Grades: offense B+; defense B

U

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
The announcers said Miami had won 17 games the last 3 years so the hawks were not playing a strong program. But their QB made some plays and he was an unknown quantity. They had two pretty good receivers and a running back who could get some extra yards.

The Iowa offense ran the ball well which they probably should have done. I would have liked to see Young get a steady series of carries but Sargent looked really good. Stanley was just above his average in stats and made some good throws. But I give them a B+ for either BF or Stanley making a dumb mess of the 4th down that ended the first drive. And also not finishing a couple of first half drives better. I would say a C grade in the first 25 minutes then an A- the rest of the game.

Not sure who had the unsportsmanlike penalty after ISM was held big-time on a pass that was almost completed. Refs missed that big time.

Defense got a B from me for some lackluster tackling the first 20 minutes and some just average pass coverage much of the game. But Miami did a smart thing getting the passes out quick to negate our rush. In the last 40 minutes the tackling was much better.

How much CASH did we play and who was the CASH player?
 
You are more kind or easily impressed than I.
If we had been in conference or up against a decent p5 with that start we had, on both sides of the ball, we would have been down at least 21 points by the half.
Yes things looked better in the second half, but we had a size advantage, and the wear and tear advantage, which we are not going to have that as the year goes on.
That slow of a start is not good, no matter how you sugar coat it.
Offense B-
Defense C
 
4thngoal said:
You are more kind or easily impressed than I.
If we had been in conference or up against a decent p5 with that start we had, on both sides of the ball, we would have been down at least 21 points by the half.
Yes things looked better in the second half, but we had a size advantage, and the wear and tear advantage, which we are not going to have that as the year goes on.
That slow of a start is not good, no matter how you sugar coat it.
Offense B-
Defense C
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with you. I was underwhelmed by the hawks in the first half overall. But they played really well in the 2nd half. I would say that both the grades in the first half were C's. And I agree that a fast striking offense in the big 10 could have had a big lead on the hawks by halftime.

Phil P has his work cut out for him with the Dbacks and I hope they improve a lot the next couple of weeks. The front 7 needs to tackle a little better to keep gains to 2 yards less than what some of them turned out to be. It is a huge difference for the Dee to have the opponent in 2nd and 8 most of the game.

We had some good passing routes and some other times when no one could get close to open. I will want to see Sargent and Young start off strong against Rutgers and get some good play action working.

This might be an offense that will work better with Stanley under center if the backs have really good averages.
 
BVHawk95 said:
I think the CASH may have gotten shelved for the time being. DJ Johnson was struggling early.
Click to expand...
Agree. Playing that kind of unit requires a guy who truly has Amani Hooker’s skills, but also requires LBs playing at a stud level. And let’s face it, we do not have a typical high talent LB crew right now like normal.
 
Fryowa said:
Agree. Playing that kind of unit requires a guy who truly has Amani Hooker’s skills, but also requires LBs playing at a stud level. And let’s face it, we do not have a typical high talent LB crew right now like normal.
Click to expand...
Hopefully he can get back on track. We're gonna need that package for Purdue, Michigan, PSU, and probably someone else.
 
BVHawk95 said:
Hopefully he can get back on track. We're gonna need that package for Purdue, Michigan, PSU, and probably someone else.
Click to expand...
People can knock Bo Bower all they want, but we definitely got spoiled having him, Jewell, and Niemann as long as we did. Now it seems like a six man revolving door and no clear cut standouts. I was hoping Doyle would have emerged by now, it would be great to get another 3 year starter.
 
uihawk82 said:
I dont disagree with you. I was underwhelmed by the hawks in the first half overall. But they played really well in the 2nd half. I would say that both the grades in the first half were C's. And I agree that a fast striking offense in the big 10 could have had a big lead on the hawks by halftime.

Phil P has his work cut out for him with the Dbacks and I hope they improve a lot the next couple of weeks. The front 7 needs to tackle a little better to keep gains to 2 yards less than what some of them turned out to be. It is a huge difference for the Dee to have the opponent in 2nd and 8 most of the game.

