Matt is actually making some good points for the Cyclones, and attempting to fight off some arrogant Hawks. I actually agree with what he has been saying.
Matt and Miller getting pretty heated
- Thread starter Rods79
- Start date
Did you agree with him when he said Iowa didn't win the game in their first segment? Those were his exact words.
What is it you agree with?
I'm not listening but didn't a lot of Hawks say Iowa beat themselves in the Drew Tate Knock-Out game?
What I agree with is that we saw a terrible performance on Saturday from both teams, and that the one that was less bad, ended up winning the game. Basically he is saying that he wasn't impressed with Iowa's performance, and that there was a lot of junk given up by Arnaud/ISU's offense that Iowa gained advantage from, and had that not been the case, we're looking at a different game. Not trying to make excuses, because Iowa beat us fair and square, but Iowa is not the world-beating team that some of the Hawk fans are now making them out to be because of the point margin. Also, a lot of the callers are bringing up the past, and the whole "we get better as the season goes along", which Matt is not buying (and I don't buy either, as a new season is a new season, period).
Just interesting conversation.
Just interesting conversation.
A lot of callers are also calling in and pointing out that Matt is new here, "so what would he know about Iowa Football", dumb arguments.
I wasn't aware that Iowa's job on Saturday was to impress Matt Perrault. Look, Stanzi played like **** in the first quarter and missed a 3 or 4 wide open receievers (especially on Sims second pick, Stanzi just air-mailed that one). Second, I don't think any Iowa fans are making them out to be world-beaters - this one isn't, and I know that Iowa had the advantages of some short fields and some questionable (in hindsight) decisions by the ISU coaching staff.
I also find it interesting that Matt can say that it was still a game at halftime (which I agree with) but refuses to give Stanzi any credit whatsoever for putting the game away in the 3rd with 1 more touchdown pass.
Your last statement is pretty laughable, and demonstrates an amazing lack of knowledge about Iowa football under Ferentz. Even in his 1st year, that team was playing much better football at the end of the season than the beginning. Last year was the same way, and even the 2007 team won 3 straight to get to 6-5 before the W. Michigan debacle. Even the most partisan Cyclone fan would admit that Iowa teams under Ferentz typically get better as the year goes on.
To that point Austen doesn't go from the best QB in the state to that without the defense making him. Certainly the throws were bad, but the coverage and scheme made it that way. Just don't see many orher fanbases use their own ineptness as means to take credit away from the opposition.
Good point. It's easy to say that the 6 turnovers did more to contribute to the Iowa win than any other factor, but at the same time you have to admit that Norm Parker is pretty damn good coach, and was playing mind games with Austen all afternoon.
Lord knows we Iowa fans used the "we handed you the game" excuse after the 2005 game.
You know it's funny. I look at the game and say that our line may have won the battle up front on both sides of the ball and yet we still got beat 35-3. How did that happen. Well Parker put together a great gameplan. Iowa's DB's played great football and Arnaud played right into what they were trying to do. I've never felt as if one player ever cost us a game more than I did on Saturday. He was just beyond awful. Worse than his 4 INT's stat sheet shows IMO
What is laughable is using the past to define the season. That statement should be true for any team, technically...you should get better the more you practice and play in real game situations. To use that as a basis of how this team will do is idiotic. I don't care about the records of season's past, because that doesn't hold anything to what will happen this year.
And for the record I wasn't calling you out, THH. There are knowledgeable Iowa fans out there.
Perrault sounded a lot like someone who belongs on the old rivalry board over at CycloneReport.
He sounded like an absolute bitter moron.
He sounded like an absolute bitter moron.
That's pretty much what I thought listening to his first segment...he refused to give Iowa credit for anything other than having a good defensive gameplan.
I wonder what it was that he was expecting see on Saturday?
Perrault is a not stupid. He knows they can't come go on the radio today and talk about the game like all the other shows have done. It's absolutely contrived and Kenny has repeatedly called him on his statements all show long. Most clone fans would agree I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot and ISU had won in the same way. Whether Perrault wants to admit or not he is no different than Marty. He's a d-bag and really no credibility when analyzing Iowa football.
I think the one big point that was completely missed was Stanzi's play in the first half during both the ISU and UNI games. I will admit, Stanzi's play in the pocket hasn't been seen at Iowa since Brad Banks, but if the Hawks want to be players in the Big 10 they need Stanzi to play a more complete game and not just turn it on in the second half. Arizona is going to be a big game for Stanzi to be the player Hawk-fans (or at least Ken Miller) think he is.
