whammer33024
Well-Known Member
so you don't see us winning 85-0? that's the spread i gave the game. you think i should adjust that a bit?
A little update on Arizona
- Thread starter homerHAWKeye777
- Start date
burky247
Well-Known Member
hoffman22103
Well-Known Member
I really don't see why people are putting this up as a loss. Last year take away the pick six and the game is 27-3 with 2:00 left in the 4th.
burky247
Well-Known Member
Well let's see. First, that was last season. Not really relevant. Second, you can't take away the pick six. That's not giving their defense the credit they earned. Would you take away AC's punt block for touchdown against PSU last season? Finally, and most importantly, that game was at Kinnick.
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
Only TWO fans have "predicted" blowouts. While I, myself, wouldn't "predict" a blowout ... I could very easily see it happening. It's simply a matter of noting the match-ups and noting what could happen if Iowa can seize the momentum in the game.
I think many Iowa fans see the quality of Iowa's D and anticipate that it will be able to neutralize the strength of UA's O. And, the UA O will be the strength of that squad too.
Furthermore, many Iowa fans see the quality of the skill players that Iowa returns on O and they figure that Ferentz will have the OL well prepped for the season. When you combine those assumptions along with the observation that UA lost a good number of starters from their D ... that likely feeds the belief that Iowa will almost be able to move the ball at will against the UA D.
Anyhow, given the quality of Iowa's D ... that automatically suggests that Iowa is capable of forcing game-changing turnovers. And, if Iowa can firmly seize the momentum in the game ... both by controlling the ball on O and by forcing a few turnovers ... it really isn't a stretch to imagine that the game could get out of hand.
I personally agree with the sentiment that the game will likely be a close one. However, provided the squad can remain healthy ... I have a hard time seeing the team leaders allow the squad to lose focus. And, when our squad plays with such single-minded determination ... it's a force to be reckoned with.
Lastly, you can say what you will about Iowa's OL, however, I suggest you recall what our starting line-up looked like in the UA game last year.
'09 Iowa OL vs UA
LT - Reiff (2nd career start)
LG - Richardson (3rd time PLAYING in a period of something like 3 years ... 2nd consecutive start at OG)
C - Eubanks (3rd consecutive start. veteran player ... but definitely not one of our better centers)
RG - Vandervelde (2nd consecutive start. injured and playing FAR from his best ball ... missed camp prior to season)
RT - Calloway (2nd consecutive start of the season ... coming off runners knee ... and missed a substantial hunk of camp prior to the season)
Remark: Additionally, Iowa had to start Reisner at TE in '09. Moeaki was out with injury and, as we all know, Moeaki is an exceptionally punishing blocker.
Now, to complete the contrast, let us consider the BEST CASE SCENARIO wherein the 2010 starters on the OL are able to remain healthy throughout camp and enjoy personnel continuity through the games. Then this is what the picture looks like:
LT - Reiff (3rd consecutive start - next star OT)
LG - Vandervelde (3rd consecutive start - 5th year SR)
C - Ferentz/Koeppel (3rd consecutive start ... more confident and better play than Eubanks ... great technique)
RG - Gettis (3rd consecutive start ... 4th year JR ... exceptional quickness and explosiveness from the LOS)
RT - Zusevics (3rd consecutive start ... 4th year JR ... great quickness and athleticism on the outside, much moreso than Calloway)
CONCLUSION: The '09 OL had already been juggled and guys were still banged up from off-season injuries. Admittedly, the '09 OL arguably brought more physical strength to the table. However, on the flip side, Dace was fairly slow, Vandervelde was playing hurt and tentatively, and Calloway was slow on the edge. In 2010, the OL looks to bring A LOT of quickness and athleticism to the table. What will be the resulting trade-off? I don't know ... however, I anticipate that it COULD lead to better pass protection (at least on the edge) for Stanzi. Furthermore, with quicker players, Iowa may have better luck executing WR screens ... something we've had trouble doing because our guys have had trouble getting to the guys they're supposed to block.
hoffman22103
Well-Known Member
All I'm trying to say is the defense played lights out last year against a very good Arizona team. Seeing that Iowa is bringing back the majority of that defense and special teams, I don't see this as a loss. The 1st team defense only allowed 3 points. That's the point of my argument. I don't see Arizona beating Iowa with the defense they have. You can play the game in Alaska for all I care, I still don't see them having that much of a home field advantage.
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
hoffman -
The problem with your claims about Arizona last year is that the Wildcat O was still dealing with having a young QB at the helm. Iowa exploited UA's youth at QB and absolutely decimated their O. Furthermore, against Iowa, UA was still scheming their O in anticipation of Gronk returning. After Foles took over, they immediately then knew that Gronk was out for the season. Consequently, they made significant adjustments on O, and they developed into a pretty darn solid squad on O.
For the most part, the ENTIRE strength of their O returns. And it is NOT AT ALL the same O that we faced last year. It's frankly an O that is much better suited to exploit the bend-but-not-break nature of our D.
The more interesting difference is that in most respects Iowa should be a BETTER ballclub on O in 2010 than it was in '09. However, in contrast, the 2010 UA D will likely NOT be as good as they were in '09.
What will be the implication of all this on the scoreboard? I don't know ...
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Worse than that, actually. While Foles was young, he also wasn't the starter against us. Matt Scott started the first two games, then we made him look dreadful, and Foles took over from there. So he was a young backup QB. He's much better now than he was then.
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
That's what I was getting at.
I hope it doesn't end up being a perfect parallel ... however, Iowa thumped Ohio State in '04 and that game was one of the defining moments in leading the sweatervest to opt for Troy Smith instead of Zwick. For those who recalled, we absolutely murdered Zwick ... and they then opted to put Smith into the game. After that, Smith was the #1 tOSU QB.
Similarly, in '09, Scott was the starter for UA ... and we made him look so bad that they opted to give Foles some reps. After that moment, Foles seized the top QB spot.
