B1G 2011 // IU Point/Counterpoint
In Point/Counterpoint we’ll be identifying each team’s x-factor, and then offer arguments both in support of and contrary to the assertion said x-factor will spur the team towards glory. Today we sit back and debate the effect Indiana’s new coaching staff will have on their 2011 season.
Point: The addition of Kevin Wilson and his staff will help Indiana realize gridiron success in 2011.
This point is predicated on a very subjective notion of what constitutes success. Nobody is (or at least nobody should be, lest they be) predicting a BCS bid for the Hoosiers, but a bowl invite in Year One is realistic. A quick glance at the schedule shows at least seven winnable games. Unlike his more immediate predecessors (Bill Lynch and the late Terry Hoeppner, whose resumes included recent stops at Butler, Depauw, and Miami of Ohio), Wilson has far more big program and big conference experience. Similarly, his staff includes people hired away from the likes of Northwestern (Kevin Johns, passing game coordinator), Michigan (Rod Smith, co-OC and QBs coach), and Nebraska (Mike Ekeler, co-DC and LBs coach). A staff not only versed in the culture of the Big Ten, but also battle-tested in the trenches of heated rivalries (Michigan-Ohio State, Oklahoma-Texas, etc.), championship games, and BCS appearances, should provide Indiana an edge we haven’t seen in the program since…….well, ever. Indiana should be able to win at least seven games, and maybe even put a scare into some of the heavy hitters on their 2011 conference slate.
Indiana is Indiana: expect everything from basketball, get nothing from football. Right? While the new coaching staff looks nice on paper, the unknown variables pose a set of questions that appear to have unsavory answers. Wilson and Johns will be deploying the spread offense that places an inordinate amount of pressure on a quarterback to make the right decision. Not only is there no Sam Bradford waiting in the wings, they must also find a replacement for Ben Chappell. Adding insult to injury, standout receiver Tandon Doss opted to forego his final year of eligibility and declare for the NFL draft, leaving an already hamstrung offense in an even worse position.
*h/t to Chadnudj for a few pointers on the Wilson offense
|
This week... |
|
TUESDAY | Point/Counterpoint |
|
WEDNESDAY | 4th and 3 |
|
THURSDAY | OTE Potluck |
|
FRIDAY | Keeping the Enemy Close - Rival Blogger Interview |
42 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
2000 Northwestern and the RichRod Michigan teams
had success with the spread (for all of RichRod’s problems, they weren’t on the offensive side of the football, at least not with getting yards and points.). Penn State used a sort of Wing-T spread with Robinson and Clark to the tune of Big Ten Championships. 2000 Purdue is not some strange outlier.
I've got the brains. You've got the looks. Let's make lots of money.
That's one of the unchallenged fallacies.
Look at how RichRod’s offense performed against the cream of the Big Ten. Racking up yards and points against UMass and Bowling Green doesn’t mean squat if you can’t manage to put up anything against Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, or even Michigan State. Northwestern in 2000 is also an aberration (like Purdue), being a two-loss conference champ (along with Purdue and Michigan)- something that’s only happened three times in the last fifty years. Yes, the 2008 Nittany Lions sprinkled in some read option, but that’d be like claiming Wisconsin is a pass-first offense because they now throw it upwards of twenty times per game (or twenty times per quarter in the biggest game of the season….. damn you, Paul Chryst…) The spread will let you make hay against the middle of the Big Ten Conference, but it’s not going to help you break to the top.
by Ricardo Efendi on Apr 12, 2011 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Michigan State was the first good defense that Michigan faced, and Denard had two backbreaking INTs thrown into MSU’s endzone. Michigan scored 17 points. Iowa saw Denard go out of the ball game, and Tate wound up leading the team to 28 points. Penn State had 31 points scored on them by Michigan. Wisconsin surrendered 28 points to Michigan. Ohio State was really the only game that they didn’t “manage to put up anything”
These aren’t great numbers by any means, but they aren’t bad, it’s just that the defense was so terrible that Michigan probably needed to put up fifty to win those games. The offense was also hurt by typically horrible field position and the total lack of anyone who could kick a ball through the uprights. This was also a young offense, and only one full time and one part-time starter left. RR’s offense was good, but it wasn’t great, and when the defense played so badly…
Maize-Colored Glasses: Polynomial-centric B1G Recap: Part I
This is true
but I wonder if you can put Denard into the Drew Brees outlier category. There is no question he’s a phenomenal athlete, even if he seems to be just an ok QB. Can Indiana get a guy with truly high end skill to run the offense? If they only have a guy who is good instead of great (either as a running or passing threat), is that enough?
