Agree with Pat .... or not?

[homerHAWKeye777]

Harty: Expect Hawks to go 8-4 | Hawk Central

In my estimation, Pat Harty uses pretty odd logic to surmise that 8-4 is the most likely scenario. And I quote ....

I have Iowa winning seven of its first eight games but still finishing the 2011 regular season just 8-4 overall.

But unlike last season when there was no real explanation for why Iowa collapsed at the end, the problems late in the 2011 season will have more to do with the schedule than anything else.

The schedule being an issue? When does the Big 10 slate NOT pose a challenge to most of the Big 10 teams? Almost every week in Big 10 play there are games that could go either way. Indiana has been competitive with both Iowa and Penn State over the past few years. Purdue beat tOSU 2 years ago .... and Wisky has dominated that match-up for nearly 2 years running (despite only winning 1 of them). The fact of the matter is that in the Big 10 ... if you don't nut up, then you better shut up (just watched zombieland ... had to use that phrase). That's just the way it is.

I won't be so foolish as to say that Iowa's schedule is "easy" ... however, I would make the claim that Iowa's schedule is actually more favorable in 2011 than it was in EITHER 2009 or 2010. In those latter 2 seasons Iowa had to play Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Penn State. For all intents and purposes (concerning level of play), those teams are on a level field with Nebraska. Iowa drops TWO TEAMS from that level ... and only picks up ONE! Furthermore, of the other BCS conference teams that Iowa faces ... Indiana, Minnesota, Pitt, and Michigan are each breaking in new coaching staffs ... and most will also be breaking in new schemes. I dare say that while I believe that the ISU game will be closer than it's been through the past 2 years ... I also think that Indiana and Minny won't give Iowa the same difficulty that they've given us through the past 2 years.

Of course, Pat then back tracks a little and then says ...

There is just too much uncertainty at key positions, including quarterback, defensive line, linebacker, safety and punter, to pick Iowa as a likely Big Ten contender.

Quarterback? Really? Vandenberg is really smart and has had the benefit of being mentored by a REAL leader like Ricky Stanzi. And, oh yeah, the kid is also already battle tested ... and has flashed plenty of promise. Vandenberg made some youthful errors when he felt pressure ... however, he was also a RS FR seeing starts in a pressure-cooker environment. The very fact that he came out of the experience with more confidence than he had going in ... that's a GOOD thing! It's not like we're about to see a repeat of the Jake Christensen fiasco ... a good kid who got mentored by a hot-head and whose confidence got crushed in his first year starting.

Defensive Line? Will it perform at the same level as the '09 or '10 groups? No. However, it will be leaps ahead of a '05 DL that still turned out to be pretty good. The '05 DL had Follet as its lone "veteran" .... and he was a guy who had NO prior starting experience. The regular starters on the '05 DL were 2 SOs and 2 RS FR ... now that is uncertainty and inexperience! In stark contrast, the '11 group on the DL will most likely have 5 SRs on the depth chart ... and the group will be anchored by Mike Daniels and Broderick Binns. If that is what he believes constitutes "uncertainty" ... then I sincerely wonder how much he follows college football.

Linebacker? Good lord .... Morris and Nielsen provides Iowa with a highly impressive linebacking duo. Furthermore, Iowa has 3 guys who have game experience vying for the remaining open spot. And if that weren't enough ... if Bruce Davis returns to form, then we have a high-quality guy as a back-up.

Safety? Okay ... I'll agree that green play at safety very well could end up costing us a game or two. However, I'd assert that green safety play would most likely cost us early in the season. If we can go through our OOC slate with a 4-0 record as Pat seems to think is such a possible scenario ... then the safety play will already be much improved by that point in the season. Despite my concession about "green safety play" ... I still find it hard to worry about having Hyde and Miller manning the spots vacated by Greenwood and Sash.

Punter? Finally ... he got one correct. Of course, while Donahue was one heck of a weapon ... he didn't get a whole lot of help on special teams last year. If Iowa can play better on special teams in the other facets ... something that is entirely feasible ... then that could compensate some for loss of Donahue.

The REAL worries: The real worries should be our LACK of depth or lack of experienced depth at many key spots on the roster. For instance, while we have talent at LB ... we're not exactly swimming with veteran talent. If Coker goes down ... our running game will be shouldering an absolutely HUGE blow. Obviously, if Vandenberg goes down ... then we'll likely be in a tough spot too. If Binns and/or Daniels go down ... they yeah ... that would definitely be a big blow to the DL. If McNutt goes down ... then yeah, or passing game takes a huge blow.

