a lot of people are ignoring the elephant in the room

Stiles said:
Some of you people are crazy, we have run the same defense for 12 years, we will run it for at least 10 more (as long as Ferentz says). We annually finish very high in score defense nationally. We don't blitz, keep everything in front and don't give up the big play. You may not like it, but it is what it is and the results speak for themselves.

The whole point of our defense is to make teams execute to beat us, not give up anything easy. Guess what, that is what happened today, we made IU execute and they couldn't. Simple as that.

If you want to complain about anything today, it should be the execution on offense in the redzone, not the defensive philosophy.
Click to expand...

We didn't make Indiana work inside the 10. Letting receivers get as open as Belcher was is not part of our philosophy. Otherwise we'd just let a receiver run free downfield every play and tell the QB-WR tandem: "If you can hit him, and you can catch it, then you're good to go." After all, we force them to execute in that scenario, at least as much as we did on Belcher's drop.
 
tm3308 said:
We didn't make Indiana work inside the 10. Letting receivers get as open as Belcher was is not part of our philosophy. Otherwise we'd just let a receiver run free downfield every play and tell the QB-WR tandem: "If you can hit him, and you can catch it, then you're good to go." After all, we force them to execute in that scenario, at least as much as we did on Belcher's drop.
Click to expand...

That is our philosophy. If you can consistently catch short, underneath passes, which is hard to do, then you can move the ball on us. You act like the play they made was so easy. Chapell was pressured, the throw was a little high and Belcher dropped it. If it was so easy, he would of completed it.

Additionally, if it isn't our philosophy to let people run wide open (no kidding), maybe a player got beat. Guess what sometimes that happens in life and football. They good thing is one play doesn't lose a game. The scored 13 points dude, quit over analyzing it. Defenses isn't an issue at Iowa.
 
mrolympia said:
if that Indiana WR is able to catch that WIDE OPEN pass in the endzone, Iowa loses.

This team really better get it's (feces) together. The "nation's best defensive line" is a complete joke.........much like "big game" bob stoops. Zero pressure on Chappell all day, it's not like Iowa had to worry about him taking off and running the ball. Pathetic effort by everybody today except Coker.
Click to expand...

if the clownie place holder knew how to throw a football, the clowns have a monumental victory v. a top 10 team. but instead we continue to realize they are what we thought they were - the clowns.
 
Stiles said:
That is our philosophy. If you can consistently catch short, underneath passes, which is hard to do, then you can move the ball on us. You act like the play they made was so easy. Chapell was pressured, the throw was a little high and Belcher dropped it. If it was so easy, he would of completed it.

Additionally, if it isn't our philosophy to let people run wide open (no kidding), maybe a player got beat. Guess what sometimes that happens in life and football. They good thing is one play doesn't lose a game. The scored 13 points dude, quit over analyzing it. Defenses isn't an issue at Iowa.
Click to expand...

Chappell executed under pressure. Belcher didn't execute, and he was under no pressure from the defense. There wasn't a defender anywhere near him. That happens at the 40-yardline, I'll go with "it's our philosophy". Any team that has a philosophy of leaving a receiver that open in the end zone is nuts. That isn't what we do.

Again, Chappell delievered an EASY TO CATCH pass, under pressure. That pass wasn't very high, a routine play for Belcher to make, and he didn't make it. What has me concerned isn't that IF he'd caught it we would have lost. What has me concerned that we put ourselves in a position where we needed a guy to biff a ROUTINE play in order to win. How did he get that open? THAT is what I'm concerned about. His drop doesn't make everything all good.

It's no different than the long KO returns we allowed against ISU: just because they didn't break one for a TD didn't mean it wasn't concerning (as we found out all too painfully one week later).
 
imported_ankle23 said:
if the clownie place holder knew how to throw a football, the clowns have a monumental victory v. a top 10 team. but instead we continue to realize they are what we thought they were - the clowns.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest argument. The end result is meaningless when it comes to the concern stemming from those last 4 plays, at least for me. It's the fact that the receivers were so open. Considering who we play next week (possibly without Norm again), I find that VERY concerning.
 
tm3308 said:
This is the dumbest argument. The end result is meaningless when it comes to the concern stemming from those last 4 plays, at least for me. It's the fact that the receivers were so open. Considering who we play next week (possibly without Norm again), I find that VERY concerning.
Click to expand...

