After a good night's sleep

I agree with everything you said except the laying the blame for the 4th down Mansell call on BF. It is the head coach who makes the call to go on 4th down and that was 4th and long with plenty of time left for PSU. Yeah it could of and should have worked but Mansell also didnt pull the trigger against Maryland late in the game on a rollout with a wideopen receiver, go watch the replay. that was a strange time to go on 4th down when you have just a 3 pt lead.

Offensive line had their struggles with an athletic quick defensive line. I just think it is time to go with a better dose of Young on one cut straight ahead runs and a good amount of Sargent if IKM tweaked an ankle.

Quicker passes to schemed wide open receivers was needed as the game went on and that pass to Sargent leaking out of the backfield was a good pass.

Defense played well enough, Recinos was very good, punting the wet ball etc give them a pass as hell PSU gave us two safeties. On another day those two safeties might have been TDs.

In the end Nate did not have an Indiana type game and only he and the coaches know why right now.
It's hard to say, I'm sure Kirk gave the go-ahead on the call, but, I'd bet money that the play itself was completely conceived by Brian, and, I also would bet that the call in that situation was Brian's idea. I didn't really like the call at that time either, but, if executed properly, it would have worked.

I agree about Mansell. He has shown a tendency already to struggle with his reads. Hard to blame him, though, when he only gets a few plays here and there. Also, as far as blaming goes, that is a circular argument. When players don't execute, is it because the player lacks talent/ability or is it because the coaches didn't have him prepared?
 
It's hard to say, I'm sure Kirk gave the go-ahead on the call, but, I'd bet money that the play itself was completely conceived by Brian, and, I also would bet that the call in that situation was Brian's idea. I didn't really like the call at that time either, but, if executed properly, it would have worked.

I agree about Mansell. He has shown a tendency already to struggle with his reads. Hard to blame him, though, when he only gets a few plays here and there. Also, as far as blaming goes, that is a circular argument. When players don't execute, is it because the player lacks talent/ability or is it because the coaches didn't have him prepared?

Oh I am sure BF and others not including KF designed that play and the fake FG plays but it is definitely a KF call to go for it on 4th down.

Football is a game of many mistakes because the other team can directly physically obstruct unlike the way basketball (the way it is supposed to be played) or baseball are designed. The hawks are making a lot of big key mistakes this year and it has cost them two games
 
There was nothing wrong with our gameplan offensively. Our QB just needed to make the easy throws. Here's the thing most of you are missing. He makes the easy throws, we move the chains, we wear down an already tired Penn State defense. Our offense is predicated on the short passing game and your QB being able to hit throws throws on second and third down. Stanley couldn't hit wide open receivers for first downs....and they were all throws a high school quarterback can make consistently...and I'm sure Stanley did in high school.

Ferguson struggled, Jackson struggled with the snap count...there were mistakes to go around I get that. But at the end of the day, the protection was good enough and if Stanley just makes the easy plays when he had protection...easy throws, we win.
 
It IS frustrating. I had us going 8-5 this year but got pretty excited after putting up some good offensive numbers. Then you realize who you were playing after the fact and you look at it objectively.

I had an idea our oline would be suspect this year, especially up the middle. And very little depth. They have indeed struggled against more athletic opponents.

I really can't fault Parker and the defense. Have we ever? We all know where the problem lies.

Kirk has to be the worst in game coach ever. That has never really gotten better. If there was a Hall of Fame for that, his portrait would be the first one you saw upon entering.

What we saw yesterday from the qb position and all that involved (no benching) was the worst and most embarrassing game management in over 40 years of watching college football.

I may be giving too much credit to Kirk here but maybe he knows they just flat out don't prepare their backups. This was the case years ago after Stanzi went down against NW and Vandenberg stepped in. I believe it was Julian Vandervelde or maybe Bulaga who mentioned this to Podolak postgame on the radio.

So who knows how we approach that today but it is inexcusable if we haven't changed how we do things given the new "dedicated qb coach". (And come on we all know what his main function is). Oh wait, he was that same OC from years ago.

See how things "change".

The only other working theory given yesterday's debacle at the qb position and how Kirk handled it is he is not qualified for these big moments due to stubbornness or cowardice. (See Ohio St 2009 and playing for OT). He failed the TEAM IMO and all those guys busting their tails yesterday.
 
Last edited:
It IS frustrating. I had us going 8-5 this year but got pretty excited after putting up some good offensive numbers. Then you realize who you were playing after the fact and you look at it objectively.

I had an idea our oline would be suspect this year, especially up the middle. And very little depth. They have indeed struggled against more athletic opponents.

I really can't fault Parker and the defense. Have we ever? We all know where the problem lies.

