A little perspective concerning Iowa's D

H

homerHAWKeye777

Well-Known Member
Too many fans are looking at the following numbers:

44 points and 473 yards

If that were accrued against our D in 4 quarters .... I'd be concerned. I'd be even more concerned if it were accrued against our D late in the season.

Instead, against ISU, we saw a reasonably inexperienced D ... a D with even a number of critical parts either out or dinged (Lowery and Bernstine out .... Nielsen, Davis, etc dinged) end up giving up:

24 points through 4 quarters
and
398 yards through 4 quarters

Was that a good performance? No! Too many missed tackles. Several missed assignments. However, the guys still played hard.

However, was it a good enough performance to win? ... I think that it could have been. Had Vandenberg been a bit sharper ... like we know he can ... then our D would be off the field longer and the Hawks likely score more points.

People can second guess things all they want ... but it simply doesn't help the TEAM nor does it help the program. Furthermore, such rampant and sometimes mindless negativity can sometimes find its way into the locker room ... and if that happens ... then curtains on the season. I don't think ANY of us want that!

I have confidence that the O will continue to improve.

However, more importantly, I also have confidence that the D will continue to improve. Hopefully fans can be equally patient and enjoy this wonderful game ... and our wonderful team.

Anyhow, see ya at the Pitt game!
 
Homer, I agree with the gist of your post. A young and somewhat dinged up defense playing on the road, and Vandeberg having an off day were most of the reasons for the loss. That said, I really believe that much of the criticism of KF's game management was warranted. I'm ready to move on and think a good performance against Pittsburgh will heal a lot of the wounds.
 
Last edited:
Along this line, there were three plays that accounted for almost 100 of the 398 in regulation and all were at critical junctures. The jailbreak screen that prater missed a tackle that went for 40yds, the 3rd and 15 that got 20 yds, and the 3rd and 20 that got 35 yds.

If you look at these plays, they were the game changers. This was a repeat of our issues last your IMO as we could get off the field on third down and the offense dictated the tempo. After watching the game again, we did blitz more than I originally thought, but it was us always disguising and the blitzer was coming from a distance. I'd like to see us get in their face and back out once in awhile...and try to disguise from an aggressive stance, rather than surprise. Maybe have our defense dictate what the offense does.
 
I have posted this on another thread but I would like an opinion about why at some points it looks like our D line goes from rushing the QB to containing him from running. Thus giving him more time to throw the ball. I understanding containing the play from a DE position but it some time looks like the DTs are doing it too. Are they that afraid of over pursuing? And is that something that is coached or something they just need to get over?
 
Last edited:
Good point.
Watching the LSU defense tonight: wow are they good. Alabama maybe even better. We have much room for improvement and barring injuries we will improve. That said, the talent difference between us and the good SEC teams is large at this point.
 
I don't know how anybody can defend Iowa's defensive performance in the fourth quarter of the last six losses.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
Along this line, there were three plays that accounted for almost 100 of the 398 in regulation and all were at critical junctures. The jailbreak screen that prater missed a tackle that went for 40yds, the 3rd and 15 that got 20 yds, and the 3rd and 20 that got 35 yds.

If you look at these plays, they were the game changers. This was a repeat of our issues last your IMO as we could get off the field on third down and the offense dictated the tempo. After watching the game again, we did blitz more than I originally thought, but it was us always disguising and the blitzer was coming from a distance. I'd like to see us get in their face and back out once in awhile...and try to disguise from an aggressive stance, rather than surprise. Maybe have our defense dictate what the offense does.
Click to expand...

right on IMO. we had three chances to make one play to put the game away (3rd and 15, 3rd and 20, and 4th and 1). We did blitz more, good sign. But can we "coach up" improvements needed on our Dline or is that a physical mano y mano type position unit where you either have the studs (size, speed, mentality) or you don't? Don't know...
 
HawkeyeMHA said:
right on IMO. we had three chances to make one play to put the game away (3rd and 15, 3rd and 20, and 4th and 1). We did blitz more, good sign. But can we "coach up" improvements needed on our Dline or is that a physical mano y mano type position unit where you either have the studs (size, speed, mentality) or you don't? Don't know...
Click to expand...

Really, as Homer alluded to, some of this was simply being dinged up on the DL. I really believe they need to move Alvis to DE. Both because I think Daniel just isn't very good and Alvis isn't a good fit at DT right now. His skill set could help at DE. Nardo played pretty well, and if you can get Davis and Cooper some experience that really helps us in the meat of the Big Ten season.
 
Montanahawk said:
Really, as Homer alluded to, some of this was simply being dinged up on the DL. I really believe they need to move Alvis to DE. Both because I think Daniel just isn't very good and Alvis isn't a good fit at DT right now. His skill set could help at DE. Nardo played pretty well, and if you can get Davis and Cooper some experience that really helps us in the meat of the Big Ten season.
Click to expand...

I really think we have to make adjustments, and fast. As the fans were oohing and ahhing at the big plays against Tenn Tech I saw a DLine that concerned me. I like mixing in some blitzing to compensate, but I'm really going to be watching this DLine (and LB's) this weekend... go hawks
 
Montanahawk said:
Really, as Homer alluded to, some of this was simply being dinged up on the DL. I really believe they need to move Alvis to DE. Both because I think Daniel just isn't very good and Alvis isn't a good fit at DT right now. His skill set could help at DE. Nardo played pretty well, and if you can get Davis and Cooper some experience that really helps us in the meat of the Big Ten season.
Click to expand...

This times ten. I've been saying for awhile that Alvis would be better on the edge with his motor. Davis, Nardo or Cooper need to step up big time. If that happens, we should be solid...not necessarily great, but very solid.
 