We had some good passing routes and some other times when no one could get close to open. I will want to see Sargent and Young start off strong against Rutgers and get some good play action working.

This might be an offense that will work better with Stanley under center if the backs have really good averages.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, but Wisconsin is not a fast striking offense and with the way we played on both sides of the ball the first half??
We couldn't stop them tonight in 3rd and long.
Yikes.
My whole thing with the offense is, it's time to just put it all together and play well each play, each drive. That's why I was hoping to see them come out fast and strong. We already know they can light up the score board at times and lay an egg at others. From game to game and half to half. It's been that way for a couple years.
The two things that killed us tonight we're not catching catchable passes and allowing 3rd down conversions. If those two things were better it would have looked like a totally different game. Half as many dropped passes and allowing half as many conversions and our score resembles PSU, OSU and Wisconsin's.
They had a little to much success running on us also, but some of it was excitement of first game. I expect that will get better, because we are better than that.
 
Fryowa said:
People can knock Bo Bower all they want, but we definitely got spoiled having him, Jewell, and Niemann as long as we did. Now it seems like a six man revolving door and no clear cut standouts. I was hoping Doyle would have emerged by now, it would be great to get another 3 year starter.
Click to expand...

We've been pretty spoiled at LB. I actually think we have a solid, albeit not spectacular LB crew.

Bo Bower was far better than he was given credit for. Not elite, but damn solid.
 
Overall, this game went kind of how we should have expected it to go. We were fairly vanilla on both sides of the ball, especially defense, we executed really well on offense at times and got a lot of guys involved. Yet, we have a lot to work on if we want to be a really good football team.



QB - B. He played a very safe game, took what was there but didn't risk a lot because they didn't have to. But I still wonder if he can make it happen when it counts.

WR - A+. This is the best group overall that we have had that I can remember. I know we had better players, but we have some definite weapons out there.

TE - A. They played like TE's, and that is a good thing in this offense. With this group of receivers, we need TE's that get a couple catches a game but are better blockers.

OL - A. Lots of running lanes, great in pass protection. A lot of guys played it looks like without any drop off. Linderbaum is going to be a stud.

RB's - B. They are certainly improved, and I was very impressed with what they did on this night. I only give them a B because they still haven't shown the ability to break a big one. And they can get a little better with their reads once they get through the line, many times where if they make a guy miss or break a tackle they house it.



DT's - C. I just wasn't impressed with any of the interior lineman. They played OK, thus the C. No disruption up the middle, too many running lanes.

DE's - B. AJ was pretty much silent as he faced some double teams, but Amani Jones off the edge looked good. So did Gholston. The RPO makes these guys look worse than they are in a game like this because they obviously are preventing the big play.

LB's - B. Colbert seemed to be all over the field and Welch was significant in the run game. I would like for them to be a little stiffer on first down runs, but hard to nit pick them here.

DB's - D. This is the group that has the most to work on. Hankins had the pass interference as well as letting a guy beat him over the top, as well as not being in position on suspect passes that should have been picked off. Ojemudia was OK, but he gives up a lot on his side. Merriweather seemed to be out of position the most and Stone was not as impressive as I thought he would be. This group, behind the front 7 we have, should have yield far fewer 3rd down conversions than they did when they knew they were going to throw.



Special Teams - A. Not much sample size here but they didn't miss anything.



Play calling:



Defense: B. This was pretty much a base defense game throughout, nothing special.

Offense: C. I just don't like Brian's philosophy sometimes, like passing the ball on 3rd and 1, and not just a safe throw, but a difficult throw that has a low completion percentage for Nate. Especially the one with 4:00 to go in the 1st half, where the clock screamed to get the first down and run the clock down while we possess the ball. I like so many of the plays that we have and the players in those positions, but much like Nate, it is the consistency on when to call them is what I question.