Kirk has to be the worst in game coach ever. That has never really gotten better. If there was a Hall of Fame for that, his portrait would be the first one you saw upon entering.

What we saw yesterday from the qb position and all that involved (no benching) was the worst and most embarrassing game management in over 40 years of watching college football.

I may giving too much credit to Kirk here but maybe he knows they just flat out don't prepare their backups. This was the case years ago after Stanzi went down against NW and Vandenberg stepped in. I believe it was Julian Vandervelde or maybe Bulaga who mentioned this to Podolak postgame on the radio.

So who knows how we approach that today but it is inexcusable if we haven't changed how we do things given the new "dedicated qb coach". (And come on we all know what his main function is). Oh wait, he was that same OC from years ago.

See how things "change".

The only other working theory given yesterday's debacle at the qb position and how Kirk handled it is he is not qualified for these big moments due to stubbornness or cowardice. (See Ohio St 2009 and playing for OT). He failed the TEAM IMO and all those guys busting their tails yesterday.
You should check out the "Brian F how do you like me now" thread. There are some posters in that thread literally trying to explain that our defense's high rankings are due to our offensive prowess. Ferentz fans can be pretty nutso.
 
There was nothing wrong with our gameplan offensively. Our QB just needed to make the easy throws. Here's the thing most of you are missing. He makes the easy throws, we move the chains, we wear down an already tired Penn State defense. Our offense is predicated on the short passing game and your QB being able to hit throws throws on second and third down. Stanley couldn't hit wide open receivers for first downs....and they were all throws a high school quarterback can make consistently...and I'm sure Stanley did in high school.

Ferguson struggled, Jackson struggled with the snap count...there were mistakes to go around I get that. But at the end of the day, the protection was good enough and if Stanley just makes the easy plays when he had protection...easy throws, we win.
Good post. I agree. That's why last week I was pushing to get the RBs more involved in the pass game. I think the coaches were so concerned about the protection issues that they felt the need to keep the RBs in, but, if schemed correctly, you can have the RB chip a lineman or blitzer, then flash out of the backfield. If a rusher comes free, the ball is already gone. The QB needs to learn that it's okay to release the ball in that situation with a player bearing down on him. Keeping calm and maintaining accuracy knowing that you are going to get hit isn't easy, but, that's what the better QBs do.

You can't completely rely on the short passing game, though. Defenses will start to squat on the routes. We still have to have better protection to take some deep shots. Our lack of separation by our WRs also hurts us there.
 
I fear a big letdown next week and a convincing loss. Yesterday was 2010 Wisconsin, and will suck the life out of this team. 8-4 appears to be the ceiling, and I would not be the least surprised if they end up 7-5 (which is where I predicted they would be before the season).
Well, you don't play for the team. You could be correct because at least two or our final four games will not be easy. But some are saying seasons over, nothing to play for, crappy bowl game awaits, why even bother.

Penn State certainly didn't have that mindset, despite every reason to do so. They had much higher aspirations than we did this year and they aren't going to be fulfilled. They played, and not very well at times. But they acted like they're still playing for something.

Look, even Nebraska has something to play for. That's the way it is. When I sold furniture right after college while waiting for a job in my field to open up I would sometimes make my biggest sale at 4:30 in the afternoon after getting my nuts kicked all day.
There's still plenty for this team to play for. Now and for next year.
 
Crazy disappointing loss. The game was right there to win and they just didn't get it done.

That said I'm not going to go crazy over it. Litterally 1 play was the difference between winning and losing. We lost to a good team in a tough place to play in some really crappy weather. If we make the play at the end, the team is no better/worse really. I think we probably lose another game yet, and finish 9-3 which is a pretty good season. Win the bowl game and get to 10 wins and go into next year with some higher hopes.
 
Okay, I intentionally didn't come on the forum last night. One, the venting and ranting was predictable so I already knew what I was going to read, and, two, I feared that a lot of those vents and rants would have been mine...

I'm trying to analyze this game a little less emotionally this morning. My take:

Brian is trying too hard. I think all Iowa fans are happy to see a more open offense. He has done a very good job recognizing that teams were selling out on the zone blocking, and has made some great adjustments, BUT, the pendulum has swung too far. There's a fine line between creativity and chaos. The Mansell play is a good example. Ironically, when you watch the replay, it would have worked. Hockenson was wide open on the left, and Mansell looked right at him but inexplicably hesitated. Brian needs to dial it down a little, but I do applaud him for the effort.

