I agree with much of this. I don't think we have a record as good as last year because our talent will undoubtedly be lower, but we do have an easier schedule, so that counts as something.
Some people here think Stanzi is going to turn into Joe Montana and Clayborn is going to have 50 sacks, and we will skate to 12 wins. Ain't gonna happen.
Firstly, I agree that it is wise to have somewhat measured expectations concerning the 2010 season.
However, that said, here are a few counterpoints ....
- A common mistake to make is to assert that the prior talent is "better" while the more accurate statement is that the prior talent was likely "more refined." Of course, "more refined" tends to equate to better execution on the field ... and that tends to reap its own rewards.
- To follow up the prior point, I'm willing to bet that we only have an actual drop in "raw talent" at Richardson's OG spot. On the flip side, I'm willing to bet that the 2010 squad gets an upgrade of talent at C and RB spots.
- Another thing to recognize is that apart from the TR FR who are just entering the program ... every guy on the program is a year more experienced ... and will be able to use that experience and knowledge to refine their game. It is easy to marginalize Clayborn's ability to improve ... and yet look at how much guys like Suh, Schofield, and Graham improved from their JR to SR seasons! The fact of the matter is that if Clayborn steps up even more as a leader ... just as we anticipate he will ... he invariably will continue to elevate his game. Furthermore, there is more to the D than just Clayborn. If folks weren't paying attention ... Klug was mighty impressive despite being more than a little undersized, Ballard was not only solid in transitioning to DT but he came on so strong at the end of the season that Iowa fans would be wise to keep a close eye on him in '10, and lastly Binns had an even more impressive sophomore starting debut than EITHER Iwebema in '05 or Clayborn in '08! A take-home point here being that opposing Os will not only have to face an improved Clayborn in 2010 ... but they're going to have to face an improved entire defensive front!
- Not that I like using a Gopher example ... however, I urge folks to note the production of Minny's Triplett and Lawrence. Both guys were back-ups in 2008 and had the benefit of being first-year starters in 2009 ... playing behind a very veteran DL. Anyhow, both guys had great production and helped the Minnesota front 7 to be the strength of their D ... arguably the primary reason they managed to get bowl eligible in '09. Anyhow, I have no doubt in my mind that the group of Tarpinian (SR), Davis (JR), Johnson (SR), Nielsen (JR), and their FR back-ups bring more to the table than Minnesota's group. What's more ... they also benefit in having a better secondary playing behind them and a better DL playing in front of them!
- With Bernstine down prior to the '09 season, Iowa had legit concerns at CB. Spievey was obviously "the man" ... however, our experienced depth was rather limited. To be precise, not a single CB other than Spievey had starting experience. Now heading into the 2010 season, Prater, Lowe, and Castillo each have starts under their belts and Hyde and Bernstine are arguably good enough to be starters. Depth at CB is a luxury that we have rarely enjoyed in the Ferentz era ... and yet now we have it!
- Another mistake is the thinking that Stanzi has to make some quantum leap in order to have improved production. Rather, folks fail to see strategic factors that were counting against Stanzi in '09 that very well may not be present in '10.
1. I don't think that folks really appreciate that Stanzi had to deal with THREE starters on the OL being out for 2-a-days prior to the start of the season. That's a HUGE disadvantage!
2. Furthermore, Stanzi has to contend with the fact that 2 of his better WR targets, DJK and Sandeman, enter the season with hammy issues.
3. Of course, as we all know, rather than having experienced RBs powering our running game ... he had to contend with freshman RBs providing the running threat.
4. Were all that not enough ... our top TE, Moeaki, was injured early in the season and was never truly 100%!
Do folks truly appreciate the strategic disadvantage that Stanzi was contending with? Most opposing Ds were stacking the box ... and that had more to deal with the quality of the OL than the quality of the RBs. The RB threat wasn't even remotely near what it was with Greene ... and consequently that allowed (most) opposing Ds to both stack the box and still bracket off our TE. That then forced Stanzi to win most games with the WR-based passing game. And, to Stanzi's great credit ... every game that he both started and completed resulted in Hawkeye victories!
While many of the same things could possibly go awry in 2010 ... I'd like to think that the likelihood is rather remote. Even with a somewhat inexperienced OL ... the performance of the OL could actually end up surpassing that of the '09 OL if they remain healthy and enjoy good continuity! Imagine if Stanzi's top WRs were healthy from the get-go and the timing was great right from the outset! Lastly, can folks fathom how much safer the long pass becomes when the running game is a bigger threat? An opposing D simply CANNOT take away BOTH the run and the TE pass option and keep safety help over the top. Without safety help over the top, many of Stanzi's interceptions instead result in TDs or benign incompletions. Reciprocally, we know that Stanzi will continue to take shots down the field ... and so do the opposition. That then means that opposing Ds will have to choose their poison. Most likely they'll opt to shut down the run ... and that will open up the TE passing game. If they're foolish enough to defend the run with 6 or 7 man fronts ... then opposing Ds will get EATEN ALIVE after the Iowa OL gels. The recipe is simple ....
