CY-HAWK TALK - Spring Football Video Recap

[homerHAWKeye777]

Stanzi, no, Reisner may not even start this year, Ballard, umm King was not even drafted Kroul wasn't either, Jeff Tarpinian has not hardly played, thats a bold statement. Probably three guys from this team that that will be drafted.

If healthy, there is ZERO chance that anybody other than Reisner starts for Iowa at TE.

[tazclone]

tazclone -

You're also looking at things from a static perspective. Personnel units develop ... some at a faster pace than others. Everybody on the ISU OL already had starting experience going into the game ... some more than others.

ISU certainly did get the best of the Iowa DL in that game. However, another valid thing to consider is whether the play was all that representative of EITHER unit through the rest of the season.

ahhh, the old Iowa gets better as the seaon goes on but no one else improves excuse. that is rulle #2 of being a hok.
Seriously c'mon. The ISU OL was in a BRAND NEW SCHEME with four position changes!!!!!!!! You are honestly going to tell me that a unit that had four people changing positions, spent the Spring learning a new system, new line calls, new blocking schemes, each player learning a new position and was in their second game of a new scheme, has an advantage over four guys that practiced along side each other in the same scheme for their whole college career that had one position change? Absolutely, freaking hilarious!!!!! It is dificult to make a position chage on OL. Let alone doing it while learning a new scheme, new line calls, new splits, etc. And are you seriously going to tell me it takes longer to develop DL units than OL units? For years we ISU fans have heard about how Iowa's OL plays better later in the season because the OL takes time to develop? Now that is reversed? Whatever!!!

It was very representative of ISU's play from the whole season. They were solid the whole season. They had a couple of down games when they were battling the flu (Nebraska, aTm) and injuries(aTm, OSU) but even then they were solid. I am guessing you never watched ISU except during the Iowa game.

Iowa's DL was solid the whole season as well. They had games where they had tough battles, PSU, tOSU, NW but in all of those games they played better than against ISU.

Now tell me something. Why is it they were more consistent in every other game last year. Why is it they performed worse against ISU? I know it is hard for you guys to admit the other team might have had something to do with it but c'mon. Maybe, just maybe ISU's OL had something to do with their performance.

It is hilarious to see the typical "we get better as the season goes on" excuse for the DL. Usually that is reserved for the offense.

[tazclone]

Now that Klug and Ballard are more experienced ... I really think that Klug's quickness will prove to be a mismatch against ISU's big guys on the interior.

Similarly, I think that the relative inexperience of ISU's "new" OT will also be exploitable by whichever Iowa DE faces off against him.

homerhawkeye
"You're also looking at things from a static perspective. Personnel units develop ... some at a faster pace than others."

You are assuming that ISU's OL will not improve. I mean I guess your right. There is no way they could ever be better in their second year of a new system compared to the second game of a new system after 4 position changes.

As far as Klug's quickness...Our middle is Haughton, Lamaak and Alvarez. Haughton and Lamaak have both payed OT. I am guessing they faced guys as quick as Klug in open space when they played OT. Maybe not

but I guess I forget that Iow's players get faster while ISU's player maintain staus quo or actually get slower.

[homerHAWKeye777]

homerhawkeye
"You're also looking at things from a static perspective. Personnel units develop ... some at a faster pace than others."

You are assuming that ISU's OL will not improve. I mean I guess your right. There is no way they could ever be better in their second year of a new system compared to the second game of a new system after 4 position changes.

As far as Klug's quickness...Our middle is Haughton, Lamaak and Alvarez. Haughton and Lamaak have both payed OT. I am guessing they faced guys as quick as Klug in open space when they played OT. Maybe not

but I guess I forget that Iow's players get faster while ISU's player maintain staus quo or actually get slower.

tazclone -

Firstly, your sarcasm is not appreciated.

Thanks for the prior post reminding me about how several of the guys on the OL switched positions. However, to my knowledge, Haughton had played at the OT spot the prior season (in '08) and Stephens was a veteran interior lineman (he primarily needed to make the adjustment to also making the line calls). Also, both Lamaak and Alvarez were pretty veteran and had practiced plenty at multiple spots before.

As for the ISU OL having a new scheme ... the language may have changed some and Herman's O might operate at a faster tempo ... however, the general change in scheme wasn't a huge paradigm shift. It's not like transitioning from an exclusive cut-blocking scheme to a zone-blocking scheme.

