[rdubbs]

Originally Posted by Cydole

i agreed with almost all of Matt's points about the game. i even said as much to the people next to me at the game and the tailgate afterwards. The game basically became irrelevant after the 2nd turnover in the 3rd Q.

Iowa's defense was great Saturday and probably will be the rest of the year. But don't confuse that with the offense being great. They did a good job of capitalizing on good field position and running over our defense late in the 3rd through the end of the game.

Simply put, I think matt's comments are falling on deaf ears since the hawks won by a large margin. i think people are looking more at the score than how the teams played. If opponents don't give Iowa a short field and they dare Stanzi to beat them, they (opponents) will be successful this year.

My advice to matt, save the tape from yesterday, play it back after Iowa's next loss or two and see if they agree with you then.

100% wrong. Matt is failing to give Iowa any credit for scoring on the turnovers they caused. He has said that AA gave things away and failing to give the Iowa defense any credit which makes no sense. Saying that 2nd half stats don't count is by far one of the dumbest things I've ever heard a sports talk host say, it was 14-3 at the half and ISU was still in the game. Not giving Iowa any credit and calling it a game of two bad teams is just being disrespectful to the two teams and the efforts that were put out on Saturday.

[Frak]

Originally Posted by gogagig

Why do you think he had time? Hint: It's not because the O-Line was giving him superb protection.

Oh, so you think that iowa's DL just sat there? In season's past, all iowa needed was the 4 DLs to get a pass rush. That didn't happen. I watched Osemele dominate Clayborn all day. Oh, and thanks for the hint *******.

I don't know why the squawks win and we're all supposed to bow down to their superior FB prowess. They looked like crap, played against a QB who was locking on to his WRs and made him pay for it. Then in the 2nd half piled up the yards against a tired D. Sorry, but that was a gift, not an impressive win. Be happy with your win and move the f on.

[mizouse87]

My God can we all just move on now?

[ISUonthemove]

I get the point Matt was trying to make. It's the fact that Kent State could have beat us by 30 points if we turn the ball over 6 times to them. And most of the turnovers (I'd say 4 out of 6) were absolutely gift wrapped. Iowa did nothing to cause them. Just like Iowa State did nothing to cause 2 of Stanzi's INTs.

I think because of that, he is saying we still do not know a lot about how good or bad Iowa might be.

[ISUFan22]

Originally Posted by RossHallHero

It was funny because his points were fairly absurd in most cases and he contradicted himself about 30 times, which seems to be the norm for him.

Poor Kenny. Poor, poor Kenny.

He's stirring the pot right now, but doesn't appear to have the intellectual horsepower to pull it off.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Sportstalkmatt

What about Brady after last night Ross? :)

Originally Posted by rdubbs

But you can't count the 2nd half Matt

Zing!

[Wingback]

The bottom line is that Iowa won this game going away. It was close through the first 15-minutes but in the second half, Iowa clearly showed their superiority.

Yes, Iowa State turned the ball over six times which will keep you from beating anybody. But to insinuate that some, if not most, of those turnovers were not created by Iowa's defense is purely sour grapes. I would agree with some of the Iowa fans' assertions that Norm Parker is a very good defensive coordinator. Past history certainly points to the fact that he is. You need to remember that sometimes things appear to be "gift-wrapped" because of disguises thrown at the offense by the secondary.

Is Iowa a great football team? I think not. In my estimation, they will probably lose at home to Arizona this Saturday and will end up probably an 8-4 type of team.

But not to admit that, at least this year, they are not far superior to Iowa State is simply an overdose of Kool Aid.

[Cydole]

The ISU OL gave up zero sacks and 1 hurry. They also gained 190 yards on 34 carries. Sacks and hurries usually go hand in hand with interceptions. I think its fair to say that it was more about decision making than anything else.
Does Iowa get credit for that? Yes, just not as much as you think

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by Cydole

The ISU OL gave up zero sacks and 1 hurry. They also gained 190 yards on 34 carries. Sacks and hurries usually go hand in hand with interceptions. I think its fair to say that it was more about decision making than anything else.
Does Iowa get credit for that? Yes, just not as much as you think

See, I disagree. Iowa gets plenty of credit for realizing that we were going to throw the ball downfield all game and sticking two safties back in center field and wait for the overthrown passes to come in. They bet the farm on this strategy and it paid off because we didn't change our strategy to force them out of Cover 2.

