Do you not get the hype surrounding the 2010 Badgers?

[homerHAWKeye777]

Get used to it ... because the same sort of hype will surround our 2011 Hawks.

If you look at things on paper ... the 2011 Hawks own a striking resemblance to the '10 Badgers. I'd probably say that the '11 Iowa D will be better than the '10 Wisky D ... but, on the flip side, the '10 Wisky O will likely have to contend with fewer "growing pains" at key positions. However, that scenario could change in an instance if Iowa enjoys a bunch of blow-outs in '10 so that Vandenberg gets a chance to see more game reps. Also, if Fiedorowicz and Herman really have a good bit of success in '10 ... then they could potentially close the gap between what they collectively bring to the table in '11 and what Kendricks brings to the table in '10.

What's funny is that given the mass loss of quality Hawk defenders after the '10 season ... I anticipate that the 2011 Hawks will probably finish up around 8-4 or 9-3. However, amusingly enough, many folks are viewing the '10 Badger squad ... a veritable mirror image of our 2011 squad ... as being the #2 team in the Big 10. What does that mean? Does it mean that Iowa will be a legit Big 10 contender in 2011? Or does it simply mean that folks are overrating Wisky and that they will more likely end up around 9-3 again?

 

[nickhawk]

I think the Badgers are over-rated this year similar to how MSU was over-rated last year.

I see the Buckeyes and Hawks battling for the Big 10 Title and the Rose Bowl this year.

I think Wisconsin has enough returning talent to go 8-4 or even 9-3, but I don't see them going 10-2 or 11-1 like a lot of preseason predictions will have them going.

The Wisconsin game in Kinnick this year should be a very entertaining game.

 

[HAWKEYESTATE4ever]

I think the Badgers are over-rated this year similar to how MSU was over-rated last year.

I see the Buckeyes and Hawks battling for the Big 10 Title and the Rose Bowl this year.

I think Wisconsin has enough returning talent to go 8-4 or even 9-3, but I don't see them going 10-2 or 11-1 like a lot of preseason predictions will have them going.

The Wisconsin game in Kinnick this year should be a very entertaining game.

I agree. I love watching us beat the badgers by four touchdowns.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Get used to it ... because the same sort of hype will surround our 2011 Hawks.

If you look at things on paper ... the 2011 Hawks own a striking resemblance to the '10 Badgers. I'd probably say that the '11 Iowa D will be better than the '10 Wisky D ... but, on the flip side, the '10 Wisky O will likely have to contend with fewer "growing pains" at key positions. However, that scenario could change in an instance if Iowa enjoys a bunch of blow-outs in '10 so that Vandenberg gets a chance to see more game reps. Also, if Fiedorowicz and Herman really have a good bit of success in '10 ... then they could potentially close the gap between what they collectively bring to the table in '11 and what Kendricks brings to the table in '10.

What's funny is that given the mass loss of quality Hawk defenders after the '10 season ... I anticipate that the 2011 Hawks will probably finish up around 8-4 or 9-3. However, amusingly enough, many folks are viewing the '10 Badger squad ... a veritable mirror image of our 2011 squad ... as being the #2 team in the Big 10. What does that mean? Does it mean that Iowa will be a legit Big 10 contender in 2011? Or does it simply mean that folks are overrating Wisky and that they will more likely end up around 9-3 again?

Minus that whole returning QB and top 5 draft pick defensive end, along with everyone else on the line.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Minus that whole returning QB and top 5 draft pick defensive end, along with everyone else on the line.

And Broderick Binns is chopped liver? I wouldn't sell Binns short for anything.

Anyhow, let's break things down in greater depth, shall we?

The Os:

- As for sporting a returning QB ... I'd argue that Vandenberg will be plenty experienced AND he has a much greater upside than Tolzien.

- At RB, Wisky has Clay [JR], Ball [SO], and Brown [SR]. To some extent Wisky owns a slight advantage there because Clay is a proven "elite" commodity. However, in 2011, Iowa will feature Hampton [JR], Robinson [JR], Wegher [JR], and possibly Coker [RS FR or SO]. Iowa's mix of experience and versatility is arguably higher and there's plenty of talent too.

- At TE, Wisky has Kendricks in 2010 as a proven commodity ... in 2011, in all likelihood, Iowa will have BOTH Herman and Fiedorowicz as proven commodities.