Anyhow, my implication was that THE ENTIRE Cyclone OL had prior starting experience. That differential in experience would then get reflected in where the ISU guys would sit on the learning curve. The implication being that they'd already be AHEAD of the their Hawkeye counterparts. However, while they would be AHEAD of the Hawks ... they'd also be closer to the part of the learning curve that is more flattened. Thus, the improvements become much more about REFINEMENT rather than larger jumps in development.

In contrast, Ballard was VERY new to the DT spot and it took him the better part of the season to really get it down. Similarly, Binns and Klug had never started before. Thus, they had to transition from being situational players who would provide the team with a spark to guys who needed to be able to consistently do their jobs ... and make a significant impact while doing it. Thus, I'd argue that the guys on the Iowa DL were at a stage where the learning curve was steeper ... thereby allowing them to make somewhat larger developmental leaps.

Mind you ... CONTRARY to prior claims of yours, I was NOT implying that continued improvement is unique to the Hawkeyes. Rather, I was just pointing to the fact that development doesn't uniformly move forward. For instance, I'd assert that the ISU OL is in a much better position to make substantial strides through the 2010 season than Iowa's DL. It's simply a matter of timing and positioning. I think that the development of the young OT, Haughton's move to OG, and Lamaak's ability to make significant strides at C all contribute to my line of reasoning here. Fortunately for the Iowa DL ... they get to face the ISU OL early in the season rather than later in the season.

As for watching ISU ... I watched all the games I could.

[WalkingCY]

Iowa sucks.

[homerHAWKeye777]

As far as Klug's quickness...Our middle is Haughton, Lamaak and Alvarez. Haughton and Lamaak have both payed OT. I am guessing they faced guys as quick as Klug in open space when they played OT. Maybe not

I can appreciate the fact that Haughton may have faced guys as quick as Klug ... however, what you didn't mention is how he fared against them. Isn't that part of the reason why it's a bit more natural for him to play at OG? I certainly recall how Binns fared against him. I still like Klug's chances on the interior.

I'll grant you though ... Lamaak worries me a lot more on the interior than either Haughton or Alvarez.

[homerHAWKeye777]

Iowa sucks.

How adult of you! And to think that I was under the impression that folks actually wanted to talk FOOTBALL here!

[tazclone]

tazclone -

Firstly, your sarcasm is not appreciated.

Thanks for the prior post reminding me about how several of the guys on the OL switched positions. However, to my knowledge, Haughton had played at the OT spot the prior season (in '08) and Stephens was a veteran interior lineman (he primarily needed to make the adjustment to also making the line calls). Also, both Lamaak and Alvarez were pretty veteran and had practiced plenty at multiple spots before.

As for the ISU OL having a new scheme ... the language may have changed some and Herman's O might operate at a faster tempo ... however, the general change in scheme wasn't a huge paradigm shift. It's not like transitioning from an exclusive cut-blocking scheme to a zone-blocking scheme.

Anyhow, my implication was that THE ENTIRE Cyclone OL had prior starting experience. That differential in experience would then get reflected in where the ISU guys would sit on the learning curve. The implication being that they'd already be AHEAD of the their Hawkeye counterparts. However, while they would be AHEAD of the Hawks ... they'd also be closer to the part of the learning curve that is more flattened. Thus, the improvements become much more about REFINEMENT rather than larger jumps in development.

In contrast, Ballard was VERY new to the DT spot and it took him the better part of the season to really get it down. Similarly, Binns and Klug had never started before. Thus, they had to transition from being situational players who would provide the team with a spark to guys who needed to be able to consistently do their jobs ... and make a significant impact while doing it. Thus, I'd argue that the guys on the Iowa DL were at a stage where the learning curve was steeper ... thereby allowing them to make somewhat larger developmental leaps.

Mind you ... CONTRARY to prior claims of yours, I was NOT implying that continued improvement is unique to the Hawkeyes. Rather, I was just pointing to the fact that development doesn't uniformly move forward. For instance, I'd assert that the ISU OL is in a much better position to make substantial strides through the 2010 season than Iowa's DL. It's simply a matter of timing and positioning. I think that the development of the young OT, Haughton's move to OG, and Lamaak's ability to make significant strides at C all contribute to my line of reasoning here. Fortunately for the Iowa DL ... they get to face the ISU OL early in the season rather than later in the season.


As for watching ISU ... I watched all the games I could.

