Good News

**mustangcy** · 09-23-2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by CTTB78

Unless Army puts it on ground, we'll be doing good to have a 10 point win over a running, ball control team.

Iowa State 31 Army 21.

I think you're dead on here. I think the 10 pt spread is pretty accurate. There's no doubt that I could see this game a 3 TD win the us but these service acadamies...you just never know how your defense is going to react.

**jdoggivjc** · 09-23-2009, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by isuno1fan

This...

Our D has not seen a triple option attack. They are extremely difficult to defend (especially with a borderline defense). There is at least a chance it proves to be a good thing for Army and this thing ends up being quite the dogfight.

IF we stop their option attack, we will cover easy, but I have zero confidence we will walk in and stop a bonafide triple option team until I see it with my own eyes.

My opinion - if the Dookies can defend Army's triple option, so can we...

**BeatNavy** · 09-23-2009, 04:54 PM

fwiw, and without looking at their schedules, Duke has faced at least on true triple option team every year since 2004 (Navy each season) two last year (Navy, GT)

**Clones85'** · 09-23-2009, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

My opinion - if the Dookies can defend Army's triple option, so can we...

Touche!

The reason I am not so sure we cover is that they can do to us what the Dolphins did to the Colts the other night. They can eat up a ton of time. Now their offense isn't as balanced as the Dolphins and our offense isn't as quick scoring as the Colts...but I think the comparison is valid

**swammi** · 09-23-2009, 05:07 PM

that's it in a nutshell. The thing about the option is ball security. Option teams put the ball on the ground a lot. Oklahoma did it, but had so much more talent than everyone else 30 yrs ago, that they overcame that. Army cannot overcome TO's with superior talent. So they have a dillemma. They play option because they can't line up and knock you off the ball. That risks TO's. They try to overcome that with precision. Army is facing bad match-ups with a turnover prone offense. I really like Parker, Lyle, Garrin, Raven, Sims and James Smith vs this offense, and I love our offense vs the guys that are going to have to try and defend it. Iowa St by about 20, 34-14. Now if WE continue to turn it over in this game and give these guys a short field to work with.................but we're not going to do that. We're going to execute and we are going to secure the ball. IF we do these two things, I don't think we can lose.

**swammi** · 09-23-2009, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

Touche!

The reason I am not so sure we cover is that they can do to us what the Dolphins did to the Colts the other night. They can eat up a ton of time. Now their offense isn't as balanced as the Dolphins and our offense isn't as quick scoring as the Colts...but I think the comparison is valid

We're fixin' to find out here in about 3 days, but I don't think the talent level will be nearly as close in our game as in the NFL game you cite. I have been very impressed with the play of our DE's, LB's and Safeties. These guys are going to run them to the sidelines without letting them turn upfield. They will get nada up the middle. Add to that "they can't stop our offense" and you have a solid ISU cover.

**Cyclonestate78** · 09-23-2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by swammi

Yeah, the matchups look really good for us (except for that #82 freak). I like our outside LB's DE's and safeties against this offense. They are going to have a tough time with our offense. Again, match-ups are tough.

I wouldn't be totally shocked to see one of our taller wr's or one of our taller tight ends possibly matched up on their 6'10" receiver if they get the ball in the redzone. Maybe a guy like Zitek that has been playing on special teams? That being said I don't expect Army to get the ball into the redzone very much if at all against us.

**Melvin** · 09-23-2009, 05:46 PM

I'm not sold on AA.

If you think AA is the man, 10 pts. should be an easy cover. If you are not sure that AA can deliever the ball with Pin Point accuracy, then stay away from this game.

Kent State had a Ton of Turnovers, we can't count on Army to be that Sloopy.

**IceCyIce** · 09-23-2009, 06:42 PM

I'm putting up 2 Million to cover!! Not having the pot smoking Banks out there should help. I mean if he's hittin the doobie before the games how quick could he be? We may get someone else in there thats hungry to play not hungry after the smoke? Sorry.... I was and am very dissapointed

**swammi** · 09-23-2009, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Melvin

I'm not sold on AA.

If you think AA is the man, 10 pts. should be an easy cover. If you are not sure that AA can deliever the ball with Pin Point accuracy, then stay away from this game.

Kent State had a Ton of Turnovers, we can't count on Army to be that Sloopy.

Melvin, I hope we can count on ISU not being as sloppy as last week. We turned the ball over four times vs Kent State. We gave up 3 fumbles (fumbled 5 times but lost only 3) and 1 Int. Our guys are going to shake that ball loose from the Army option attack. They toss the ball around a lot executing the option and I think we will get our share of turn overs from it. I really think banishing the turnover demon from our offense is a key thing we have to do in this game to move forward with confidence into Big XII play.

**BeatNavy** · 09-23-2009, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by swammi

We're going to execute and we are going to secure the ball. IF we do these two things, I don't think we can lose.

True for any team, including us.

FWIW, my prediction (same as I posted on the Army boards) is (ISU score minus Army score) > 0. And, as I also posted on the Army boards, I hope I'm wrong.

**Tre4ISU** · 09-23-2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by IceCyIce

I'm putting up 2 Million to cover!! Not having the pot smoking Banks out there should help. I mean if he's hittin the doobie before the games how quick could he be? We may get someone else in there thats hungry to play not hungry after the smoke? Sorry.... I was and am very dissapointed

I would have been surprised to see him start anyway with his lack of tackling ability. We cover, no doubt in my mind. I would like to see one of our TEs on their big guy in the redzone.

**CySmitty** · 09-23-2009, 07:09 PM

[QUOTE=isuno1fan;1257809]This...

Our D has not seen a triple option attack. They are extremely difficult to defend (especially with a borderline defense). There is at least a chance it proves to be a good thing for Army and this thing ends up being quite the dogfight.

I agree! I believe will win but we are the Cyclones.