Harsh reality

Ok, we have to be real here. It's pretty obvious that Michigan was toying with the Hawks last night. They showed vs OSU that they can throw the ball, and Iowa's secondary has not exactly been airtight this year. Harbaugh could have thrown the ball all over the field and wracked up more total offensive yards, if they needed to. But they didn't need to. They didn't need to go on 4th and 1 from the Iowa 30 in the 4th quarter, but they could have, would've certainly made it, and continued in for a TD at that point in the game. But Harbaugh on offense does only what he has to, to win. And last night, they only needed to utilize 1 aspect of their offense -- the less risky part of their offense. But let's not delude ourselves, there was no way Iowa was winning that game last night.
 
JoeyLabasForPresident said:
I really don't understand how you can honestly have this takeaway after watching the games. Michigan scored three field goals without help from Deacon and awful punt coverage. Allar and McCarthy are not otherworldly quarterbacks. Both are overrated, and I'd go so far as to say that Allar isn't very good at all. Do we win both games? Probably not. But I think it's more likely that we split than lose both, and there's a non-zero chance we are 13-0 right now with an average offense.

I'll go one step further here, I think there's a solid chance we win last night if Kirk had taken a look at his quarterback room and given whoever else looks best other than Deacon the start against Nebraska and last night. We almost certainly win with an offense that 1. doesn't turn the ball over, and 2. can score 14-20 points. Deacon has proven again and again that he cannot do the second, and even when BF resolves not to even bother trying to score points, Deacon even fails at the first. Rolling him out is malpractice. Deacon ain't it. Neither he nor Petras belong on a P5 roster. Blah blah "you aren't at practice," I don't care. No reason not to have gone to the bullpen with nothing to lose in week 13 with the West locked up. Beathard was buried on the roster once upon a time--that's the only evidence I need to know that I don't care at all for Kirk's QB evaluation. Get dudes on the field and see who shows up.

I'm so over putting the dude out there with the "best leadership." Our offense doesn't need leadership, it needs to score points. Being the most mature dude in the QB room isn't relevant when you suck at playing football. I believe whole heartedly that we would have more likely than not won at least ten, and maybe one more game, if we hadn't picked up the back-up to Graham Mertz's back-up in the transfer portal this offseason.
Click to expand...
Or McCann over Banks....or Stanzi...was it Ruddock or Jake C being played over him.. don't remember. They are stubborn at making bad selection choices here.
 
HaydenHawk56 said:
Or McCann over Banks....or Stanzi...was it Ruddock or Jake C being played over him.. don't remember. They are stubborn at making bad selection choices here.
Click to expand...
Christensen->Stanzi, Rudock->Beathard; Kirk sucks at pattern recognition, that's for sure.

I hope to god Beth tells Kirk, you pick your guy for OC and QB coach, but you have to give him full control of the offense.
 
Grady said:
Ok, we have to be real here. It's pretty obvious that Michigan was toying with the Hawks last night. They showed vs OSU that they can throw the ball, and Iowa's secondary has not exactly been airtight this year. Harbaugh could have thrown the ball all over the field and wracked up more total offensive yards, if they needed to. But they didn't need to. They didn't need to go on 4th and 1 from the Iowa 30 in the 4th quarter, but they could have, would've certainly made it, and continued in for a TD at that point in the game. But Harbaugh on offense does only what he has to, to win. And last night, they only needed to utilize 1 aspect of their offense -- the less risky part of their offense. But let's not delude ourselves, there was no way Iowa was winning that game last night.
Click to expand...
With our offense and the special teams playing less than perfect...correct.
 
