Just saw replay of last year's Iowa-ISU game on BTN...

I just hope we don't get 72 straight hours of rain before the game this year. There is no doubt that hampered ISU more than it hampered Iowa.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that Iowa flooded Kinnick. People who say that make me facepalm. Mother Nature took care of flooding Kinnick all by herself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frak

How I see it, this is similar to when iowa lost Babineaux and Luebke. All of a sudden, LBs who everyone thought were dominant (Greenway and Hodge) didn't look so good. They were still damn good players, but they didn't make nearly as many plays as they did in prior years because they didn't have the dominant DT in front of them. I'm seeing very little pass rush out of your DTs and the DEs are more run stoppers anyway. Not to mention the wider splits are going to hamper Clayborn and Ballard from getting to Arnaud. Don't tell me that Parker is going to ask the DLs to hold OL. Honestly that is what the spread offense wants. I don't see any pressure coming...or at least not enough to affect Arnaud by the time he gets rid of the ball. I don't know that blitzing helps either, as those guys are going to need to be in coverage.

To beat ISU this year, you are going to need to rush from the DT/NG spot and score in bunches on the D. While many Big XII teams can do both, I don't think that iowa is capable of either in this game. BTW, homer, you are one of the only hawk fans not on my ignore list, so all of you other idiots need not bother arguing, I can't see your posts.

---

You must mean Matt Roth.

The way I'm reading this is that you think a key to the game will be Iowa's ability to score on defense. That's probably wrong, but that's how it looks.

Regardless, the keys for both teams will be time of possesion and turnovers. If Iowa can run the ball and not turn it over, they win. Iowa State doesn't have the depth or talent up front to take the pounding that Iowa will want to give them.

This game was just one many many many frustrating Cyclone games over the years. Chances to win, but never capitalize. Should ISU of won? Who knows? It doesn't really matter.

I really don't think Penn St was over-rated. They had an excellent team, they made a couple mistakes, Iowa played very well and Iowa won a close one at home. For that game, I would have to say Iowa was under-rated. IIt waas a classic match up of an Excellent PSU offense and an excellent Iowa defense. Iowa capitalized on the opportunities they were presented with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frak

How I see it, this is similar to when iowa lost Babineaux and Luebke. All of a sudden, LBs who everyone thought were dominant (Greenway and Hodge) didn't look so good. They were still damn good players, but they didn't make nearly as many plays as they did in prior years because they didn't have the dominant DT in front of them. I'm seeing very little pass rush out of your DTs and the DEs are more run stoppers anyway. Not to mention the wider splits are going to hamper Clayborn and Ballard from getting to Arnaud. Don't tell me that Parker is going to ask the DLs to hold OL. Honestly that is what the spread offense wants. I don't see any pressure coming...or at least not enough to affect Arnaud by the time he gets rid of the ball. I don't know that blitzing helps either, as those guys are going to need to be in coverage.

To beat ISU this year, you are going to need to rush from the DT/NG spot and score in bunches on the D. While many Big XII teams can do both, I don't think that iowa is capable of either in this game. BTW, homer, you are one of the only hawk fans not on my ignore list, so all of you other idiots need not bother arguing, I can't see your posts.

---

Frak -

I agree that abrupt changes on the DL can definitely expose LBs more. I think that goes without saying. However, I don't think that you're fully recognizing what really transpired on the 2005 Iowa D. Not only did Iowa have to replace the DTs in 2005 ... both starting DEs were noobs too! Thus, when you have FOUR all-new guys on the DL, coaches aren't in a position to play around with the roles of the different guys in order to compensate for obvious weaknesses. We didn't have veteran DEs in 2005, so we couldn't adjust the role of the DEs in order to relieve pressure on the DTs. Furthermore, Iowa didn't only have noobs at DT ... they were WAY-undersized (as in King was sub-250) and RS FR!!!

In contrast, if you look at Iowa's situation at DE, Iowa has 3 experienced/veteran DEs in Clayborn, Ballard, and Binns. Thus, automatically that gives Norm Parker something to work with there. Furthermore, it's not like the incoming DTs are nearly the noobs that King and Kroul were in '05. Klug is an experienced JR! Furthermore, while underclassmen, both Hundertmark and Daniels have quality game-experience under their belts.

