A few positives.

Hayes30

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
4,053
4,686
113
37
The secondary looked good. I still think they can be a top 5 group in the Big 12. The offensive line as a whole didn't look great but I thought they did a good job pass protecting. And Allen looked the part of a complete stud like always. His and Butlers TD catches show a small sample size of the potential the offense can have 20 yards from the end zone and in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride

SwirlyBird

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2015
2,977
3,071
113
The secondary looked good. I still think they can be a top 5 group in the Big 12. The offensive line as a whole didn't look great but I thought they did a good job pass protecting. And Allen looked the part of a complete students like always. His and Butlers TD catches show a small sample size of the potential the offense can have 20 yards from the end zone and in.
Good luck getting within 20 yards of the end zone.
 

cfsivert

Active Member
Aug 30, 2013
105
54
28
Ok. Here's positives for ISU.

The game could have gone either way. Turnovers, timeout-TD at the end of the first half. All ISU needed was one TD. It didn't happen.

UNI is a top 75 (maybe better) team.
The Panthers have less $$ but never mind that. In terms of talent, grit, and guts on the field, that was a really good team that ISU almost beat last night. Thoughts like, "But an FCS school should never be able to beat a FBS school," might pop into your head. Doesn't matter. It is what it is.

ISU made a couple great catches.
Impressive. Add a run game and short yard passes and ISU will have a very good offense.

Last year's shellacking of UNI was a fluke.
I've argued before in this forum that UNI was still trying different QBs and that terrible punting made last year's game look like a cake walk. That can make ISU ho-hum and UNI out to fix their embarrassment from last year.

Beat Iowa next week.
Do it.
 

HiltonSouth

Active Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 29, 2010
625
224
43
Kansas City
Actually I thought the play calling was refreshing for a change. Now if we could've just completed the plays that were called then it would've been good.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bozclone

jsb

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 7, 2008
33,329
39,362
113
The positive for me is that they didn't pull out a win they didn't deserve.

The coaches clearly know they failed and have to adjust.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: The_Gent

cyson

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2007
2,390
987
83
Agreed. Why turn this thing around the first game and abandon years and years of warranted low expectations. It's all about consistency.
 

19clone91

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2013
2,504
1,773
113
Denver, CO
I think the play calling overall was pretty good. I think Joel made some bad decisions down the stretch, trying to chuck the ball on every pass. If you limit Joel's ego a bit (maybe chuck the ball half as much) then I think we would have won the game, specially since the two interceptions came off of terrible deep balls.
 

Hayes30

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
4,053
4,686
113
37
Bailey looked good on the line for a true freshman. Jones had a huge catch down the stretch as a freshman and it shows a glimpse of the kind of player he will be. Montgomery played as well as I expected him too.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman

NetflixAndClone

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2015
5,626
7,416
113
The State of Hockey
Here is my view on some of the positives.

1) some of those passes we saw probably wouldn't have been called under PR. He seemed to think passes in coverage were ill advised even if we have a mismatch.

2) Rush blocking was hurt by penalties. The positive in this is that penalties can be fixed. It wasn't like we completely sucked at it. What made me mad were some of the holds didn't even affect the play so we have hope in that direction.

3) pass protection was really fairly good. I only remember lanning's one sack and that was his fault. He didn't step into the pocket.

4) defense looked good.

5) We didn't quit like previous years. Our sideline was still jumping around and trying to pump up the crowd late in the fourth quarter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: khardbored

jsb

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 7, 2008
33,329
39,362
113
So you are happy we didn't win yesterday? What a fan.

Plenty of people were happy when we lost last year, right?

I just think that the turd that was that game last night would have been lessoned with a win. And I don't think that would serve anyone well.

I'll say this, I don't leave games early and I clapped for the team as they left the field last night. Something that I'm sure that you did not do.
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
33,035
29,272
113
Lazard was good as usual. I think David Montgomery is going to be a stud.... better than Warren. Warren is really good, but I think Montgomery has more of the complete package.

Ryen did a great job returning punts I thought. Was he hurt late in the game? Why did we go to Lazard back there when Ryen was doing really good?

I'm just most worried about our OL and our QB at this point. Can't win hardly any games without both of these positions playing drastically better.
 

CloneinWDSM

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2013
16,765
11,452
113
For the most part I thought our freshman looked good. Mike Johnson I thought played well as most of our secondary I thought did good. Jamahl JOhnson and Bailey played well for true freshmen.
 

SCNCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 11, 2009
10,689
8,502
113
37
La Fox, IL
I was sitting in the second deck in the endzone, so I didn't have a good view. But I thought the DL was able to get in the back field more often then we have seen in the past. They were able to rush the QB several times, which was a positive.

The biggest thing about this game was the lack of a rush game. Our passing yards on offense were about what I expected, having no rushing attach on offense is what did us in.
 

Hayes30

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
4,053
4,686
113
37
I was sitting in the second deck in the endzone, so I didn't have a good view. But I thought the DL was able to get in the back field more often then we have seen in the past. They were able to rush the QB several times, which was a positive.

The biggest thing about this game was the lack of a rush game. Our passing yards on offense were about what I expected, having no rushing attach on offense is what did us in.
They were getting in the backfield so fast that was actually a bad thing last night because they were actually over running the play and the QB was able to get good yardage because of it.
 

SCNCY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 11, 2009
10,689
8,502
113
37
La Fox, IL
They were getting in the backfield so fast that was actually a bad thing last night because they were actually over running the play and the QB was able to get good yardage because of it.

Compared to previous seasons, I would prefer we actually got in the backfield as opposed to not. The UNI QB getting a lot of yards because of it is a reflection on the LB's allowing big gains from the QB.
 

khardbored

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2012
10,238
7,581
113
Middle of the Midwest
Lazard was good as usual. I think David Montgomery is going to be a stud.... better than Warren. Warren is really good, but I think Montgomery has more of the complete package.

Ryen did a great job returning punts I thought. Was he hurt late in the game? Why did we go to Lazard back there when Ryen was doing really good?

I'm just most worried about our OL and our QB at this point. Can't win hardly any games without both of these positions playing drastically better.

Ryen got hurt on the play where he went in motion and collided in the backfield with Warren and they both fell down. Warren (fortunately) hopped up after a few seconds and was OK. Ryen never came back into the game.