Grady said:
Ok, we have to be real here. It's pretty obvious that Michigan was toying with the Hawks last night. They showed vs OSU that they can throw the ball, and Iowa's secondary has not exactly been airtight this year. Harbaugh could have thrown the ball all over the field and wracked up more total offensive yards, if they needed to. But they didn't need to. They didn't need to go on 4th and 1 from the Iowa 30 in the 4th quarter, but they could have, would've certainly made it, and continued in for a TD at that point in the game. But Harbaugh on offense does only what he has to, to win. And last night, they only needed to utilize 1 aspect of their offense -- the less risky part of their offense. But let's not delude ourselves, there was no way Iowa was winning that game last night.
Click to expand...
I disagree. To be honest neither of us know for sure but the stats say that Michigans offense was unable to move the ball with any consistency. They had 213 yards of total offense. We get mocked for averaging less than 250. Our defense dominated their offense but in typical fashion our offense didn’t do anything and worse than that our offense hurt us with three turnovers. Throw in the punt coverage allowing an 87 yard punt return and the end result is less than optimal.
 
Ok if we get Ken O'Keefe offensive numbers, say 60-80 in offense would you guys be happy or does it need to be the second coming of Brad Banks where we were in the top 10 if I remember correctly? Do we want balance or do we want the flash? If we go 10-2 and look more like say the Stanzi or even Nathan Chandler?
 
Iceman said:
Our two games this year against better than average talent we lost both with a combined score of 57 to 0. This is a more realistic stat of where we are instead of the 10 wins IMHO.
Click to expand...

Dochterman mentioned this in his BCG recap...when Iowa's defense was on the field, it felt like Iowa had a chance (except in the second half of PSU when they got worn down). When Iowa's offense was on the field, the idea of scoring points seemed ludicrous.

Both of these games could have been so different with a few plays breaking differently. Yet, our offense was completely incapable of creating any breaks. What an odd feeling, and what an odd team to cheer for.
 
HawkeyeGunner said:
Ok if we get Ken O'Keefe offensive numbers, say 60-80 in offense would you guys be happy or does it need to be the second coming of Brad Banks where we were in the top 10 if I remember correctly? Do we want balance or do we want the flash? If we go 10-2 and look more like say the Stanzi or even Nathan Chandler?
Click to expand...
Iowa will likely not see 10-2 again for 15 years or more. I think some of you are in for some frustrating seasons in the new PACBIG.
 
HawkeyeGunner said:
Ok if we get Ken O'Keefe offensive numbers, say 60-80 in offense would you guys be happy or does it need to be the second coming of Brad Banks where we were in the top 10 if I remember correctly? Do we want balance or do we want the flash? If we go 10-2 and look more like say the Stanzi or even Nathan Chandler?
Click to expand...

They'll always demand more. I'll say this, if that Iowa had those injured TEs and Cooper DeJean I think there's a non-zero chance they win that game, even with Deacon at QB. It came down to a few plays and an absolute screw job by the officials who at a critical moment decided to make sure there was absolutely no way that Iowa could luck into a W.
 
JoeyLabasForPresident said:
Overly pessimistic. Way too many good seasons from 1980-2010 for me to believe this.
Click to expand...

It's real simple, either we strike paydirt when we replace Kurt or we don't. If we strike paydirt then we will be 10-3 (may include bowl win) roughly two out of every five years, maybe even three out of every five. If we don't get the right guy, the program could be heading to a dark place. It's really hard for anyone paying attention to ignore what has happened to Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska, our neighboring teams that share the longest land borders in our conference. Minnesota has been bad since the '60's, but they were super good and disappeared. Illinois was, during the '80's and part of the '90's, a credible threat to sneak up and compete for the conference title. They've disappeared. Nebraska has like a half dozen natties and is now 7 years removed from a bowl berth. Two men have caused Iowa to avoid that fate, Hayden and Kurt. Can we find another legend? It's gonna be tough.
 
dagdaj said:
I dunno.
Iowa's offense awarded Michigan 10 points.
Let's also give them 3 points in the differential when they coughed up the ball on the short field. Take away the 7 points coughed up by the punt return (as good as that kid did running him down)...DeJean doesn't let that guy loose.

