Film Study

[lightning1]

That play is one of the plays that has beat our base defense since KF got here. Its a delay route meant to isolate a WR on our coverage LB. OSU killed us with it under Tressel. The difference from season to season is our ability to pressure the QB with our front 4. When we can get pressure, it takes the route too long to develop.

 

[teachercoach]

Thought this thread would be about film review of entire game.... after going thru the tape (tough angle from 6 rows up at the game), I would be most upset with lack of holding calls, clips by the Stanford offense. After the 1st play, the any of the next 8 Stanford plays over 6 yds don't happen with out obvious holding or block in the back.... If all Big 12 officiating is like this - explains the scores.

 

[kicker22]

Totally disagree that Iowa wouldn't have competed well--and likely beaten--Michigan this year (in Iowa City, at least) The Wolves were improved, but hardly invincible. Ohio State would probably have been another matter, but then again, maybe not had the teams met earlier in the season (Indiana took em to the wire, for Pete's sake) We'll never know. It's easy right now to pile on to Iowa's miserable performance in the Rose Bowl but what we saw during the regular season was no mirage. The Hawkeyes were SOLID on both sides of the ball most of the time against foes that were admittedly average to good (three opponents won their bowl games, after all). Injuries, certain individual match-ups, coaching styles, and one very special talent conspired to make Iowa look silly against one of the nation's top teams in the Rose Bowl. Very disappointing finish but a season to build on. The Hawks will be back and, IMHO, improved next year!

I agree with this. I think there's a overwhelming amount of credit that is not being given to Stanford. They won the PAC they're a very good team, yet some want to base our performance against them to build an argument that we couldn't compete against OSU or Michigan. Why is it so hard to believe that Stanford is a very good if not elite program regardless of the all to often reminder that they lost to Northwestern week 1.

 

[kicker22]

I should add to the above post that Michigan and OSU didn't play a team anywhere close to being as good as Stanford in their bowl games so I don't see the comparison.

 

[Caddy]

I agree with this. I think there's a overwhelming amount of credit that is not being given to Stanford. They won the PAC they're a very good team, yet some want to base our performance against them to build an argument that we couldn't compete against OSU or Michigan. Why is it so hard to believe that Stanford is a very good if not elite program regardless of the all to often reminder that they lost to Northwestern week 1.

I wouldn't use the term elite to describe Stanford. They have a good offense, but their defense was average to below average all season. Elite teams have an elite defense. All I heard before the game was how we would put up points against that defense. How did that turn out? We have no playmakers on offense, and defense, we're good against lower level competition in our division, but face a decent offense, and we saw the result. Did we have a good season? yes, but as the national pundits said all season, it was more of a product of our weak schedule than anything else. We really beat nobody of significance all year.

 

[eveningnewsteam]

Iowa's offensive plan was dog@@@@. They were gonna do what they do, no matter what Stanford dictated. It makes you wonder if they actually did bother to watch film

 

[SteveGarvey]

If CJ was on Michigan they would have been 12-1. If Jake was on the Hawks we would have been 9-4.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

I wouldn't use the term elite to describe Stanford. They have a good offense, but their defense was average to below average all season. Elite teams have an elite defense. All I heard before the game was how we would put up points against that defense. How did that turn out? We have no playmakers on offense, and defense, we're good against lower level competition in our division, but face a decent offense, and we saw the result. Did we have a good season? yes, but as the national pundits said all season, it was more of a product of our weak schedule than anything else. We really beat nobody of significance all year.

Stanford played elite on offense and their execution was almost flawless. Combined with poor tackling on Iowa's part. When Hogan is that accurate, Stanford offense is elite.

Stanfords defense was good, while not elite. Iowa's execution and gameplan/playcalling was well below average.

The pundits knew we had a favorable schedule prior to the season, and predicted 6-7 wins. The pundits predicted we would lose to Pitt, Wisc, NW, and Nebraska. So they were likely right we weren't a top 5-9 team....while maybe true, Iowa still absolutely earned and deserved where they were.

After rewatch in the Rose, I actually felt better overall. We played poorly, they played their best game of the season. Things snowballed.

The only thing I completely agree with is we had a very good season.

 

[deanvogs]

I wouldn't use the term elite to describe Stanford. They have a good offense, but their defense was average to below average all season. Elite teams have an elite defense. All I heard before the game was how we would put up points against that defense. How did that turn out? We have no playmakers on offense, and defense, we're good against lower level competition in our division, but face a decent offense, and we saw the result. Did we have a good season? yes, but as the national pundits said all season, it was more of a product of our weak schedule than anything else. We really beat nobody of significance all year.

Iowa went 2-2 vs teams with 10 wins or more.

OSU went 3-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Bama is 2-1 vs team with 10 wins or more

Notre Dame went 1-3 vs teams with 10 wins or more (beat Temple)

Oklahoma went 3-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Baylor went 2-2 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Stanford went 2-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more (Oregon only had 9 wins so they were 2-2 vs the best 4 teams they faced)

Michigan St. was 3-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Michigan was 2-3 vs teams with 10 wins or more


At the end of the day, nearly every other good team played basically 4 teams that were top 20ish type teams. Do people really think that teams are facing like 6, 7, or 8 games where they are playing a 10 win team? The elite teams went 3-1 vs other top teams. Very good teams went 2-2 or 1-3.

The fact is you don't go 10-0 vs even mediocre teams if you are an "average" team yourself. Simply doesn't happen. So keep on keeping on sounding like a complete f*** tard, it makes me laughy....

 

[PCHawk]

Iowa went 2-2 vs teams with 10 wins or more.

OSU went 3-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Bama is 2-1 vs team with 10 wins or more

Notre Dame went 1-3 vs teams with 10 wins or more (beat Temple)

Oklahoma went 3-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Baylor went 2-2 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Stanford went 2-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more (Oregon only had 9 wins so they were 2-2 vs the best 4 teams they faced)

Michigan St. was 3-1 vs teams with 10 wins or more

Michigan was 2-3 vs teams with 10 wins or more


At the end of the day, nearly every other good team played basically 4 teams that were top 20ish type teams. Do people really think that teams are facing like 6, 7, or 8 games where they are playing a 10 win team? The elite teams went 3-1 vs other top teams. Very good teams went 2-2 or 1-3.

The fact is you don't go 10-0 vs even mediocre teams if you are an "average" team yourself. Simply doesn't happen. So keep on keeping on sounding like a complete f*** tard, it makes me laughy....

Good breakdown. It's not like we were sneaking by teams either. How many teams had the ball with a chance to win with under 5 minutes left this year? I think Wisconsin was the only one. If our oline and defense were healthy it would have been a close game. Games with 2 comparable teams end up lopsided all the time. I consider Iowa to be a slightly better team than Northwestern and we destroyed them. It's even less of a big deal when so many big plays are involved.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Rudock had a big advantage: no spring drills/contact. He basically had four months of work-out/conditioning time with zero-to-very-slim risk of injury. Hence, he was faster this year, ran better, etc.

As to our game plan on the O side, I STILL don't get it. And I don't even "blame" anybody. We simply stayed with our original plan, no matter what, made zero adjustments and allowed their defense to push us around.