1. I used sarcasm because I think it is absolutely ridiculous that you think players in a new system and in new positions had an advantage over players that had been in the same system for their whole career and had seen significant PT.
2. You make it sound like your DL had little to no experience. Binns and Ballard played significant minutes. Ballard started quite a bit and Binns played enough to be Big Ten All Freshman DE. Clayborn started. Klug played enough to be named Big Ten defensive player of the week. 2 out of your four started. It isn't like all four were new starters. And Ballard changing positions is no different than Stephens moving to cneter and learning how to make reads, snap and then block.
3. It is harder to make a position change on the OL then it is on the DL, especially when you add in a change of scheme. While guys had experience starting, they never played the same positin consitently. So much like, Ballard having to learn, so did Lamaak, Stephens, and KO. Haughton was a starter for only 4 games and he didn't play the whole game either so he had to learn to be counted on for every snap.
4. I think you poo poo the scheme change a little too much. It is nowhere near the same offense and there are many differences besides language. Plus Stephens, while a veteran, had to transition to line calls and snapping the ball vs just blocking.

At the very least, all the changes on both lines equal out as far as experience. IMO- It isn't even close as I think it is much, much harder for an OL to gel, let alone learn a new system with 4 people in different positions. That OL has to learn each other's strengths and weakness, tendencies, etc. even thoguh they had experience playing positions, they didn't know each others strengths and weaknesses. Listening to players and coaches this spring reaffiirms that. They discuss how last year they were learning a system, learning positions, and never had a chance to refine,even through the season. This year they are refining, and inserting more.

I guess I would buy your "they got better as the season went on" argument if they didn't play well against UNI and AZ (game before and immediately following ISU). But they had pretty good games against those two teams . I mean Klug had more tackles and tackles for loss in those two games (and PSU) than against ISU. Actually better than his average. Which tells me he slowed down as the season went on. I guess he was learning against ISU but not those teams. Ballard actually had an average game against us not so much against those two teams.

[homerHAWKeye777]

[LIST=1]
I guess I would buy your "they got better as the season went on" argument if they didn't play well against UNI and AZ (game before and immediately following ISU). But they had pretty good games against those two teams. I mean Klug had more tackles and tackles for loss in those two games (and PSU) than against ISU. Actually better than his average. Which tells me he slowed down as the season went on. I guess he was learning against ISU but not those teams. Ballard actually had an average game against us not so much against those two teams.

tazclone -

I don't wish for our discourse to be a sparring match. I think that you make plenty of excellent points and I agree with many of them. That is more the reason why I remarked about the sarcasm.

Anyhow, one point that I strenuously disagree about is that the Iowa DL really didn't have that great of a game against UNI. I will agree that they had a good game against Arizona ... however, as I've repeated a few times ... they also got a good "talkin' to" by Coach K after the ISU game.

Frak and I had a great discourse prior to last season where we both agreed that Iowa's interior line would be a little soft to the inside run. Sure enough, that seemed to be the case for Iowa early in the season.

As for the alleged "trailing off" of Klug's production ... you made an interesting hypothesis. Superficially the data tells us that Klug's statistical production was down in the latter part of the season. From that data you made the hypothesis that he slowed down as the season progressed. However, interestingly enough, Klug's production is NEGATIVELY correlated with the upswing in the production of both Ballard and Clayborn. While part of that is simply due to Ballard getting to his particular role on the DL ... another part of it is that other teams were working harder to try to contain Klug. In other words, Klug was garnering more attention, and that then freed up the two guys surrounding him ... namely, Ballard and Clayborn!

If you want to see more positive evidence of this, go to Marc Morehouse's blog and check out Iowa's D-lineman drills vs the OL. Simply put, Klug was unblockable. Also, if you check out Iowa's Orange Bowl game ... who do you think Georgia Tech got called chop-blocking on? You got it ... they were trying to cut block Klug while he was already occupied with another blocker. The man received A LOT of attention from opposing OLs in the latter part of the season.

Also, by Klug's own admission, he still has a lot to work on concerning his pass rush. He's better at being disruptive against the run.

Anyhow, nowhere have I contended that ISU's OL didn't improve a lot through the season. I simply argued that there was a differential in "initial conditions" along the learning curve ... that's all.

[tazclone]

tazclone -

I don't wish for our discourse to be a sparring match. I think that you make plenty of excellent points and I agree with many of them. That is more the reason why I remarked about the sarcasm.

Anyhow, one point that I strenuously disagree about is that the Iowa DL really didn't have that great of a game against UNI. I will agree that they had a good game against Arizona ... however, as I've repeated a few times ... they also got a good "talkin' to" by Coach K after the ISU game.

Frak and I had a great discourse prior to last season where we both agreed that Iowa's interior line would be a little soft to the inside run. Sure enough, that seemed to be the case for Iowa early in the season.