[DaddyMac]

Seems pretty simple to me.

ISU lost this game as much as iowa won it, IMO. AA made horrid decisions the entire day. Continually throwing into double or triple coverages, bad passes, etc. Now maybe iowa "disguised" that well. But an experienced and talented QB that we think we have in AA should recognize that better. At least after, say... the second pick.

Why, oh why we INSISTED on leaving the run game so often is a mystery to most - as it was to the commentators during the broadcast?

The decisions by some of the players as well as the coaches on O was baffling for most of the game. The onside kick in the first quarter.... very McCarney-esque.

I applaud the D. 35 seems like a ton - but they were in IMPOSSIBLE situations and, although I refuse to look at the stats - they seemed to be out there all day and continually defending a short field. Aside from a few stupid and/or unfortunate penalties -their play exceeded what I could've hoped for.

In the end - we pretty much handed iowa a good chunk of their points. Can't take anything away from them. The better team capitalizes on mistakes. They had plenty themselves - and we did nothing. They put up points on ours.

[Sportstalkmatt]

How come me saying the game was over after the 3rd turnover means THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF of football is not relevant? Isn't that beyond ridiculous? You can disagree with me all you want but I never said that THE SECOND HALF doesn't count...I said the 2nd half of Iowa vs. Iowa St. was not something I would stand up and applaud if I were a Hawkeye fan and just because they ran on a tired D doesn't mean they have fixed their running game....big difference no?

[rosebowliowa]

Except that you did say the second half didn't count.

I think the reason you were so polarizing yesterday (besides the fact that people are always on edge the Monday after the Iowa-ISU game) is that you didn't just say that the game didn't prove that Iowa was a great team, you went so far as to try and prove that Iowa was a bad team. Neither case can be made at this point in the year.

It was a big win for us on the day over a rival. We looked much better than the first game and that generates excitement in the fan base. I don't know where you got the idea that Iowa fans think this makes us a great team.

You talk about the running game as if Iowa played a power run attack all game and struggled. Iowa came out with a pass attack and then, as you said, gained some yards as we closed out the win later in the game. None of that means the running game is broken or fixed. Iowa fans liked the way our runners looked on Saturday, especially vs. how they looked against UNI. It was also the first live action we've seen of Wegher. Again, there's hope and excitement in the fan base. That's what fans do.

Then again, I can't really blame you, because hyperbole and knee-jerk reactions are what sports yakkers do.

[Gitwitit]

Originally Posted by Sportstalkmatt

How come me saying the game was over after the 3rd turnover means THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF of football is not relevant? Isn't that beyond ridiculous? You can disagree with me all you want but I never said that THE SECOND HALF doesn't count...I said the 2nd half of Iowa vs. Iowa St. was not something I would stand up and applaud if I were a Hawkeye fan and just because they ran on a tired D doesn't mean they have fixed their running game....big difference no?

It was 14-3 at half and the game was still in reach. Iowa played very well in the 3rd quarter to seal the game. Why wouldn't you applaud their 3rd quarter effort? You act like the game was 35-3 at half time and the reserves were on the field. If that were the case I would agree with you. Obviously you don't take much away from the 4th quarter but it's still nice to get some inexperienced guys on the field.

[Cydkar]

Originally Posted by Wingback

But not to admit that, at least this year, they are not far superior to Iowa State is simply an overdose of Kool Aid.

They very well may be but what happened on Saturday showed everyone very little about Iowa, frankly. Arnaud didn't allow us to learn much about ISU either.

[DolphLundgren]

Originally Posted by Frak

Oh, so you think that iowa's DL just sat there? In season's past, all iowa needed was the 4 DLs to get a pass rush. That didn't happen. I watched Osemele dominate Clayborn all day. Oh, and thanks for the hint *******.

I don't know why the squawks win and we're all supposed to bow down to their superior FB prowess. They looked like crap, played against a QB who was locking on to his WRs and made him pay for it. Then in the 2nd half piled up the yards against a tired D. Sorry, but that was a gift, not an impressive win. Be happy with your win and move the f on.

You and Matt should hang out and kiss. You're both so short-sighted that you might be the only two people in the crowded room. How romantic.

[hard2clone]

Matt's an idiot and makes all Cyclone fans seem dumber than we really are.