It never gets to be easy.
Why the fuck doesn't it ever get to be easy?
by chitownhawkeye on Apr 12, 2011 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
True
Antwaan Randle-El is probably the exception that proves the rule.
To answer your questions, no, they can’t get a guy like Denard or Brees without an amazing stroke of luck, and if they have a guy that’s good instead of great on a consistent basis, their ceiling will be approximately where Northwestern’s at now.
Maize-Colored Glasses: Michigan's Season in 35 Sentences
…and if they have a guy that’s good instead of great on a consistent basis, their ceiling will be approximately where Northwestern’s at now.
So 3 Big Ten titles in 15 years, a Rose Bowl appearance, and consistently beating Iowa?
I think Indiana might just take that….
Hey, Illinois fans were dreaming of that before this season...
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Apr 13, 2011 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions
They've got a couple of young kids who
On paper, any way, seem like they might be pretty good. Ed Wright-Baker is more of a run-first quarterback in the mold of ARE. Dusty Kiel looks like he’s a better passer than Baker, but a better runner than Chappell was. I liked Chap, and he had a cannon for an arm. But he made some bad decisions, and his lack of mobility really made the offense pretty one-dimensional at times (even though it was a dimension that they executed pretty well). The offense needs to have more balance to it for the team to have success — which, as the article properly notes, should be defined as a winning season and bowl berth, not a BCS invitation. If the young QBs can develop and be utilized properly, the offense should be more balanced.
by hoosierdaddynow on Apr 13, 2011 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
In how many of those games did they throw up big points in the second half after they were already being blown out? Last I checked Michigan scored a whopping zero points against Wisconsin in the first half, only putting up numbers when Wisconsin was backing way off and basically surrendering ten yards per play in exchange for a running clock. Iowa jumped out and Tate likewise put up points against a team willing to cede yards. So I believe my point still stands.
Now, like other Michigan fans have pointed out to me (and I hear it all the time given that I regrettably have to spend most of the year in Ann Arbor), the defense was a sieve. And it was. But the pace RichRod’s offense plays at only hurts them that much more and provides almost no support. Rare is the clock-killing drive that allows the defense to get a blow. This is especially important when you’re in a conference like the Big Ten where the league’s best love to shove it down your throat. Because the offense is looking to put pressure on the other defense, the Michigan defense is left exposed. Sure, score quickly against Wisconsin when they’re in a prevent. They’re going to come right back and run the ball 8000 straight times against you. And you’re defense can’t do a thing because, once they get back to the sideline, they’re running right back out. And if the offense fails to score? The problem becomes that much worse.
by Ricardo Efendi on Apr 12, 2011 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think you can discount an offense's performance against certain play-calls
after all, Michigan still scored pretty consistently against a defense that was trying its best to stop them (you’re almost insinuating that Wisconsin and Iowa were willingly conceding touchdowns so they could get the ball back). Michigan found a groove in the second half after slow starts (which are problems in and of themselves), and played really well late in games on offense.
Michigan really did try to assert itself and “shove it down your throat” and they did it well against Purdue, but long touchdown plays, and frequent turnovers/backbreaking drops aren’t going to help control the TOP. When Roundtree doesn’t have anybody within 15 yards of him down the middle, Michigan’s going to score quickly. When Denard throws a bad pick, the defense is going to get back on the field. I can assure you that this is all irrelevant, because the defense was putrid regardless if they had ten minutes of game time on the sideline or ten seconds.
Maize-Colored Glasses: Michigan's Season in 35 Sentences
Concede touchdowns, no.
But certainly they relax and play less aggressively. This explains in large part why “they found their groove” in the second half of blowouts.
by Ricardo Efendi on Apr 12, 2011 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Playing less aggressively and coaching to prevent the big play are a little different. Most of Michigan’s scores, drives, success, whatever was on big plays against Iowa and Wisconsin FWIW.
Maize-Colored Glasses: Michigan's Season in 35 Sentences
Actually, a good portion of them came on short fields.
by Ricardo Efendi on Apr 13, 2011 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions
RichRod's offense is the outlier, in some respects, much more than Purdue
He was able to pile up ridiculous yards and points against bad to awful defenses, but against disciplined defenses that had a shred of talent, they were stymied.
At least Purdue’s spread with Drew Brees and the guys that followed him were pretty competitive, and even good defenses struggled to stop them more often than not. Same for Northwestern, but to a lesser extent than Purdue’s offenses.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
ya know, Indiana week just doesn’t move people to comment. That’s sad.