As for the alleged "trailing off" of Klug's production ... you made an interesting hypothesis. Superficially the data tells us that Klug's statistical production was down in the latter part of the season. From that data you made the hypothesis that he slowed down as the season progressed. However, interestingly enough, Klug's production is NEGATIVELY correlated with the upswing in the production of both Ballard and Clayborn. While part of that is simply due to Ballard getting to his particular role on the DL ... another part of it is that other teams were working harder to try to contain Klug. In other words, Klug was garnering more attention, and that then freed up the two guys surrounding him ... namely, Ballard and Clayborn!

If you want to see more positive evidence of this, go to Marc Morehouse's blog and check out Iowa's D-lineman drills vs the OL. Simply put, Klug was unblockable. Also, if you check out Iowa's Orange Bowl game ... who do you think Georgia Tech got called chop-blocking on? You got it ... they were trying to cut block Klug while he was already occupied with another blocker. The man received A LOT of attention from opposing OLs in the latter part of the season.

Also, by Klug's own admission, he still has a lot to work on concerning his pass rush. He's better at being disruptive against the run.

Anyhow, nowhere have I contended that ISU's OL didn't improve a lot through the season. I simply argued that there was a differential in "initial conditions" along the learning curve ... that's all.

Apologize for the sarcasm. Just wish people would give ISU's OL the respect they deserve.

I have no doubt that Klug garnered more attention. That is my point. He played well early on. Well enough that teams had to pay more attention to him. So if he played well enough earlier to garner more and more attention, then I think his learning curve wasn't as steep as you think.

And while Iowa's DL didn't have a great game against UNI, they had a better game against UNI, AZ, and PSU than they did against ISU. Those games are all within 2 weeks of the ISU game. So either they learned quickly or the learning curve wasn't as steep as you think.

I understand what you are saying though. I have no doubt Iowa got better as the season went on. I also think ISU got better as they became comfortable with each other, learned tendencies, etc. While the OL had starts it isn't as simple as you claim. Lamaak had never played next to Haughton or Stephens. KO had never really played next to Alvarez. Those guys had rarely been in the line up at the same time. So like any new line, they still had to learn each other as much as the offense. I think you would agree, an OL gets better and better as they get used to playing next to each other. They learn tendencies, strengths, timing, etc. We always har this exact thing from hok fans every year as to why their OL struggles in the early season. My only complaint with McFarland was he never stopped tinkering with the OL. We hardly ever had the same starting five in consecutive games so players never had time to gel.

[homerHAWKeye777]

And while Iowa's DL didn't have a great game against UNI, they had a better game against UNI, AZ, and PSU than they did against ISU. Those games are all within 2 weeks of the ISU game. So either they learned quickly or the learning curve wasn't as steep as you think.

Do you not recall that I've sung the praises of the '09 ISU OL?

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/...a-game-18.html (Iowa Game)

Just as I'll happily concede that the ISU OL owned Iowa's DL in '09 ... I also am quite certain that Iowa's '09 DL was A LOT better at the end of the season.

I don't doubt that the '09 ISU OL improved a lot too. However, I also don't believe that there is any guarantee that they'd be able to have repeated success against the Iowa DL in '09.

Thus, while I'm certain that ISU will field an excellent OL in 2010 ... I also believe that the match-up between Iowa's DL and ISU's OL favors Iowa's DL.

[homerHAWKeye777]

Apologize for the sarcasm. Just wish people would give ISU's OL the respect they deserve.

You need not apologize ... just please recognize that I'm not a flamer. I've read enough arrogant Hawkeye posts to understand where you're coming from.

Some posters actually do deserve some modicum of respect. LOL ... not that I necessarily do!

[Schroed]

Iowa sucks.

after reading all these repetative posts, that was a refreshing taste of childishness(is that a word)

[Cybyassociation]

How adult of you! And to think that I was under the impression that folks actually wanted to talk FOOTBALL here!

after reading all these repetative posts, that was a refreshing taste of childishness(is that a word)

Please, clear the way for our mature Hawkeye friends. There shall be neither sarcasm nor fun on CycloneFanatic. I'm not sure what happened to my font there. Something happened when I typed Cyclone. It did it again. Hmmm, may you Hawks could help me out. You're natives here right?

[homerHAWKeye777]

Please, clear the way for our mature Hawkeye friends. There shall be neither sarcasm nor fun on CycloneFanatic. I'm not sure what happened to my font there. Something happened when I typed Cyclone. It did it again. Hmmm, may you Hawks could help me out. You're natives here right?

LOL! Point made! I was just a little put-off by the fact that there were the beginnings of a really interesting discourse there ... and some of those sorts of remarks can derail it.

That said ... I definitely agree that a board shouldn't be devoid of fun and whatnot.