Haters gonna hate

BHappelsArmy

BHappelsArmy

Well-Known Member
Tired of seeing the same argument on multiple threads? Me too. This one is for the non Kool-aid drinkers, get it off your chest here bruh. We share your beliefs
 
Going opposite and saying this was a great season and if the coaches and players come out attacking next year they will have a great season. Keep being exciting and winning most games and that is all we can ask.

Not hating at all but the program has room for improvement
 
Great season. Seriously, neutralize three plays; first play, punt return and pick six..........a much more competitive game.

Positive take away from getting crushed is they won't be over rated to start next season. This game should make them better...

Wadley as the starting RB could make a huge difference to this team.
 
hwks1 said:
Great season. Seriously, neutralize three plays; first play, punt return and pick six..........a much more competitive game.

Positive take away from getting crushed is they won't be over rated to start next season. This game should make them better...

Wadley as the starting RB could make a huge difference to this team.
Click to expand...

It's funny how 3 plays can make a game go from close to blowout. Especially when the team that makes those plays is the team that's playing better without them. The pick 6 was the killer. If we somehow punch that in, it's 14-7 and we have a little momentum.
 
PCHawk said:
It's funny how 3 plays can make a game go from close to blowout. Especially when the team that makes those plays is the team that's playing better without them. The pick 6 was the killer. If we somehow punch that in, it's 14-7 and we have a little momentum.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The pick 6 really was the end. Even the unflappable CJ was affected by it. It destroyed any/all momentum.

I don't think we win the game either way, but if we score there I truly believe its a ballgame.

The Oline/Playcalling was really poor. Tackling (and apparently cleat traction) was unusually bad.

When you're playing a great team, that you're already a 7 point underdog to, with the best player in the country, the above things result in what happened.

It sucks, we were good, not great, and got exposed.

If we play Stanford 10 times, and both teams play well all around, we likely only win 1-3 times.

Damnn.
 
after sleeping on it, 12-2 is a special season especially when you're expecting anything from not making a bowl to 7-5 at max before the year started. Of course the end result will be the same, the year Iowa laid a turd in the rose bowl. 30 years later we still remember the ronnie harmon game.
 
PCHawk said:
It's funny how 3 plays can make a game go from close to blowout. Especially when the team that makes those plays is the team that's playing better without them. The pick 6 was the killer. If we somehow punch that in, it's 14-7 and we have a little momentum.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Iowa was beat before they even stepped on the field. Nerves, cleats, MacCraffrey, outdated bowl prep whatever the reason iowa wasn't winning that game. Iowa, especially defensively, looked like they were running in mud.
 
It's sad that the season ended the way it did. But it was a great season none the less. And and Hawk fans we have a lot to look forward too. Now if King and Ott come back. We will have the defense we need.
 
Nobody is hating, we've run the same offense all year and I'm kind of surprised it took until the Rose bowl for a team to pick it apart. Those quick passes have been close to being picked all year, and with no speed in the WR corps, it was just a matter of time before a pick 6 happened.

i still think we should have beaten MSU, but sadly our playoff would have looked a lot like theirs did against bama, if not worse.
 
The dirty secret about this team is CJ wasn't any better than Jake. He took some more deep shots but he overthrew almost all of them.
 
Loved this season.

Only thing that kinda sucks is this season is kind of Iowa football's peak in my eyes. We can't really go much higher than what we did this season. Our easy schedule helped us get to 12-0 and when we played the good teams they proved the critics right.

I just feel like next year, I don't know what the expectations will be, but no way we go 12-0 again. I would be thrilled with 9-3
 
Not a "dirty little secret" at all. Beathard can actually throw (and nail) a deep shot. Not knocking Rudock but they are two different QBs with different skill sets and different circumstances. Rudock had great receivers, Beathard did not. Yet how many wins did Michigan achieve this year, despite their "fabulous" new coach, exceptional recruiting advantages, and premier football history? Yes, Iowa got clobbered in the Rose Bowl but a lot of other good teams would have lost as well. Michigan wouldn't have won that game, either. For that matter, I doubt Ohio State would have gotten it done, although it probably would have been close.
 