Let’s start a debate then: Godfather 1 or Godfather 2, which is the better movie? I say G2 with De Niro walking on rooftops, the Fredo kiss of death, Pacino becoming the biggest star in the world at that time…
I found it a lot easier to get caught up in the story of the original Godfather though. Michael’s descent from war hero to mob lord is captivating.
by HawkeyedFrog on Apr 12, 2011 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Maybe it’s a question of what you like watching more – Michael losing his soul, or Michael battling to keep some fragments of his soul…
There is no better acting job than when Michael explodes at Kay after the “it was an abortion, just like our marriage” comment.
by grahamfiller on Apr 12, 2011 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
But the key is, Michael didn't think he was losing his soul
as much as he thought he was saving, then helping, his father.
That hospital scene when he moved the bed to hide it and then talked to his father…one of the best scenes in movie history.
With the 12th pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select...
G1 was definitely better
The characters in G1 were a bit more relatable, and played by some of my favorite actors — Vito, Tessio and Sonny were all likeable despite their flaws. In G2, Michael was a jerk, Kay was a victim and Connie, what can you say about Connie?
Plus, G1 had some of the best lines: “Luca Brazi sleeps with the fishes.” “Leave the gun, take the cannolis.” Gotta love it!
Godfather 1=more compelling cinema (Michael doing what was necessary at the hospital, knocking off the Turk and the police chief in the restaurant, baptism time killings, etc)
Godfather 2=better story (prequel in a sequel, more developed characters, etc)
Godfather 3=never happened
by Ricardo Efendi on Apr 12, 2011 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
what's the godfather 3?
anyways, I choose G2 because De Niro takes it to another level, climbing over rooftops with the theme music playing in the background and the crowd below…but Godfather 1 has become more iconic because of obvious reasons. No question the wedding scene is the most famous opening scene of all time.
by grahamfiller on Apr 12, 2011 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Godfather 3 really isn't that bad
As a stand-alone movie, it’s still better than a majority of the stuff out there. It’s only fault is that it is measured in comparison to the first two Godfathers, movies to which it can’t possibly hope to measure up to, and doesn’t.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
well. G3 trotted out all these new characters who didn’t have any depth or intrigue…or acting chops.That was the crime.
by grahamfiller on Apr 12, 2011 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions
One, ONE "actress" was a poor choice
but it’s not like nepotism in Hollywood was some new problem. But really, G3 wasn’t that bad, it just didn’t belong in the same continuity of the first two.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
No, it was terrible all the way around
It was as bad as Rocky V
"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."
Sort of like Star Trek V?
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Apr 12, 2011 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Was that the Save the Whales one?
If so, yeah.
"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."
Actually, that was one of the better ones
V was the idiotic desert “plot”, or lack of it.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Apr 12, 2011 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions
i liked rocky balboa
first 20 minutes were actually pretty damn straightforward, showing beat up old rocky in unflattering light…
Off Tackle Empire
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Graham Filler on Apr 12, 2011 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions
You’re going to have these questions in anyone’s first year as head coach. Remember how well Tim Brewster’s first year at Minny went? (Also, don’t bother with the Kevin Wilson is no Tim Brewster comments… I get it, I’m just sayin’.)
I think it’s fair to say that even if the coaching staff does a decent job of getting the players up to speed, a team like ________ (insert school with new coach here), almost always ends up losing a game or two that you don’t think they should just because of mistakes, communication breakdown, etc. But if the coach is amazing, and he and his staff do an outstanding job, they may be able to steal a game or two that they weren’t otherwise expected to win.
"We're talking about unchecked aggression here, Dude."
Off Tackle Empire
The Daily Gopher
The Wilson hire is curious
from this Hawk fan’s perspective. Seems like a defensive minded coach would be better suited to elevate the Hoosiers. Maybe IU felt Wilson was the absolute best available coach? Maybe IU felt giving up 83 points in a football game is OK?
Of course a Wilson led Hoosier football team doesn’t need to prepare any differently for Iowa, dammit.
"GO HAWKS!" - only cure for Hawkeye Envy
Am I going to have to address this in every thread? This remains an odd idea, the idea that because IU’s previous coach had decent offenses and bad defenses that the new coach has to be a “defensive minded coach.” Why? There’s nothing in the water in Bloomington that makes good offense a given. A defensive-minded coach could lose a bunch of games 21-3 instead of 83-20. Why would that be better? Why can’t an offensive-minded coach win at IU? “Because the last coach had an offensive background, and he lost” seems to be your position. Well, it’s IU. We’ve had some defensive-minded coaches who lost, too.