Thus, the situation there is QUITE different!

Furthermore, in 2005, Iowa also had a new guy at the OLB spot (Ed Miles) ... and, quite frankly, while Miles was a pretty good LB ... he wasn't an exemplary OLB/LEO LB for Iowa. Thus, having a LEO LB out there who continued to lose contain didn't help out Iowa's young DEs ... nor did it help funnel plays to Greenway and Hodge either!

Again, in contrast, not only does Iowa return some excellent ILBs in Angerer/Hunter/Tarpinian, but Iowa also returns Edds, who is arguably the best LEO LB that Iowa has had under Ferentz. In fact, having Edds alone gives Norm a little extra freedom in how Iowa can use the DEs ... because Edds remains huge asset when it comes to contain and funneling plays to the inside!

Now, here is another place where I agree with you ... it would certainly be ideal if Iowa could rely on the DTs to get a lot of penetration in order to run the QB into a DE who is performing a controlled pass-rush (that maintains contain). However, I don't think that Iowa has that luxury because I think that the new DTs will need to place emphasis on keeping the LBs free to make plays. Thus, that will force the DEs to be less controlled in the pass-rush ... and that could open up runs to the outside by both the RB and QB ... that is, if the DEs over-pursue and/or whiff.

Anyhow, whether or not Norm really has the DTs occupy blockers will really depend on how much ISU decides to "dial up" the running game. I know that Norm will want to contain Arnaud while simultaneously collapsing the pocket. If ISU doesn't flash the threat of the run enough, I think that Norm will unleash Klug on the interior ... and he's more than capable of getting A LOT of penetration ... the problem is that that could lead to more blockers getting to the LBs ... just like you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swammi

I really don't think Penn St was over-rated. They had an excellent team, they made a couple mistakes, Iowa played very well and Iowa won a close one at home. For that game, I would have to say Iowa was under-rated. IIt waas a classic match up of an Excellent PSU offense and an excellent Iowa defense. Iowa capitalized on the opportunities they were presented with.

---

I don't know, the Vegas spread on that game was 7 points. I think by and large the perception was about right on both sides. Penn State was the better team that was certainly vulnerable to an upset with home field plus weather conditions. Iowa showed and up and delivered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al_4_State

I just hope we don't get 72 straight hours of rain before the game this year. There is no doubt that hampered ISU more than it hampered Iowa.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that Iowa flooded Kinnick. People who say that make me facepalm. Mother Nature took care of flooding Kinnick all by herself...

---

Just curious why you say there is no doubt it hampered ISU more? In what facet did it hurt ISU more than Iowa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homerHAWKeye777

Frak -

I agree that abrupt changes on the DL can definitely expose LBs more. I think that goes without saying. However, I don't think that you're fully recognizing what really transpired on the 2005 Iowa D. Not only did Iowa have to replace the DTs in 2005 ... both starting DEs were noobs too! Thus, when you have FOUR all-new guys on the DL, coaches aren't in a position to play around with the roles of the different guys in order to compensate for obvious weaknesses. We didn't have veteran DEs in 2005, so we couldn't adjust the role of the DEs in order to relieve pressure on the DTs. Furthermore, Iowa didn't only have noobs at DT ... they were WAY-undersized (as in King was sub-250) and RS FR!!!

In contrast, if you look at Iowa's situation at DE, Iowa has 3 experienced/veteran DEs in Clayborn, Ballard, and Binns. Thus, automatically that gives Norm Parker something to work with there. Furthermore, it's not like the incoming DTs are nearly the noobs that King and Kroul were in '05. Klug is an experienced JR! Furthermore, while underclassmen, both Hundertmark and Daniels have quality game-experience under their belts.

Thus, the situation there is QUITE different!

Furthermore, in 2005, Iowa also had a new guy at the OLB spot (Ed Miles) ... and, quite frankly, while Miles was a pretty good LB ... he wasn't an exemplary OLB/LEO LB for Iowa. Thus, having a LEO LB out there who continued to lose contain didn't help out Iowa's young DEs ... nor did it help funnel plays to Greenway and Hodge either!