Brian did not do a good job adjusting to what the defense was doing. Essentially, PSU rotated coverage to the TEs and left the WRs man-to-man. What I was hoping to see was more utilization of the RBs in the pass game. We started to see it late, but that adjustment should have happened much earlier. My guess is that he felt the need to keep the RB in for max-pro, but, quick rhythm passes would have worked. As Griese kept harping on (annoyingly I might add...), the other option is to throw it to Fant and/or Hock regardless. Even if they're covered, there's still a good chance they will win the battle.

Stanley played a poor game. That is obvious, but, keeping it real, his offensive line did him no favors. Jackson, Render and Ferguson were terrible at times last night. Ferguson was so bad he got pulled, which is something you rarely see from the Iowa coaches. The only reason that Wirfs was open for the lateral on the last play is because he got whipped and was standing there watching his man take down Stanley.

In that kind of environment, it's hard to expect great QB play unless your line shows up, and that wasn't the case. Lack of protection (especially on the road) gets in your head, so even when the protection is there, you may not make the play because your mind is racing. I get it that the coaches want to see their QB "play through it" - and, God forbid, potentially start a QB controversy - but, I agree with others that any player struggling to that degree should be pulled, at least for a series or two. I doubt Mansell would have done any better in that situation, but at least your sending a message to Stanley (and the rest of the team for that matter).

The defense continues to do a very admirable job. There were a few miscues (the edges were not set well at times, and, it looked like we weren't disguising the blitzes very well), but, all in all, a solid game.

Recinos deserves more recognition. He is as solid of a kicker as we've had in some time. Rastetter, on the other hand, needs to stick with the Aussie-style punts. His line drive standard-style punts are awful.

The season is not over. We are still in the thick of the West race, so it's not time to throw in the towel, but, the coaches have a lot to do this week with a road game at Purdue looming.


Someone on the left was wide open for an instant. Couldn't tell who it was, but Hock would have handled it very well. Mansell also could have run thru the same spot, but it closed rapidly.....

So many incidents that would have swayed the game our way. The one that really stands out it missing Hock wide open by 20 yards or so with nobody in his way. He could have casually strolled into the end zone, took a bow and politely handed the ball to a zebra.....


:cool:
 
I fear a big letdown next week and a convincing loss. Yesterday was 2010 Wisconsin, and will suck the life out of this team. 8-4 appears to be the ceiling, and I would not be the least surprised if they end up 7-5 (which is where I predicted they would be before the season).

It could be but that 2010 team proved to be mentally weak and lacked strong leadership.

This team already showed it can recover from a brutal loss. They’re going to have to do it again now.
 
Crazy disappointing loss. The game was right there to win and they just didn't get it done.

That said I'm not going to go crazy over it. Litterally 1 play was the difference between winning and losing. We lost to a good team in a tough place to play in some really crappy weather. If we make the play at the end, the team is no better/worse really. I think we probably lose another game yet, and finish 9-3 which is a pretty good season. Win the bowl game and get to 10 wins and go into next year with some higher hopes.
Go back to Fryowa's preseason poll. My prediction was 9-3 with a nice bowl win.

I'm standing by it if for no other reason than Parker will have the attention of the defense this week. They may have been feeling a little better about themselves than necessary after completely dismantling Maryland. We have to get to Blough simple as that.
 
*If* Iowa goes to Indy, I'm sure the rest of the B1G will want Iowa to lose.
A win in Indy by a two-loss Iowa team would most likely mean no B1G playoff rep.
 
Go back to Fryowa's preseason poll. My prediction was 9-3 with a nice bowl win.

I'm standing by it if for no other reason than Parker will have the attention of the defense this week. They may have been feeling a little better about themselves than necessary after completely dismantling Maryland. We have to get to Blough simple as that.

I think I was at 9-3 as well. I don't think too many people believed Iowa was gonna get the W in Happy Valley before the season began.
 
I think I was at 9-3 as well. I don't think too many people believed Iowa was gonna get the W in Happy Valley before the season began.
Trouble is, and this includes the Wisconsin game, the narrative changes as the season unfolds. There's no reason not to assume we could/should have won them both.
 
Someone on the left was wide open for an instant. Couldn't tell who it was, but Hock would have handled it very well. Mansell also could have run thru the same spot, but it closed rapidly.....

So many incidents that would have swayed the game our way. The one that really stands out it missing Hock wide open by 20 yards or so with nobody in his way. He could have casually strolled into the end zone, took a bow and politely handed the ball to a zebra.....


:cool:
I watched the play over again. It was Hock. He even put his hand up to signal Mansell and didn't have anyone within 5-10 yards of him. Mansell looked right at him, then started scrambling to the right. He probably would have taken a hit, but could have easily completed the pass for a 1st-down, at a minimum. Just like the Wisc game - a lot of woulda-coulda-shouldas...
 

Latest posts

Top