However, if the Iowa squad can remain relatively healthy ... particularly at some of those key spots ... then the Iowa squad could really develop into an excellent group. Perhaps even a Big 10 contender ... contrary to what Harty asserts.

 

[LG210]

I don't think his logic on the schedule is that flawed. I think he is simply saying that he expects Iowa to lost three out of its last four games and, given the schedule, that is not patently unreasonable.

September
3 Tennessee Tech
10 at Iowa State (Iowa Corn Cy-Hawk Series)
17 Pittsburgh
24 Louisiana-Monroe


October
1 Bye
8 at Penn State
15 Northwestern
22 Indiana (HC)
29 at Minnesota


November
5 Michigan
12 Michigan State (FW, FA, S)
19 at Purdue
25 at Nebraska

 

[olddude]

While we could go 8-4, I doubt it would come about that way. We tend to show up for the big ones. With the new talent, I would expect us to drop an easy one at first and get into sync latter in the season. Health will always be a key and that is unpredictable.

 

[okeefe4prez]

My gut feeling is that this ball club is either going to be dominant and win 10+ games or be a pedestrian 6-6 ballclub that packs it in early. I don't see any middle road. If our running back curse continues and we lose Coker early or if the injury bug hits the o-line again, we're toast. If we stay healthy and the football gods return the games they stole from us last year, we win 10+. O'Keefe has historically been pretty masterful when breaking in a new QB (other than JC).

 

[BALDIES7980]

Maybe I'm just a homer but there is reasonable potential for Iowa to win all those games.
All those teams have some ? marks just like Iowa does and its the Big10,its always tough.
History shows we likely lose one that is unexpected(usually NW) and win one unexpected so its essentially impossible to go undeafeated but I could take 9-3 and be confident there.

 

[BALDIES7980]

My gut feeling is that this ball club is either going to be dominant and win 10+ games or be a pedestrian 6-6 ballclub that packs it in early. I don't see any middle road. If our running back curse continues and we lose Coker early or if the injury bug hits the o-line again, we're toast. If we stay healthy and the football gods return the games they stole from us last year, we win 10+. O'Keefe has historically been pretty masterful when breaking in a new QB (other than JC).

IMO OL is the only position we can likely sustain injuries and not drop off much.
We have some very talented young men at those positions waiting to get on the field.
I think a big key is to get as many players on the field as you can early in the season to build depth. Their not playing baseball where you can't put them back in after you pull them. There should be 2 or 3 mop up games almost every year and that is the opportuntiy to build your team. I don't buy the notion of getting your best players tons of play time when things are under control. The players will get worn down by the end of the season no matter how good they are so you might as well save them a little while you can and see who else is going to be able to help you the rest of the season.(Iowa has not been good at doing this) We learn by our mistakes via experience and you don't get that on the sidelines.

 

[okeefe4prez]

IMO OL is the only position we can likely sustain injuries and not drop off much.
We have some very talented young men at those positions waiting to get on the field.
I think a big key is to get as many players on the field as you can early in the season to build depth. Their not playing baseball where you can't put them back in after you pull them. There should be 2 or 3 mop up games almost every year and that is the opportuntiy to build your team. I don't buy the notion of getting your best players tons of play time when things are under control. The players will get worn down by the end of the season no matter how good they are so you might as well save them a little while you can and see who else is going to be able to help you the rest of the season.(Iowa has not been good at doing this) We learn by our mistakes via experience and you don't get that on the sidelines.

I agree o-line looks like it has depth, but if we lost Ferentz or Reiff that would be huge and if we had a slew of injuries at guard again, we could just go ahead and write the season off. The 2001 Alamo Bowl was a great performance by our o-line and provided a preview of 2002. Last year's Insight Bowl also featured dominant line play and if that is what we see every week in 2011, we're gonna be really good.

 

[tweeterhawk]

Iowa appears to have all the pieces in place to get 10+ wins this year. My concerns are at two positions:

QB -- At this point JVB appears to be one of the more gifted quarterbacks Iowa has had on campus: size, smarts, strong throwing arm. Will the Iowa staff be able to adapt to that? Will the receivers? Are the Iowa receivers talented enough to catch missiles on a consistent basis?