TM, I like a lot of what you say, but that's not a dumb argument. the guy makes a decent pass and ISU wins that game. Could it have been done differently before? sure. they fact that rhodes called the call when he did took guts and he was one bad pass from an open reciever from pulling it off.
 
PlanoHawk said:
TM, I like a lot of what you say, but that's not a dumb argument. the guy makes a decent pass and ISU wins that game. Could it have been done differently before? sure. they fact that rhodes called the call when he did took guts and he was one bad pass from an open reciever from pulling it off.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant, and perhaps that was the wrong post to pick on. I've just gotten sick of the balls/aunt/uncle, and wheels/wagon type arguments today.

Yes, ISU didn't come through. Indiana did what they always seem to do, which is find a way to lose. However, Northwestern doesn't do that, at least against us. If put in that situation, they WILL execute. They won't drop those passes. But if we don't play better, they'll be every bit as open.
 
tm3308 said:
This is the dumbest argument. The end result is meaningless when it comes to the concern stemming from those last 4 plays, at least for me. It's the fact that the receivers were so open. Considering who we play next week (possibly without Norm again), I find that VERY concerning.
Click to expand...

my post was intended to be a joke, not an argument. We've gotten whipped by NW and Indy with Norm. Take a look at our D and realize we are pretty thin and inexperienced. Take a look at Indy's O and realize we held a team that averages 30 points to 13. And then take a step back and try to take it all in and realize that you are living thru some golden years of Iowa football. When I went to school at iowa, most of the years were a color similar to gold, but more like rust.
 
tm3308 said:
That's not what I meant, and perhaps that was the wrong post to pick on. I've just gotten sick of the balls/aunt/uncle, and wheels/wagon type arguments today.

Yes, ISU didn't come through. Indiana did what they always seem to do, which is find a way to lose. However, Northwestern doesn't do that, at least against us. If put in that situation, they WILL execute. They won't drop those passes. But if we don't play better, they'll be every bit as open.
Click to expand...

fair enough, but Northwestern found a way to lose tonight up 28 against a mediocre PSU team.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
my post was intended to be a joke, not an argument. We've gotten whipped by NW and Indy with Norm. Take a look at our D and realize we are pretty thin and inexperienced. Take a look at Indy's O and realize we held a team that averages 30 points to 13. And then take a step back and try to take it all in and realize that you are living thru some golden years of Iowa football. When I went to school at iowa, most of the years were a color similar to gold, but more like rust.
Click to expand...

I remember reading about Shannahan's last 7-8 years in Denver, he started placing more emphasis on statistical rankings and the like. Statistically, he had great defenses. But they'd fail when it mattered most. They might only allow 300 yards and 21 points, but they'd give up that key drive late in the game. Our D has great stats, but they've been coming up short in the clutch this year. Moral of the story: stats can easily be misleading.

I know why we seem to struggle a bit. But the reason doesn't really mean much. Whether because of youth/inexperience or being overrtated, the D has come up short three times (again, the D didn't force Indiana to turn it over on downs today when it counted). Both causes create the same effect, so it makes little difference which cause it actually is.
 
tm3308 said:
I remember reading about Shannahan's last 7-8 years in Denver, he started placing more emphasis on statistical rankings and the like. Statistically, he had great defenses. But they'd fail when it mattered most. They might only allow 300 yards and 21 points, but they'd give up that key drive late in the game. Our D has great stats, but they've been coming up short in the clutch this year. Moral of the story: stats can easily be misleading.

I know why we seem to struggle a bit. But the reason doesn't really mean much. Whether because of youth/inexperience or being overrtated, the D has come up short three times (again, the D didn't force Indiana to turn it over on downs today when it counted). Both causes create the same effect, so it makes little difference which cause it actually is.
Click to expand...

THE only stat that matters is the score. In all but two games this year, we've won that stat. We've struggled against NW and Indy for many years. Hell, we won a BCS bowl last year and NW and Indy took us to the wire. Had it not been for a questionable call or two, Indy could have won that game like NW did. Alabama lost today, Oklahoma lost today. Utah was throttled today. Nebraska could have easily lost to the clownz today. We did not lose.

today's game was not at all about our D, it was about our O. 5 times inside the 20 and get 12 points? Fail.
 
tm3308 said:
I remember reading about Shannahan's last 7-8 years in Denver, he started placing more emphasis on statistical rankings and the like. Statistically, he had great defenses. But they'd fail when it mattered most. They might only allow 300 yards and 21 points, but they'd give up that key drive late in the game. Our D has great stats, but they've been coming up short in the clutch this year. Moral of the story: stats can easily be misleading.