Again, in contrast, not only does Iowa return some excellent ILBs in Angerer/Hunter/Tarpinian, but Iowa also returns Edds, who is arguably the best LEO LB that Iowa has had under Ferentz. In fact, having Edds alone gives Norm a little extra freedom in how Iowa can use the DEs ... because Edds remains huge asset when it comes to contain and funneling plays to the inside!

Now, here is another place where I agree with you ... it would certainly be ideal if Iowa could rely on the DTs to get a lot of penetration in order to run the QB into a DE who is performing a controlled pass-rush (that maintains contain). However, I don't think that Iowa has that luxury because I think that the new DTs will need to place emphasis on keeping the LBs free to make plays. Thus, that will force the DEs to be less controlled in the pass-rush ... and that could open up runs to the outside by both the RB and QB ... that is, if the DEs over-pursue and/or whiff.

Anyhow, whether or not Norm really has the DTs occupy blockers will really depend on how much ISU decides to "dial up" the running game. I know that Norm will want to contain Arnaud while simultaneously collapsing the pocket. If ISU doesn't flash the threat of the run enough, I think that Norm will unleash Klug on the interior ... and he's more than capable of getting A LOT of penetration ... the problem is that that could lead to more blockers getting to the LBs ... just like you said.

---

To me, I think that you are overplaying the experience and ability of Daniels and Hundertmark while underplaying the impact King and Kroul had. Of course, every fanbase does that. Klug had a really good game that one week, but I'm not sure what else he has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al_4_State

I just hope we don't get 72 straight hours of rain before the game this year. There is no doubt that hampered ISU more than it hampered Iowa.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that Iowa flooded Kinnick. People who say that make me facepalm. Mother Nature took care of flooding Kinnick all by herself...

---

And your evidence is????

ISU schemed to attack Iowa's O in that game ... largely because it was their best hope to win the game. For the most part it worked too ... but that's also because Stanzi was such a noob.

However, Iowa's D played their standard read and react D ... and that opens the defenders up even more to whiffs on tackles and having a slower than normal reaction time.

I suppose that your argument might be that a Greene-led rushing game should have favored from the conditions ... but then again, Greene wiped out on a number of cuts too. Furthermore, ISU was stacking the box and bringing heat ... and they greeted Greene in the backfield with some frequency. Thus, quite frankly, I highly doubt that the weather conditions favored Iowa more than ISU ....

Again, what do you have to support your contention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frak

To me, I think that you are overplaying the experience and ability of Daniels and Hundertmark while underplaying the impact King and Kroul had. Of course, every fanbase does that. Klug had a really good game that one week, but I'm not sure what else he has done.

---

Conversely, you might be underestimating the talent levels of the 2 guys replacing King and Kroul.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homerHAWKeye777

And your evidence is????

---

Um, because we lost? (Total sarcasm)

I'd say our total inability to wrap up pretty much sums up why we lost. Greene would have had an even better day without the slosh since we wouldn't have had our 12th tackler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TarHeelHawk

Conversely, you might be underestimating the talent levels of the 2 guys replacing King and Kroul.

Just a thought.

---

Ah yes, lets argue in circles.

And once again it would appear that an ISU discussion on the FB board can't go on without hawk input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frak

To me, I think that you are overplaying the experience and ability of Daniels and Hundertmark while underplaying the impact King and Kroul had. Of course, every fanbase does that. Klug had a really good game that one week, but I'm not sure what else he has done.

---

Frak -

Klug was disruptive in pretty much every game where he saw a good number of reps. FIU was clearly is "signature game" ... however, I think that his biggest highlight was his play against PSU.

With regard to Daniels and Hundertmark, I've never claimed that they're going to come in and be terrors. However, with the experience that they have under their respective belts ... they are still going to be a whole lot further ahead of the game than where King and Kroul were back in '05 ... after all, both Daniels and Hundertmark have game experience AND they're both entering their 3rd year in the program. Also, they're not nearly as undersized as King and Kroul were at comparable points in their career.

Lastly, Binns is a bit of an extra X-factor because the quality of his play offers the coaches the freedom to situationally rotate Ballard and Clayborn to the interior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bader

Ah yes, lets argue in circles.

---

You first. :wink: