Does it seem like this board is dead, considering how close we are to CFB season?

Ickehawk said:
Northwestern sure looked more athletic than Stanford....Iowa sure looked more athletic than Northwestern...lol....none of it had anything to do with 'talent'. Ask the Iowa players if they thought Stanford was more 'athletic' than they were. Stanford had a good gameplan, executed it very well, and Iowa was too jacked up and did not execute and it snowballed very quickly. It happens. I don't know what 'some' of you don't understand? They 'caught' Iowa being too aggressive on the first play (Lomax came up too hard, Fisher was too aggressive in his drop and fell down) and got Iowa on their heals right off the bat. Then they (Stanford) smothered the under routes and CJ aggressively tried to force a throw that went for a pick 6. CJ's not talented? Their corner was more talented than CJ? According to you people, no one is more talented than CJ. Then Iowa was too aggressive on punt coverage and the 'gunners' ran by the returner and a few more got aggressively out of their lanes. Then King was too aggressive on run support and they ran a fake fumble play and burnt our MOST TALENTED PLAYER (King) for a long TD pass. Iowa had the year they did by being extremely 'disciplined' in their schemes, but they were too hyped up and not 'disciplined' in their techniques to start this game and by the time they 'calmed' down, it was too late. People who make comments like you did are not 'smart' about football and how it works, and that game had NOTHING to do with them being more talented....
Click to expand...


So you put an 80% Lomax on a island with CM hoping Fisher can provide adequate bracket coverage? Fisher/Lomax probably still get smoked even if Fisher doesn't fall. Tight aggressive press coverage and you are asking your receivers to sit down and do come backs? So Iowa doesn't do 'check with me' with their receivers? It is okay to say Iowa's game plan wasn't very good for this game. If you say that it doesn't mean you want KF fired. The Iowa coaching staff had no counter for what anything Stanford did.
 
trj said:
So you put an 80% Lomax on a island with CM hoping Fisher can provide adequate bracket coverage? Fisher/Lomax probably still get smoked even if Fisher doesn't fall. Tight aggressive press coverage and you are asking your receivers to sit down and do come backs? So Iowa doesn't do 'check with me' with their receivers? It is okay to say Iowa's game plan wasn't very good for this game. If you say that it doesn't mean you want KF fired. The Iowa coaching staff had no counter for what anything Stanford did.
Click to expand...
So how would you 'game plan' to cover that play from that formation? Roll Taylor to the weak side and have no deep safety on the trips side? Have Mabin leave the wideout and jump on the back out of the backfield? That coverage should have worked perfectly if it WAS EXECUTED properly and Lomax would have been 'over' the back and Fisher would have been under and inside of him. But Lomax did the same thing he did with Gordon in the whisky game a few years back and came up too 'hard', bit a head fake, and Fisher just kinda pooped himself on the first play, absolutely blew his coverage and nearly fell down trying to recover. It was 'planned' perfectly and they had the other 4 receivers blanketed. If Lomax and Fisher execute it correctly, the QB would have had to throw it away or eat it and they ARE capable of executing it. Moving on, none of the receivers 'sat down' nor did 'comebacks'. CJ just TOTALLY screwed up and he would tell you as much. The snag route to Smith was the open route, but CJ just 'stared' down the quick out and instead of throwing it away when it wasn't there, tries to force it in. What the hell does that have to do with 'game planning' and adjusting? What is 'check with me' with their receivers??? If a receiver is 'uncovered' or senses or sees his man is going to blitz, he can signal a 'now' or 'hot' call, but that is irrelevant to the play in question (pick 6)..What play(s) or route(s) would you have run on 3rd and 3 against that defensive set? What adjustment should the coaches have made to make King not bite on the fake fumble and get burnt??? You guys just don't get how it works....
 
Ickehawk said:
So how would you 'game plan' to cover that play from that formation? Roll Taylor to the weak side and have no deep safety on the trips side? Have Mabin leave the wideout and jump on the back out of the backfield? That coverage should have worked perfectly if it WAS EXECUTED properly and Lomax would have been 'over' the back and Fisher would have been under and inside of him. But Lomax did the same thing he did with Gordon in the whisky game a few years back and came up too 'hard', bit a head fake, and Fisher just kinda pooped himself on the first play, absolutely blew his coverage and nearly fell down trying to recover. It was 'planned' perfectly and they had the other 4 receivers blanketed. If Lomax and Fisher execute it correctly, the QB would have had to throw it away or eat it and they ARE capable of executing it. Moving on, none of the receivers 'sat down' nor did 'comebacks'. CJ just TOTALLY screwed up and he would tell you as much. The snag route to Smith was the open route, but CJ just 'stared' down the quick out and instead of throwing it away when it wasn't there, tries to force it in. What the hell does that have to do with 'game planning' and adjusting? What is 'check with me' with their receivers??? If a receiver is 'uncovered' or senses or sees his man is going to blitz, he can signal a 'now' or 'hot' call, but that is irrelevant to the play in question (pick 6)..What play(s) or route(s) would you have run on 3rd and 3 against that defensive set? What adjustment should the coaches have made to make King not bite on the fake fumble and get burnt??? You guys just don't get how it works....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why some are still coming at Icke, sure his posting style ruffles some feathers, but it has been obvious that Icke knows more about football, schemes, and plays than any other poster on here.

Not that this means Ickes opinion is always right, it just means that some really don't get that the game is a lot more than "run" or "pass". That so much more is going into a play that many of us just don't understand. I get that I don't understand the X's and O's of each play, so I'm not gonna criticize the coaches on those things when I really have no understanding of how to do their jobs.

The one thing I did jump on a poster about a little bit ago was that the coaches didn't "prepare" our players for Stanford and the 1st play proved it. Well I heard from a good enough source that Iowa absolutely specifically prepared for that very play, and it was frustrating that Stanford then scored on that play.
 
deanvogs said:
I'm not sure why some are still coming at Icke, sure his posting style ruffles some feathers, but it has been obvious that Icke knows more about football, schemes, and plays than any other poster on here.

Not that this means Ickes opinion is always right, it just means that some really don't get that the game is a lot more than "run" or "pass". That so much more is going into a play that many of us just don't understand. I get that I don't understand the X's and O's of each play, so I'm not gonna criticize the coaches on those things when I really have no understanding of how to do their jobs.

The one thing I did jump on a poster about a little bit ago was that the coaches didn't "prepare" our players for Stanford and the 1st play proved it. Well I heard from a good enough source that Iowa absolutely specifically prepared for that very play, and it was frustrating that Stanford then scored on that play.
Click to expand...

I'm coming at him because of his presentation. Someone that knows more than someone else and calls people morons and idiots because of it is a complete douche. Especially the way he says "you all" when responding to one person. If his presentation was better, he could be one of the best posters on here, instead he is by far the worst.
 
PCHawk said:
I'm coming at him because of his presentation. Someone that knows more than someone else and calls people morons and idiots because of it is a complete douche. Especially the way he says "you all" when responding to one person. If his presentation was better, he could be one of the best posters on here, instead he is by far the worst.
Click to expand...
You don't get called moron or idiot until you argue with me after I've tried to explain things to you in great detail. If you don't 'get it' by then, you are a moron or an idiot....get it? :)
 
Ickehawk said:
You don't get called moron or idiot until you argue with me after I've tried to explain things to you in great detail. If you don't 'get it' by then, you are a moron or an idiot....get it? :)
Click to expand...
So you're basically saying that if a person does not agree with your essay opinions then they're an idiot? Wow narrow minded! An opinion is an opinion not a fact!
 
Kennyfromminne said:
So you're basically saying that if a person does not agree with your essay opinions then they're an idiot? Wow narrow minded! An opinion is an opinion not a fact!
Click to expand...
Yes? First of all, I deal mostly in 'facts', vast experience and inside information, so I'm not giving a lot of 'opinions'. You guys, on the other hand, just like to see your words on a screen, so you type whatever you 'feel'........Listen, by definition, uninformed opinions are pretty much worthless and I'm not entirely sure why anyone wastes their time (my time, everybody's time) by expressing them. "Opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." So if your thought (feelings, whatever) isn't based in fact or knowledge, what is the goshdarn point in expressing it??? Seriously! So you hopefully can BS one or two other uninformed people into agreeing with and thus feeling important??? I'm not narrow minded, the american public is simple minded and it is de-evolving by the minute....Do you listen to people? Do you look around? Half the population is running around looking (and talking) like they just came in from the 'bush' with all their tattoos and piercings etc. and half can't put a complete sentence together. This isn't an opinion, it is based in fact and knowledge....it might be a little aggrandized, but it is based in fact........You can express all the statements you want that aren't based in fact or knowledge (opinion), but why would you get upset when someone tells you it's an idiotic statement because it is not based in fact or knowledge??? If I just blurt out, "the moon is really a giant orange", and someone calls me an idiot and tells me why I am an idiot, should I be upset? No, I should learn to not blurt out 'opinions' just because I 'feel' like it.....I SHOULD TRY TO INFORM MYSELF....Try it sometime, you'll like it...........
 
Ickehawk said:
Yes? First of all, I deal mostly in 'facts', vast experience and inside information, so I'm not giving a lot of 'opinions'. You guys, on the other hand, just like to see your words on a screen, so you type whatever you 'feel'........Listen, by definition, uninformed opinions are pretty much worthless and I'm not entirely sure why anyone wastes their time (my time, everybody's time) by expressing them. "Opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." So if your thought (feelings, whatever) isn't based in fact or knowledge, what is the goshdarn point in expressing it??? Seriously! So you hopefully can BS one or two other uninformed people into agreeing with and thus feeling important??? I'm not narrow minded, the american public is simple minded and it is de-evolving by the minute....Do you listen to people? Do you look around? Half the population is running around looking (and talking) like they just came in from the 'bush' with all their tattoos and piercings etc. and half can't put a complete sentence together. This isn't an opinion, it is based in fact and knowledge....it might be a little aggrandized, but it is based in fact........You can express all the statements you want that aren't based in fact or knowledge (opinion), but why would you get upset when someone tells you it's an idiotic statement because it is not based in fact or knowledge??? If I just blurt out, "the moon is really a giant orange", and someone calls me an idiot and tells me why I am an idiot, should I be upset? No, I should learn to not blurt out 'opinions' just because I 'feel' like it.....I SHOULD TRY TO INFORM MYSELF....Try it sometime, you'll like it...........
Click to expand...
Where did you get your facts about half the nation running around with tatoos and piercings? Did you take a scientific poll or just pull that outta your ass also?
 
Kennyfromminne said:
Where did you get your facts about half the nation running around with tatoos and piercings? Did you take a scientific poll or just pull that outta your ass also?
Click to expand...
Harris Poll- Tattoos are especially prevalent among younger Americans, with nearly half of Millennials (47%) and over a third of Gen Xers (36%)......According to Statistic Brain, as of 2014, 83 percent of Americans have their earlobes pierced... I said it might be a little 'aggrandized', but apparently you didn't know what that meant. Sorry, I won't use such big words when talking to someone of your 'abilities'........I was just 'rounding' numbers in an attempt to not make my post longer than it already was, but as you can see, my statement was based in FACT. Thanks for playing, try again, lol.........
 
Ickehawk said:
Yes? First of all, I deal mostly in 'facts', vast experience and inside information, so I'm not giving a lot of 'opinions'. You guys, on the other hand, just like to see your words on a screen, so you type whatever you 'feel'........Listen, by definition, uninformed opinions are pretty much worthless and I'm not entirely sure why anyone wastes their time (my time, everybody's time) by expressing them. "Opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." So if your thought (feelings, whatever) isn't based in fact or knowledge, what is the goshdarn point in expressing it??? Seriously! So you hopefully can BS one or two other uninformed people into agreeing with and thus feeling important??? I'm not narrow minded, the american public is simple minded and it is de-evolving by the minute....Do you listen to people? Do you look around? Half the population is running around looking (and talking) like they just came in from the 'bush' with all their tattoos and piercings etc. and half can't put a complete sentence together. This isn't an opinion, it is based in fact and knowledge....it might be a little aggrandized, but it is based in fact........You can express all the statements you want that aren't based in fact or knowledge (opinion), but why would you get upset when someone tells you it's an idiotic statement because it is not based in fact or knowledge??? If I just blurt out, "the moon is really a giant orange", and someone calls me an idiot and tells me why I am an idiot, should I be upset? No, I should learn to not blurt out 'opinions' just because I 'feel' like it.....I SHOULD TRY TO INFORM MYSELF....Try it sometime, you'll like it...........
Click to expand...


Another lie. Most of Ferentz's coaching decisions are opinions on what gives them the best chance of winning. Opinions that some other coaches would agree with and some would disagree with.

When you call someone stupid for thinking it was a bad idea to play Rudock over CJ, you're either saying every D1 coach would have made the same decision (which is stupid) or you're saying that those D1 coaches OPINIONS are somehow stupid because they aren't the same as Kirk's OPINIONS (which is also stupid). Either way you don't come out looking very smart. Not to mention coming off as a douche. You're posts about x's and o's are good tho. You should stick to those and give up on being a douche.
 
Ickehawk said:
So how would you 'game plan' to cover that play from that formation? Roll Taylor to the weak side and have no deep safety on the trips side? Have Mabin leave the wideout and jump on the back out of the backfield? That coverage should have worked perfectly if it WAS EXECUTED properly and Lomax would have been 'over' the back and Fisher would have been under and inside of him. But Lomax did the same thing he did with Gordon in the whisky game a few years back and came up too 'hard', bit a head fake, and Fisher just kinda pooped himself on the first play, absolutely blew his coverage and nearly fell down trying to recover. It was 'planned' perfectly and they had the other 4 receivers blanketed. If Lomax and Fisher execute it correctly, the QB would have had to throw it away or eat it and they ARE capable of executing it. Moving on, none of the receivers 'sat down' nor did 'comebacks'. CJ just TOTALLY screwed up and he would tell you as much. The snag route to Smith was the open route, but CJ just 'stared' down the quick out and instead of throwing it away when it wasn't there, tries to force it in. What the hell does that have to do with 'game planning' and adjusting? What is 'check with me' with their receivers??? If a receiver is 'uncovered' or senses or sees his man is going to blitz, he can signal a 'now' or 'hot' call, but that is irrelevant to the play in question (pick 6)..What play(s) or route(s) would you have run on 3rd and 3 against that defensive set? What adjustment should the coaches have made to make King not bite on the fake fumble and get burnt??? You guys just don't get how it works....
Click to expand...

I probably need to go back and rewatch that nightmare but early on Iowa had several 3rd and 3(s), 3rd and 4(s)....So you are telling me there weren't any adjustments to be made against tight, aggressive press coverage?
 
deanvogs said:
I'm not sure why some are still coming at Icke, sure his posting style ruffles some feathers, but it has been obvious that Icke knows more about football, schemes, and plays than any other poster on here.

Not that this means Ickes opinion is always right, it just means that some really don't get that the game is a lot more than "run" or "pass". That so much more is going into a play that many of us just don't understand. I get that I don't understand the X's and O's of each play, so I'm not gonna criticize the coaches on those things when I really have no understanding of how to do their jobs.

The one thing I did jump on a poster about a little bit ago was that the coaches didn't "prepare" our players for Stanford and the 1st play proved it. Well I heard from a good enough source that Iowa absolutely specifically prepared for that very play, and it was frustrating that Stanford then scored on that play.
Click to expand...

No doubt, he knows his football. He has schooled me on multiple occasions. I do not like having my a$$ handed to me, but it has forced me to rewatch games, learn the terminology, learn more about schemes. My masculinity isn't defined by a lack of football knowledge I will keep going at him, this is fun I love football X and O talk.

At first I thought he was Ok4p working an alt. But his X and O knowledge wasn't this vast. Besides his ego wouldn't allow him to have gigantic post without paragraph breaks. Is there somebody in the past with this kind of extensive football knowledge working an alt?
 
trj said:
No doubt, he knows his football. He has schooled me on multiple occasions. I do not like having my a$$ handed to me, but it has forced me to rewatch games, learn the terminology, learn more about schemes. My masculinity isn't defined by a lack of football knowledge I will keep going at him, this is fun I love football X and O talk.

At first I thought he was Ok4p working an alt. But his X and O knowledge wasn't this vast. Besides his ego wouldn't allow him to have gigantic post without paragraph breaks. Is there somebody in the past with this kind of extensive football knowledge working an alt?
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks any coach is above criticism isn't the king of football knowledge. And he is an alt. It gets more obvious with every post he makes.
 
trj said:
No doubt, he knows his football. He has schooled me on multiple occasions. I do not like having my a$$ handed to me, but it has forced me to rewatch games, learn the terminology, learn more about schemes. My masculinity isn't defined by a lack of football knowledge I will keep going at him, this is fun I love football X and O talk.

At first I thought he was Ok4p working an alt. But his X and O knowledge wasn't this vast. Besides his ego wouldn't allow him to have gigantic post without paragraph breaks. Is there somebody in the past with this kind of extensive football knowledge working an alt?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is an alt. He said he posted under a name on HR, I checked it out, and it seems to be the same posting style anyway. None of the dirty 30 had this kind of working knowledge of football. He has either played or coached as he speaks like many of the coaches that I know.

Could be wrong, maybe one of them started coaching, but I doubt it.
 
deanvogs said:
I don't think he is an alt. He said he posted under a name on HR, I checked it out, and it seems to be the same posting style anyway. None of the dirty 30 had this kind of working knowledge of football. He has either played or coached as he speaks like many of the coaches that I know.

Could be wrong, maybe one of them started coaching, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I am not Jewish, but something isn't quite kosher with this dude. At this point I do not care. Right now, he has me obsessing over football. Other than enjoying the weather, I am looking up terminology, rewatching games I will admit I am having fun going at him. I am getting crushed, but I am having fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top