RB -- Hug your kids, hold your wife tight, the day you ever feel totally comfortable with Iowa's running back situation; the end of time is certainly near. Right now I'm very comfortable with Coker carrying the rock. He performed well last season and I would expect him to get even better this year. Who spells him? And who's the next man in should (shudder) Coker go down? Always huge question marks for Iowa.

 

[Section136]

I dont usually agree with anything Pharty says.

 

[DBAHawkFan]

Iowa's style of play means we'll be in every single game we play, which puts a lot of stress/pressure on all facets of the game to come up big.

In years past Stanzi and/or the defense has been able to come up with that big play at the right time. Last year neither one of them could do it, and that's just the way it goes. It could be luck, or it could be other teams are figuring out how to and where to put pressure on Iowa.

We've got a QB who has some game experience, and while he showed a lot of heart at OSU, he also was a turnover machine. And against MN the next week he showed nothing (and some would argue it was the coaching that kept him under wraps).

We're thin at RB, DL, LB, and S. I think Pat's prediction is spot on. If we get some lucky bounces we could easily win more than 8 games. If we have last year's end of game effort/results, we'll be a 6-7 win team.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I don't think his logic on the schedule is that flawed. I think he is simply saying that he expects Iowa to lost three out of its last four games and, given the schedule, that is not patently unreasonable.

The assertion that he EXPECTS Iowa to lose 3 of the last 4 games may not be patently unreasonable ... however, I'd also say that it is a pretty trivial statement too.

To illustrate the triviality of the statement, suppose that we work with the null-hypothesis that we have a 50-50 chance to win each of the last 4 games. In such a case, the chances of us losing 3 of the last 4 games is 25%. 25% is a high enough percentage to suggest that it is an uncomfortably likely event.

However, a weakness of the assertion is that by the same logic, Iowa has a 25% chance of winning 3 of the 4 games too.

Of course, you might claim that the previously used null hypothesis is an unreasonable one to use. Thus, let's suppose we use the following as an alternative null hypothesis:

Purdue = 80% chance of a W
Michigan = 65% chance of a W (given how the games have gone recently, I think that this is a tad high ... however, Michigan will have all new schemes, so who knows?)
MSU = 45% chance of a W (given how the games have gone recently, I think that this is low)
Nebraska = 20% chance of a W (I don't agree with such a low percentage ... but this seems to be in line with what some folks seem to expect)

With such a null hypothesis, we are still left with Iowa having a 21% chance of losing 3 games.

Even if you work with a 50-50 chance for the first 3 games and only a 20-80 chance against Nebby, then that still only leaves Iowa with a 32.5% chance of losing 3 games.

Anyhow, I would still contend that IF Iowa fields a healthy team by the end of the season ... then Iowa is much more likely to win 2 or MORE games. However, if the Hawks get dinged and have to rely more upon their unproven depth ... and that then increases the odds that Pat would get "proven" correct. My point being that injuries and depth are a MUCH bigger deal for the Hawks than any uncertainty we have with our starters OR the nature of our schedule.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

My gut feeling is that this ball club is either going to be dominant and win 10+ games or be a pedestrian 6-6 ballclub that packs it in early. I don't see any middle road. If our running back curse continues and we lose Coker early or if the injury bug hits the o-line again, we're toast. If we stay healthy and the football gods return the games they stole from us last year, we win 10+. O'Keefe has historically been pretty masterful when breaking in a new QB (other than JC).

If the squad can remain adequately healthy ... then I think that the club could really develop into a pretty dominant one.

However, if injuries strike, then I'd say that we'd land much closer to 7-5 as more of a "worst-case" scenario.

With Ferentz at the helm, I think that a 6-6 season only occurs when the squad has major rebuilding to do ... OR if there are internal issues on the squad. Quite frankly, I don't anticipate that either will be the case for the 2011 season.

 

[MultipleDundieAwardWinner]

If I recall, Iowa went 8-4 last year too? They lose their QB, leading RB and WR, the (almost?) entire defensive line, and have to replace more starters than any team in the conference?

I don't really know the details of this team (I am trying to learn though, you guys are getting me pumped for Iowa football!), but that doesn't really seem like the recipe for a team to improve over last season. I am not saying they are going to be horrible, but I don't see why you would be upset that someone predicts you mirror last season.