Bad omens for me:

* Words were barely out of the sideline reporters mouth about Lomax struggling with a knee issue and the next thing we know he's locked up on McCaffrey with no bracket or deep help. Also, did we learn nothing from David Johnson smoking us a couple years ago? You can't give a guy with that much ability a 2 way go with all that green to work with.

* What was the deal with going to the gun on 3rd and 2 and then again on 3rd and 2 (or 3) the very next time?

* On the first (I think) 3rd and 2 play we run a hitch to Smith vs. press coverage. I would venture to guess more than a few schools at the D-1 level have this in their arsenal (I know I did at a significantly lower level of coaching)...but against aggressive press coverage it's a VERY low percentage play to try to make a throw to a 'standing' receiver. Anyone ever heard the adage run vs. man and sit vs. zone? In my offenses (and in most offenses whose clinics I've attended) will check to slant or fade in that case, and in a lot of cases it's not even a check the QB has to make. It's a route conversion the receiver makes once he sees the coverage.../soapbox. It just signified to me that in that case we were going to keep trying to slam that square peg into the round hole, probabilities be damned.

* There was a brief glimmer of hope when we got Stanford into third and 9 on their first "real" drive of the game...we had numbers on the smoke screen to McCaffrey, Fisher had a golden chance to stop the play for no gain and he didn't really even come close to making a play and McCaffrey gets 12-15 yards.

* I haven't watched it a 2nd time (not a masochist :)) but I was thinking the pick six was the same play we run several times a game, where we have a TE and two receivers lined up in a "Trey" formation and the inside 2 guys run outs and the outside guy takes the top off to clear it out. As far as I'm concerned we should almost never throw to the inside receiver (unless it's soft cover 3 and the flat man is occupied with the TE). We did, and not only did Stanford jump the route, but CJ was late with the throw and it wasn't even a good throw to boot.

Those plays gave me the unfortunate feeling that:
* We weren't going to be able to old Kirk/new Kirk/any Kirk our way out of this one
* The stuff we've done all year (and gotten away with it because of our charmin-soft schedule) wasn't going to work terribly well
* We still lack any sort of creativity or explosiveness on offense, especially when matched against a defense that DOES bring speed/athleticism
* While I didn't think we'd shut McCaffrey down, I had no inclination that he would embarrass us the way we did
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Bad omens for me:

* Words were barely out of the sideline reporters mouth about Lomax struggling with a knee issue and the next thing we know he's locked up on McCaffrey with no bracket or deep help. Also, did we learn nothing from David Johnson smoking us a couple years ago? You can't give a guy with that much ability a 2 way go with all that green to work with.

* What was the deal with going to the gun on 3rd and 2 and then again on 3rd and 2 (or 3) the very next time?

* On the first (I think) 3rd and 2 play we run a hitch to Smith vs. press coverage. I would venture to guess more than a few schools at the D-1 level have this in their arsenal (I know I did at a significantly lower level of coaching)...but against aggressive press coverage it's a VERY low percentage play to try to make a throw to a 'standing' receiver. Anyone ever heard the adage run vs. man and sit vs. zone? In my offenses (and in most offenses whose clinics I've attended) will check to slant or fade in that case, and in a lot of cases it's not even a check the QB has to make. It's a route conversion the receiver makes once he sees the coverage.../soapbox. It just signified to me that in that case we were going to keep trying to slam that square peg into the round hole, probabilities be damned.

* There was a brief glimmer of hope when we got Stanford into third and 9 on their first "real" drive of the game...we had numbers on the smoke screen to McCaffrey, Fisher had a golden chance to stop the play for no gain and he didn't really even come close to making a play and McCaffrey gets 12-15 yards.