I know why we seem to struggle a bit. But the reason doesn't really mean much. Whether because of youth/inexperience or being overrtated, the D has come up short three times (again, the D didn't force Indiana to turn it over on downs today when it counted). Both causes create the same effect, so it makes little difference which cause it actually is.
Click to expand...

also - the other teams usually want to win as well. just because we are trying to get a turnover, doesn't mean the other team will oblige. we were close today (on D) to having a lot of ints, but the tips didn't go exactly where they needed to go. had we scored more, maybe chappel gets more flustered, etc. our O kept them in the game. Indiana is a good team. hard to get pressure on their style offense. we don't have the LBs right now to risk a lot of blitzing, and blitzing this style of offense isn't too productive when the qb throws so quick.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
THE only stat that matters is the score. In all but two games this year, we've won that stat. We've struggled against NW and Indy for many years. Hell, we won a BCS bowl last year and NW and Indy took us to the wire. Had it not been for a questionable call or two, Indy could have won that game like NW did. Alabama lost today, Oklahoma lost today. Utah was throttled today. Nebraska could have easily lost to the clownz today. We did not lose.

today's game was not at all about our D, it was about our O. 5 times inside the 20 and get 12 points? Fail.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was all about the defense. But, when our philosophy is to essentially use the defense as a crutch, one would expect it to hold up. 3 times this year in 9 games, it hasn't. The offense seems to be operating without a safety net right now.
 
tm3308 said:
That's true, but they've found ways to lose against seemingly everyone but us. They've just got our number.
Click to expand...

No doubt- and especially on the road. Really hoping we take care of business next week and make this a mute point.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
also - the other teams usually want to win as well. just because we are trying to get a turnover, doesn't mean the other team will oblige. we were close today (on D) to having a lot of ints, but the tips didn't go exactly where they needed to go. had we scored more, maybe chappel gets more flustered, etc. our O kept them in the game. Indiana is a good team. hard to get pressure on their style offense. we don't have the LBs right now to risk a lot of blitzing, and blitzing this style of offense isn't too productive when the qb throws so quick.
Click to expand...

And what, exactly, in those two sentences, is supposed to lessen concern going into next week? I'm not sitting here saying that the defense sucks, just that I'm concerned going forward. It really doesn't matter why they struggled.
 
tm3308 said:
I didn't say it was all about the defense. But, when our philosophy is to essentially use the defense as a crutch, one would expect it to hold up. 3 times this year in 9 games, it hasn't. The offense seems to be operating without a safety net right now.
Click to expand...

ok, i give. we give up 13 to a team averaging 30 and our d is letting us down. ok.

if you really want something to biatch about, how about our kick coverage!?!
 
imported_ankle23 said:
ok, i give. we give up 13 to a team averaging 30 and our d is letting us down. ok.

if you really want something to biatch about, how about our kick coverage!?!
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't read the bit about Shannahan and Denver. 3 times when we needed the one stop that would end it, the defense failed. Statistically they played a good game. But stats don't always tell the whole story, and they didn't today.
 
tm3308 said:
I remember reading about Shannahan's last 7-8 years in Denver, he started placing more emphasis on statistical rankings and the like. Statistically, he had great defenses. But they'd fail when it mattered most. They might only allow 300 yards and 21 points, but they'd give up that key drive late in the game. Our D has great stats, but they've been coming up short in the clutch this year. Moral of the story: stats can easily be misleading.

I know why we seem to struggle a bit. But the reason doesn't really mean much. Whether because of youth/inexperience or being overrtated, the D has come up short three times (again, the D didn't force Indiana to turn it over on downs today when it counted). Both causes create the same effect, so it makes little difference which cause it actually is.
Click to expand...

OH how I can soo much relate to your argument about Denver's and Iowa 's D philosophy being so similar! I don't always love it, but it did/does work more times than not. In the Bronco's case, they too were trying to over-compensate for a struggling offense.

Similarly, I think the Hawks redzone offense is the main area of concern for now though, because like it or not, this group of guys Defense is the way they are going to play. Hopefully the breaks at the end keep going our way. BUT, this would not be an issue if we score points when given the multiple chances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top