 

[okeefe4prez]

If the squad can remain adequately healthy ... then I think that the club could really develop into a pretty dominant one.

However, if injuries strike, then I'd say that we'd land much closer to 7-5 as more of a "worst-case" scenario.

With Ferentz at the helm, I think that a 6-6 season only occurs when the squad has major rebuilding to do ... OR if there are internal issues on the squad. Quite frankly, I don't anticipate that either will be the case for the 2011 season.

From 2002-2004, the Ferentz ball clubs were nearly unbeatable in October and November and were money in close games. 2005 was pretty soft early on and then had a few subpar weeks to end the season where we finally lost close games. 2006, the wheels fell off the bus (mainly due to Tate's injury) and 2007 was a year the team just packed it in. The 2008 squad could have packed it in after a subpar start, but didn't and came back with a dominant run at the end of the year (minus the game at Illinois). We all remember 2009 and the 2010 bed crapping that was in no small part caused by injuries. That 2010 team was a dropped TD away from being a 6-6 ballclub, however, it was also a covered fake punt, Persa miracle, Pryor run and whatever the hell happened at Minnesota away from being 10-2 or 11-1. Our boys have shown time and again that they can play with pretty much anybody, but they can lose to pretty much anybody, it all depends on how well Ferentz holds the wheels on the bus when the ball doesn't bounce our way over the course of a week or two. That and injuries.

I trust JVB and if the O stays healthy, this will be one of O'Keefe's more dominating seasons. If that happens, the remaining question will be whether the defense and special teams are up to the challenge.

It's interesting that you speak of 7-5 as a worst case scenario, but last year's preseason top 10 ball club was 7-5 and we lost a lot of studs off that team, so projecting maybe one more loss off that isn't a stretch, even with the softer schedule. There's a lot of parity out there and swapping out Purdue and Nebraska for Wisky and OSU isn't necessarily making our schedule a cakewalk.

My take is:
-If no key injuries and progress like a more typical Ferentz team 11-3 (includes a trip to Indy)
-If we lose one or two key guys and a heartbreaker early, 6-6 before accounting for bowl game.
Nothing in between - I just don't see this as being one of those 8-4, 9-3 type teams. They'll either click and dominate or fall flat fairly soon out of the gate. On this board, Ferentz and Company will either be gods or goats at the end of the season. I ain't buying my ticket to Pasadena yet, but I ain't ruling it out, either.

 

[okeefe4prez]

If I recall, Iowa went 8-4 last year too? They lose their QB, leading RB and WR, the (almost?) entire defensive line, and have to replace more starters than any team in the conference?

I don't really know the details of this team (I am trying to learn though, you guys are getting me pumped for Iowa football!), but that doesn't really seem like the recipe for a team to improve over last season. I am not saying they are going to be horrible, but I don't see why you would be upset that someone predicts you mirror last season.

Iowa was 7-5/8-5 last year. 8-4 is actually an improvement over the regular season. But that team was decimated with injuries and there were off the field problems with DJK, A-Rob and Wegher. But that team also lost two stud LBs and 1 stud CB to the NFL that would have been difference makers.

Many of the guys coming up got a decent amount of PT last year, so it's not like we'll be left plugging freshmen in all over the field. Ferentz is great at developing talent, so I'm not super worried.

 

[LG210]

The assertion that he EXPECTS Iowa to lose 3 of the last 4 games may not be patently unreasonable ... however, I'd also say that it is a pretty trivial statement too.

To illustrate the triviality of the statement, suppose that we work with the null-hypothesis that we have a 50-50 chance to win each of the last 4 games. In such a case, the chances of us losing 3 of the last 4 games is 25%. 25% is a high enough percentage to suggest that it is an uncomfortably likely event.

However, a weakness of the assertion is that by the same logic, Iowa has a 25% chance of winning 3 of the 4 games too.

Of course, you might claim that the previously used null hypothesis is an unreasonable one to use. Thus, let's suppose we use the following as an alternative null hypothesis:

Purdue = 80% chance of a W
Michigan = 65% chance of a W (given how the games have gone recently, I think that this is a tad high ... however, Michigan will have all new schemes, so who knows?)
MSU = 45% chance of a W (given how the games have gone recently, I think that this is low)
Nebraska = 20% chance of a W (I don't agree with such a low percentage ... but this seems to be in line with what some folks seem to expect)

With such a null hypothesis, we are still left with Iowa having a 21% chance of losing 3 games.