Corum was held in check.
McCarthy was largely ineffective, and spent some time on his back.
The Michigan offense didn't find the endzone unless they were starting from 6 yards or less.

Granted, Michigan didn't HAVE to do much. Outside of one drive, they couldn't do much. And that drive only netted 3.
Click to expand...
Nice to see a post that makes sense.
 
Grady said:
Ok, we have to be real here. It's pretty obvious that Michigan was toying with the Hawks last night. They showed vs OSU that they can throw the ball, and Iowa's secondary has not exactly been airtight this year. Harbaugh could have thrown the ball all over the field and wracked up more total offensive yards, if they needed to. But they didn't need to. They didn't need to go on 4th and 1 from the Iowa 30 in the 4th quarter, but they could have, would've certainly made it, and continued in for a TD at that point in the game. But Harbaugh on offense does only what he has to, to win. And last night, they only needed to utilize 1 aspect of their offense -- the less risky part of their offense. But let's not delude ourselves, there was no way Iowa was winning that game last night.
Click to expand...
Nice try. The M QB would not have survived 4 quarters if the passing game would have been M’s focus. Probably a couple of receivers might be watching M’s next game from the injured list.
 
CP87 said:
Dochterman mentioned this in his BCG recap...when Iowa's defense was on the field, it felt like Iowa had a chance (except in the second half of PSU when they got worn down). When Iowa's offense was on the field, the idea of scoring points seemed ludicrous.

Both of these games could have been so different with a few plays breaking differently. Yet, our offense was completely incapable of creating any breaks. What an odd feeling, and what an odd team to cheer for.
Click to expand...
Yup
 
Sparky said:
There's no chance with Kirk. Iowa cracked the top 50 offenses 3 times in 25 years, a new OC isn't going to fix that.

Over the next few years, with the expansion of the B10, Iowa is about to get crushed. Its not going to be pretty. Kiss any championship opportunities goodbye.
Click to expand...
I find this reasoning hilarious. When football is played outdoors, which it is for ALL current Big 10 teams, your strategy is limited by the elements. How many games has USC, UCLA, Oregon or Washington had to play in snow? How many in sub-freezing weather? How many with bone-numbing windchill? It's been proven in the Big 10 time and again that you really can't run an offense that is based on passing in these conditions; heck, field goal kickers have issues when it gets windy and cold. Coaches who have tried have been removed due to poor records. Those strategies work until the weather turns cold and then you get the old smash mouth football.
 
HawkeyeGunner said:
Ok if we get Ken O'Keefe offensive numbers, say 60-80 in offense would you guys be happy or does it need to be the second coming of Brad Banks where we were in the top 10 if I remember correctly? Do we want balance or do we want the flash? If we go 10-2 and look more like say the Stanzi or even Nathan Chandler?
Click to expand...

Hey, I liked KOK and he did put up decent numbers on offense. But how many here think he was given free rein on offense? (Hopefully no one is that naive) When he was at Allegheny he ran what resembled the Air Raid offense and won a DIII championship. Does anyone believe that if he had free rein at Iowa he wouldn't have run the same offense, you know - the offense he was familiar with? I don't know who will be brought in for OC, but it will continue to be Kirk's offense.... just as it has been for the past 25 years.
 
Sparky said:
There's no chance with Kirk. Iowa cracked the top 50 offenses 3 times in 25 years, a new OC isn't going to fix that.

Over the next few years, with the expansion of the B10, Iowa is about to get crushed. Its not going to be pretty. Kiss any championship opportunities goodbye.
Click to expand...
He's got to get it right, but my point is that they have one glaring deficiency to correct and know of it. It is big but Iowa is in no worse shape than the rest of the 10-12 teams in the BIG chasing the top dogs.

Most every team has the same concerns with the new teams coming in and being competitive so the fact that Iowa fans have the same concern is not surprising. Some on here for some reason think Iowa is going to be worst than any other team. So negative.

Iowa has every other phase solidified. I'd sell that to a potential OC.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top