I have to disagree with the part about us knowing Vandy can be sharper. We are all basing our expectations for him off of the OSU game two years ago where he threw 3 picks. I think he can get better, and will, but at this point he could go either way.
 
The fact ISU scored 24 points was their mistakes and not our defense. Fumbled snap, 2 missed FG etc. We forced nothing and couldn't stop them at all. For that matter we relied on Tenn Tech to stop themselves and we could rarily get a stop unless they made a mistake. Until we adjust our third down strategy with our current personal it will continue to happen.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
Too many fans are looking at the following numbers:

44 points and 473 yards

If that were accrued against our D in 4 quarters .... I'd be concerned. I'd be even more concerned if it were accrued against our D late in the season.

Instead, against ISU, we saw a reasonably inexperienced D ... a D with even a number of critical parts either out or dinged (Lowery and Bernstine out .... Nielsen, Davis, etc dinged) end up giving up:

24 points through 4 quarters
and
398 yards through 4 quarters

Was that a good performance? No! Too many missed tackles. Several missed assignments. However, the guys still played hard.

However, was it a good enough performance to win? ... I think that it could have been. Had Vandenberg been a bit sharper ... like we know he can ... then our D would be off the field longer and the Hawks likely score more points.

People can second guess things all they want ... but it simply doesn't help the TEAM nor does it help the program. Furthermore, such rampant and sometimes mindless negativity can sometimes find its way into the locker room ... and if that happens ... then curtains on the season. I don't think ANY of us want that!

I have confidence that the O will continue to improve.

However, more importantly, I also have confidence that the D will continue to improve. Hopefully fans can be equally patient and enjoy this wonderful game ... and our wonderful team.

Anyhow, see ya at the Pitt game!
Click to expand...

I posted a similar argument here: http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/football/33398-2nd-guessing-ferentz.html


Homer just puts it into words so much better than me. Nice work Homer.
 
I am still optimistic about the season, I just took a look at the schedule and it d*mn near sets up perfectly for this team. You will have about a 5 game stretch to experiment and move people around and still win ballgames.
 
NOT too sure that we have the players to be decent. Too little talent or size on the DL. Hopefully some of the guys we have will be good in a year or two but this year??? I doubt it. Good thing is, we don't play in a great conference so we have a chance to appear to improve once we hit October.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
Too many fans are looking at the following numbers:

44 points and 473 yards

If that were accrued against our D in 4 quarters .... I'd be concerned. I'd be even more concerned if it were accrued against our D late in the season.

Instead, against ISU, we saw a reasonably inexperienced D ... a D with even a number of critical parts either out or dinged (Lowery and Bernstine out .... Nielsen, Davis, etc dinged) end up giving up:

24 points through 4 quarters
and
398 yards through 4 quarters

Was that a good performance? No! Too many missed tackles. Several missed assignments. However, the guys still played hard.

I have no issue with the D's numbers. I have huge issues with the consistent positional breakdowns by the DE's, middle LB and DB's

However, was it a good enough performance to win? ... I think that it could have been. Had Vandenberg been a bit sharper ... like we know he can ... then our D would be off the field longer and the Hawks likely score more points.

This is hardly on Vandy - 16/29 for 207 & 2-TD's is a great day with a huge, untimely drop by Keenan (1st year starter). The rest of the offensive (literally and figuratively) woes lies squarely on KF for disregarding his greatest positional strength - the WR's - and opting for a 60/40 rush/pass ratio against a defense that broadcast stopping the run all day.

People can second guess things all they want ... but it simply doesn't help the TEAM nor does it help the program. Furthermore, such rampant and sometimes mindless negativity can sometimes find its way into the locker room ... and if that happens ... then curtains on the season. I don't think ANY of us want that!

You act like second guessing is reactionary. It is now to the point of being a rational response to a predictable course of action. There have simply been too many instances, season after season, game after game where this staff goes fetal when faced with an opportunity to take a smart, calculated risk. They consistantly opt to follow paradigm and global football theory without any consideration or recognition of the actual situational game flow. This has routinely resulted in turning a possible W into an absolute L.
If you're worried about what might creep into the locker room psyche, you should be most concerned about what effect it has when the head coach's risk aversion based decisions consistently imply that you are incapable of succeeding and therefore do not even warrant the opportunity -- even though you are the strength of this year's team and would have given you the best chance of success. Your senior, NFL caliber WR all but stated this.
I have confidence that the O will continue to improve.

I share your confidence for both units. Although, knowing that the D is usually far ahead of the O at this point of the season, it's very clear that this is reversed for this year's team and will remain so the entire season. The quicker the staff recognizes this and relies on this, the less likely another ISU type loss will occur this season.However, more importantly, I also have confidence that the D will continue to improve. Hopefully fans can be equally patient and enjoy this wonderful game ... and our wonderful team.

Anyhow, see ya at the Pitt game!
Click to expand...

... which Iowa will win 33-27! GO HAWKS!!
 
Last edited:
i'm not sold on vandy. his accuracy was pretty bad in Ames. he did make some good throws, but his deep passes were really, really bad.
 
To me it's no so much about the yds. NP D's have given up yds between the 20's most of the time. Bend but don't break right? But lately the red zone D is bad, where usually it's been pretty good. Also lately the other team seems to be in control late in the game. Either they score late to win or we can't score late and lose. Anyway, Iowa is 1-4 in the last 5. I hope they can turn it around by the time the B10 season starts. They can't be that far off. It's not like Iowa is losing these games by an average of 20 points.
 
DBAHawkFan said:
i'm not sold on vandy. his accuracy was pretty bad in Ames. he did make some good throws, but his deep passes were really, really bad.
Click to expand...

Worse than that he looked very shaken in quarters 2 and 3. He got it back in the 4th but I think we could have put it away if he had been better. I will be interested to see how he reacts when somebody knocks the hell out of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top