Even if you work with a 50-50 chance for the first 3 games and only a 20-80 chance against Nebby, then that still only leaves Iowa with a 32.5% chance of losing 3 games.

Anyhow, I would still contend that IF Iowa fields a healthy team by the end of the season ... then Iowa is much more likely to win 2 or MORE games. However, if the Hawks get dinged and have to rely more upon their unproven depth ... and that then increases the odds that Pat would get "proven" correct. My point being that injuries and depth are a MUCH bigger deal for the Hawks than any uncertainty we have with our starters OR the nature of our schedule.

You look at the schedule, determine which games you think they will win, and add them up. It doesn't have to be statistically significant.

 

[latrans]

Harty: Expect Hawks to go 8-4 | Hawk Central

In my estimation, Pat Harty uses pretty odd logic ...

You could have stopped right there.

 

[hawkeyescott]

If I recall, Iowa went 8-4 last year too? They lose their QB, leading RB and WR, the (almost?) entire defensive line, and have to replace more starters than any team in the conference?

I don't really know the details of this team (I am trying to learn though, you guys are getting me pumped for Iowa football!), but that doesn't really seem like the recipe for a team to improve over last season. I am not saying they are going to be horrible, but I don't see why you would be upset that someone predicts you mirror last season.

You are right about the losses, but at the same time, Coker is a better back then ARob, if they would have had the same amount of carries Coker would have been the leading rusher last year and it wouldn't have been close and is back. Losing DJK is big and I won't argue that. At QB I think JVB will be fine, he won't be asked to win games and has to manage them and he is more than capable of doing that and has some starting experience already (2 games isn't a lot) but he isn't being thrown into the fire and knows what to expect.

As far as the DL, this is where most people will say the Hawks are hurting by losing 3 starters, but fail to realize that 2 years ago Binns started all 12 games and is back so in reality Iowa has 2 starters back on the DL, it won't be as good as the past 2 years but will be above average. The safety positions are going to be the weakest link on the D.

 

[Heckler50010]

I'll be disappointed if they aren't undefeated at the end of the year! No reason that they can't win each of those games...

 

[hawkfan2679]

If I recall, Iowa went 8-4 last year too? They lose their QB, leading RB and WR, the (almost?) entire defensive line, and have to replace more starters than any team in the conference?

I don't really know the details of this team (I am trying to learn though, you guys are getting me pumped for Iowa football!), but that doesn't really seem like the recipe for a team to improve over last season. I am not saying they are going to be horrible, but I don't see why you would be upset that someone predicts you mirror last season.

Iowa in 2010: 7-5 reg season, 1-0 bowl season
8-5 overall

Too many things have to go better than expected for me to go any higher than 7-5 again. As was mentioned in the OP:

QB: JVB showed signs of brilliance in the OSU game, but also showed signs of youth with many questionable decisions. He also looked "deer in headlights" against Minnesota and was ill-prepared vs. NW (blame that I'm not laying at his feet).

DL: We're not overly young there, but we're definitely inexperienced. Other than Lebron Daniel, Mike Daniels, and Broderick Binns, who else played significant time last year? Honest question, as I don't remember. There is definitely going to be some fall off here with out a doubt. Homer made a comparison to the 2005 squad...the 2005 squad, as youthful as they were, still had Hodge and Greenway behind them to help cover for their mistakes. This team won't have that...[segue]

LB: Nervous about this one too. Nielsen coming back from a broken neck...naturally he'll be healed up, but with there be any mental lingering effects? Morris, for as well as he played last year, will still be only a true sophomore, with less than a full season of starts under his belt. He's going to be a good one...hope the seasoning continues early and often with him. The other LB will be a race between Kirksey, DiBona, and Hitchens...any other LB's in the mix here? Poggi? Regardless...very little experience but a ton of potential.

Safety: I'm still not sure on this whole Hyde to S thing...is this a reflection of Lowery at CB or a reflection of what we have at S? We've got a lot of young talent coming in, but this season seems like we could be a little on the skinny (thin) side.

Punter: I don't think anyone has seen (other than the spring game) Guthrie or Mullings kick the ball, so this is a complete guess as to how they'll fare. Even if we don't average 45 per kick, if we can average 38-40 and not get any blocked or returned for scores, I'd be ok there.