saturday’s Big Ten opener at Rutgers will show.
New Kirk became a phenomenon during last season’s improbable rise to 12-0 mostly because he called for two fake field goals, went for it on fourth down a few times and allowed quarterback C.J. Beathard to improvise and take chances.
But did Ferentz really change that much?
Look closer and you’ll see the answer is no.
The same guy who chose to run on first and second down on Iowa’s final possession in last Saturday’s 23-21 loss to five-time defending FCS national champion North Dakota State is the same guy whose offense didn’t have a 300-yard passing game last season, but had two games in which it threw for fewer than 100 yards.
Ferentz was asked at his weekly press conference on Tuesday to respond to criticism that Iowa was too predictable and conservative on offense against North Dakota State.
“Yeah, you probably could say that about twelve games last year, too, where we were predictable,” Ferentz said. “Hopefully, it’s not that predictable, and they (North Dakota State) did a great job coaching. There’s no question about that. But we play against good teams, good coaching staffs, and we kind of do what we do. But the whole key is you have to execute, you have to make the plays that are realistic to make. That’s the biggest key in my mind.”
A lack of execution often gets mistaken for a lack of effort, creativity and assertiveness in the wake of an unexpected loss.
That is happening now as fans try to make sense of losing to an FCS opponent. It doesn’t matter that North Dakota State is in the midst of a dynasty and is trying to win a sixth consecutive FCS national title. The Bison aren’t part of big-time college football, so they mostly just get ignored and disrespected.
The fact that Iowa ran on first and second down on its final possession for a minus-1 yard is now fodder for the Ferentz is too conservative and plays not to lose crowd.
They don’t understand why Beathard wasn’t allowed to impact the game on first or second down, as he did so often last season in nail-biting situations.
There is some justification for wondering why Iowa chose to hammer LeShun Daniels between the tackles two more times when that strategy had produced hardly anything up to that point.
But what had the passing attack done up to that point besides put Beathard at risk in the pocket? It wasn’t like Iowa had been marching through the air.
Take away a 51-yard completion to tight end George Kittle and Beathard completed 10 passes for 101 yards. He was sacked twice, but it felt like more as the blitzing Bison repeatedly found gaps in the Iowa defense.
You wonder if Ferentz was concerned about protection on first and second down because it certainly unraveled on third down as a North Dakota State safety had a clear path to Beathard on a blitz, sacking him for a loss of nine yards.
Beathard didn’t mince any words on Tuesday when asked to comment on a report by ESPN NFL draft analyst Todd McShay in which he said one of Beathard’s weaknesses is not feeling backside pressure in the pocket.
The question was asked in response to Beathard being sacked twice this past Saturday.
“Those blitzes should have been picked up by the offensive line,” Beathard said. “It’s a thing they see all the time. It’s just for whatever reason it didn’t get picked up.
“And it’s hard to see when they come off your backside. So I mean honestly, I didn’t see it at all. But I know when certain blitzes are coming. But if I feel they should get picked up, I shouldn’t have to worry about it.”
Beathard’s response was blunt, but true.
The blitzes should have been picked up, and if defenses continue to hit Beathard like the Bison did this past Saturday, Iowa is just asking for trouble.
It didn’t help this past Saturday that Iowa committed 17 mistakes on offense after combining for just 10 in the first two games.
The Bison deserve some credit for that by mixing their overages and by being on the attack from start to finish.
Perhaps the most troublesome thing about the North Dakota State loss is that the Bison were more physical in the trenches and just as fast, or faster, in space.
In other words, there didn’t appear to be much difference in talent between the two teams.
But from a predictability standpoint, some of Iowa’s best teams have been easy to read on offense. You often knew what the 2002 Hawkeye squad was about to do on offense, but it didn’t matter because the players executed and were more talented than their opponent in many cases.
The cure for Iowa’s woes is simple, but not easy: run the ball with authority in order to create play-action.
As great as Beathard was last season and in the first two games this season, you could argue that he’s only as good as his rushing attack.
Since the start of last season, Iowa has been held to fewer than 100 rushing yards in three games against Michigan State, Stanford and the mighty Bison. It is no coincidence that Iowa lost all three games because with exception to the 2004 season, it’s hard to think of a time when Iowa was successful without having a productive ground attack.
It should help Iowa’s rushing attack on Saturday that junior Akrum Wadley is getting over a knee bruise and that Rutgers is ranked 13th in the Big Ten in rushing defense, allowing 178.0 yards per games. The Scarlet Knights will be in trouble on Saturday if Iowa gains that many yards.
Iowa’s offensive line is expected to be at full strength against Rutgers with the return of junior guard Sean Welsh and sophomore center James Daniels from injuries.
So it has all the makings of a conservative and predictable rush-heavy game. But it won’t matter should Iowa prevail because winning changes how strategies are perceived.