- At WR, Wisky possibly has more depth ... however, only Toon stands out because of his consistency. Iowa will be relatively low on experienced depth, however, the Hawks should feature exceptionally strong starters in McNutt and Davis. We'll need to see how Davis fares in '10 to truly contrast starting duos ... however, I really like how Iowa's 2011 starters at WR stack up against Wisky's 2010 starters at WR.

- Both the 2010 Wisky OL and the 2011 Iowa OL, provided they remain healthy, will be very proven and experienced groups. To be fair to each group, it's probably best to say that both groups will execute VERY well with their respective schemes. To be clear, Wisky returns every starter from the '09 season whereas Iowa returns every projected starter except for Vandervelde. And, mind you, the depth of the '11 Iowa OL will be more SR laden ... that is part of the reason why I'm splitting the difference.

Assessment: On paper, I think that it is fair to say that the '10 Wisky O is a little bit ahead of it's '11 Iowa counterpart. However, the disparities really aren't all that great.

The Ds:

- Wisky features Watt, a JR, as the only returning starter. Similarly, Iowa will (hopefully) return Binns, a SR, as the only returning starter. While it's true that Butrym saw some quality action in '09 ... Iowa's Daniels will be a SR and he has already seen more quality action than Butrym and he's slated to see even more in '10. Furthermore, Iowa will likely feature another SR as a leading candidate for a starting DL spot too. Where the Iowa starters lack in starts, they make up for with experience and familiarity with the system. I will take a Norm Parker coached DL that is likely comprised of 3 SRs and a JR or 3 SRs and a SO any day of the week over a Wisky DL comprised of 3 JRs and a FR.

- For all intents and purposes, the LB situation for each squad will be a push. Each will feature a veteran SR starter ... and then likely feature 2 young up and coming stars to man the remaining 2 spots. Borland has gotten plenty of hype ... however, Iowa's track record at LB speaks for itself.

- At safety, Wisky lost Maragos after the '09 season ... Iowa will lose Greenwood after the '10 season. When you look who's standing after the dust settles ... I'll take Sash over Valai any day of the week ... and so will most Wisky fans.

- At CB, Wisky's guys only seemed to put things together somewhat as the season came to a close. In contrast, Iowa's Prater will not only be a SR in 2011 ... he will likely be a SR star who is a favorite All-Big 10 selection. Furthermore, whoever starts opposite Prater will have a year of starts under his belt and have a great backup pushing him forward. Overall, Iowa's CB group will be more experienced, more confident, and arguably more talented than Wisky's group.

Assessment: While the 2010 Wisky D features Watt and a duo of young LBs, all of whom are much hyped, the secondary is good but not exemplary, and the rest of the DL remains a question mark. In contrast, the 2011 Iowa D will feature Binns and Sash, both of whom will be plenty hyped in their own right, and a secondary that will likely be pretty elite. Furthermore, the Iowa DL will feature A LOT more experience than the Wisky DL ... and going off of how BOTH Ds are built ... that matters A LOT! Anyhow, while both Ds will have their holes that need filled, at least on paper, the Iowa D looks better.

OVERALL: As I stated previously, if you put it all together, the '10 Wisky squad looks to be a little bit better on O ... however, the '11 Iowa squad looks to be at least a little bit better on D. Erring on the conservative side, lets say those disparities offset one another. Then that ends up indicating that both squads are strikingly similar ... just as I originally contended. Now, if you were to go off of the philosophy that it's more important to feature a strong D (as is the most common bias) ... then that would actually favor Iowa.

 

[GoHawks24]

Homer - Great breakdown. I agree with all of it pretty much, except that I think you're possibly giving Herman & Fiedorowicz a little bit too much credit. Not that I don't believe either one of them or both (hopefully) can develop into studs, but they're both essentially unproven at this point. Also, I see that you're assuming Sash will still be around. I really hope you're right on that one!

 

[tm3308]

Homer - Great breakdown. I agree with all of it pretty much, except that I think you're possibly giving Herman & Fiedorowicz a little bit too much credit. Not that I don't believe either one of them or both (hopefully) can develop into studs, but they're both essentially unproven at this point. Also, I see that you're assuming Sash will still be around. I really hope you're right on that one!

Sash is a very good player, and I think he's going to make an impact in the NFL. But I don't think he's going to have the measurables (specifically the 40 time) to make a jump to the NFL early. He isn't likely to be a high draft choice, IMO.