Conclusion: Much like we all thought at the beginning of the year, we have all the tools to succeed on this team, but, we will go only as far as Nate and Brian Ferentz will take us. I have full confidence in Phil to shore up the secondary and to scheme to stop the run, both of which are mild concerns of mine. But we just have to eliminate the wasted plays by both the QB and the OC, because we have little room for error not having a QB that is adept at scrambling, improvising and running. It all better go to plan for us to succeed, and that is even more pressure on the play calling. Only time will tell.
 
Offense: B+. Overall, I thought Brian called a really good game, and our OL was dominant. It is great to see the weapons we have. Probably the most depth at skills positions I can remember. Would be even better but for some crappy throws, some drops, and Ross intentionally fumbling.

Defense: C. The middle looked solid. But we had a hard time getting to the QB, and the pass D from the back 7 was not up to Iowa standards. Hawks will be abused if they play like that against better teams. Lots to work on.
 
Fryowa said:
People can knock Bo Bower all they want, but we definitely got spoiled having him, Jewell, and Niemann as long as we did. Now it seems like a six man revolving door and no clear cut standouts. I was hoping Doyle would have emerged by now, it would be great to get another 3 year starter.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how naming a solid linebacker in the past has anything to do with the solid linebackers in the present.
 
dirtwrap said:
Offense: C. I just don't like Brian's philosophy sometimes, like passing the ball on 3rd and 1, and not just a safe throw, but a difficult throw that has a low completion percentage for Nate. Especially the one with 4:00 to go in the 1st half, where the clock screamed to get the first down and run the clock down while we possess the ball. I like so many of the plays that we have and the players in those positions, but much like Nate, it is the consistency on when to call them is what I question.

.
Click to expand...

Honestly I thought the play calling was excellent.... Especially the second half.

Fun fact.... Iowa only punted once the entire game.

The second half iowa went TD, TD, fumble, TD, TD. I'll take that every day of the week
 
Miami had only 4 3rd down conversions, and a low %, according to Dolph and Eddie. Our two LB’s had 8 tackles each. Also from the radio report. Stanley was well over 60%, 3 TDS, no int. Two 15 yard runs. Miami ran for 39 yds in the 1st half and had only a few more than that in the 2nd half. We had One punt for 31 yards. Majority of KO’s were touchbacks. All extra points good, 1 FG attempted and made. Iowa played straight up 4-3 Defense. Probably a pre game decision.
 
While there was some sloppy plays there were a ton of good things. Stanley was not sacked, no INT, ran the ball well, no large amounts of drops. What I am most pleased about is that in previous years when Iowa was a heavy favorite they wouldn’t really open up the play book even when they struggled. This game had a lot of new formations and wrinkles.

The ball distribution was good with lots of guys on offense touching the ball and for once it seems we have several threats at WR to catch the ball and make something happen.

I will have to watch it again but the thing I did not see was much rotation on the D-line. Maybe I missed it and while they didn’t play bad it is nice to keep guys fresh. Granted Miami did run tempo quite a bit to keep the subbing down but I was expecting to see more.

Besides some of the injuries I think we are in good shape
 
Fryowa said:
I was just saying that we got spoiled having a solid 3 man crew back there for multiple years. The Bower reference was because when he played, a lot of people knocked his playing ability unjustly.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the guys we have now aren't even solid? I disagree.
 
HuckFinn said:
Miami had only 4 3rd down conversions, and a low %, according to Dolph and Eddie. Our two LB’s had 8 tackles each. Also from the radio report. Stanley was well over 60%, 3 TDS, no int. Two 15 yard runs. Miami ran for 39 yds in the 1st half and had only a few more than that in the 2nd half. We had One punt for 31 yards. Majority of KO’s were touchbacks. All extra points good, 1 FG attempted and made. Iowa played straight up 4-3 Defense. Probably a pre game decision.
Click to expand...

4 3rd down conversions. 3-15 that was almost converted ended 4-2. Had a 3-6 and a 3-13 conversion as well.
1-1 on 4th down conversions. (4-3 and got 8)
They had the ball 10 times.
So 5 (almost 6) conversions in 10 drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top