The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Apr 12, 2011 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I thought Bill Lynch had things moving in the right direction
especially from a recruiting standpoint. Yes they had some embarrassing losses but they were so close to being bowl eligible recently. If they go to a bowl, Lynch is still the guy.
Ever Grateful. Ever True.
I'm not sure Lynch had the temperment to ever cross the threshold
At some point during almost any game, you could expect Lynch to go ballistic over a blown call (whether real or perceived, often real) and completely check out mentally from the game, as he would still be harranguing the refs two quarters later about a call in the first half. More importantly, you could look at Indiana’s players and know that they knew their coach had checked out of the game and a feel a palpable sense of dejected resignation overcome the team.
That said, I’m not sure Wilson is the right hire, either, in terms of getting Indiana to consistently be an upper-half of the league team. I think they went with the biggest name that was available to them. But that carries the problem that he is likely to leverage any success he has at Indiana to a better job elsewhere almost immediately. Going off of the earlier thread about the coach who had the most impact in the league, the only acceptable answer is Hayden Fry, or possibly Barry Alvarez. And the reasons they were so successful is that they stuck around after building their teams up, they didn’t simply bolt for a better opportunity but rather stayed, created an Iowa/Wisconsin “family” of coaches and players and instilled stability in two programs that were sorely lacking. Now, maybe Wilson has some success and stays at Indiana, but I kind of doubt it. Indiana, more than anything, needs a coach who will be there for 7-10 years, not one that the most you can hope for is 4-5 years.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
I guess I’ll have to address this in every thread, too. If Kevin Wilson leverages his success at IU into a better job in 4 years, then he will be the first IU football coach to do so since Bo McMillin became the Detroit Lions’ coach in 1948 (Sam Wyche left to become the Bengals’ coach after one season, but that was based on his NFL resume, not his 3-8 record at IU). Every other coach has been fired, forced out, or dead.
I would prefer that Wilson win big and that he stay at IU for a decade or more. Still, if he does enough at IU to earn a more prestigious job, then I’ll be thankful for his success and for leaving the program in better shape than how he found it.
The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Apr 12, 2011 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
What exactly are we expecting Wilson to do here?
I don’t make these comments to be derogatory toward IU football or its fans but we are talking about the historical doormat of Big Ten Football.
IU has a losing record in conference all time as well as a losing record against every other team in the conference (Indiana will have a winning record against UNL once they join for ever long that lasts). It’s really not even close as the “closest” series IU has is against NU and they are 10 games back in that one.
That being said, if you point at the “resurrections” of Fry at Iowa in the 80’s, Wisconsin in the 90’s under Alvarez , or even Schiano at Rutgers as some sort of model on what is possible, all those schools have a state to themselves for recruiting. IU shares Indiana with two other DI schools (one albeit that recruits on a national level). KSU may be a better model on what is possible, but nobody except for Bill Snyder seems to be able to win there (and it remains to be seen how this stint turns out for him).
So I’ll ask again, “What are we expecting Wilson to do here?” I don’t want to say it’s always been this way, so it will always be this way, but it really seems like the deck is truly stacked against IU football. If Wilson gets to a bowl, he gets a contract extension. If he wins a division, he’ll probably get a statue.
That's a fair question
The perception that IU is a basketball-mad school that does not really care about football is, well, pretty accurate. There are dedicated football fans — as a kid, my family had season tickets throughout the 80’s — who are knowledgeable. And the fanbase as a whole can get worked up when there is some success, as there was for a period during Bill Mallory’s tenure. But, even then, if Cody Zeller burps, we are all distracted. And, as you have noted, there are geographical challenges to climbing up off of the doormat.
We expect respectability from Wilson. More specifically: (i) develop a hard-nosed and tough identity for the program; (ii) be consistently competitive in the Big Ten; and (iii) once every five years or so, make a serious challenge for the division and conference crown. Whatever division we are in. Are we in the “Why is Wisconsin Here” division?
I think that those are the next steps from where Bill Lynch brought us. For what it is worth, Lynch left the program in better shape than he found it, and should be commended for that. As noted by HoyaGoon above, though, Lynch had pretty much done all that he was wired to do. Good guy, but not the one to take the program to the next level. Which, again, is respectability, not dominance.
by hoosierdaddynow on Apr 13, 2011 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions

by 