* I haven't watched it a 2nd time (not a masochist :)) but I was thinking the pick six was the same play we run several times a game, where we have a TE and two receivers lined up in a "Trey" formation and the inside 2 guys run outs and the outside guy takes the top off to clear it out. As far as I'm concerned we should almost never throw to the inside receiver (unless it's soft cover 3 and the flat man is occupied with the TE). We did, and not only did Stanford jump the route, but CJ was late with the throw and it wasn't even a good throw to boot.

Those plays gave me the unfortunate feeling that:
* We weren't going to be able to old Kirk/new Kirk/any Kirk our way out of this one
* The stuff we've done all year (and gotten away with it because of our charmin-soft schedule) wasn't going to work terribly well
* We still lack any sort of creativity or explosiveness on offense, especially when matched against a defense that DOES bring speed/athleticism
* While I didn't think we'd shut McCaffrey down, I had no inclination that he would embarrass us the way we did
Click to expand...

^^^^this all day long....I still think Iowa loses, but it was a poorly called game on both sides of the ball.
 
hawkinn3 said:
The dirty secret about this team is CJ wasn't any better than Jake. He took some more deep shots but he overthrew almost all of them.
Click to expand...

Whoa man. I hope your not serious.

We are a 3-4 loss team with Jake. I liked the kid, but he couldn't do many of the things CJ did.
 
The pick six wouldn't have happened if the refs would have called the blatant late hit out of bounds on CJ. He was clotheslines well out of bounds yet no call. I'm guessing he was a bit woozy since right after that he threw the pick six.
 
Tigerhawk222 said:
Not a "dirty little secret" at all. Beathard can actually throw (and nail) a deep shot. Not knocking Rudock but they are two different QBs with different skill sets and different circumstances. Rudock had great receivers, Beathard did not. Yet how many wins did Michigan achieve this year, despite their "fabulous" new coach, exceptional recruiting advantages, and premier football history? Yes, Iowa got clobbered in the Rose Bowl but a lot of other good teams would have lost as well. Michigan wouldn't have won that game, either. For that matter, I doubt Ohio State would have gotten it done, although it probably would have been close.
Click to expand...

Rudock had great receivers? Good one!

Now name them.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Bad omens for me:

* Words were barely out of the sideline reporters mouth about Lomax struggling with a knee issue and the next thing we know he's locked up on McCaffrey with no bracket or deep help. Also, did we learn nothing from David Johnson smoking us a couple years ago? You can't give a guy with that much ability a 2 way go with all that green to work with.

* What was the deal with going to the gun on 3rd and 2 and then again on 3rd and 2 (or 3) the very next time?

* On the first (I think) 3rd and 2 play we run a hitch to Smith vs. press coverage. I would venture to guess more than a few schools at the D-1 level have this in their arsenal (I know I did at a significantly lower level of coaching)...but against aggressive press coverage it's a VERY low percentage play to try to make a throw to a 'standing' receiver. Anyone ever heard the adage run vs. man and sit vs. zone? In my offenses (and in most offenses whose clinics I've attended) will check to slant or fade in that case, and in a lot of cases it's not even a check the QB has to make. It's a route conversion the receiver makes once he sees the coverage.../soapbox. It just signified to me that in that case we were going to keep trying to slam that square peg into the round hole, probabilities be damned.

* There was a brief glimmer of hope when we got Stanford into third and 9 on their first "real" drive of the game...we had numbers on the smoke screen to McCaffrey, Fisher had a golden chance to stop the play for no gain and he didn't really even come close to making a play and McCaffrey gets 12-15 yards.

* I haven't watched it a 2nd time (not a masochist :)) but I was thinking the pick six was the same play we run several times a game, where we have a TE and two receivers lined up in a "Trey" formation and the inside 2 guys run outs and the outside guy takes the top off to clear it out. As far as I'm concerned we should almost never throw to the inside receiver (unless it's soft cover 3 and the flat man is occupied with the TE). We did, and not only did Stanford jump the route, but CJ was late with the throw and it wasn't even a good throw to boot.

Those plays gave me the unfortunate feeling that:
* We weren't going to be able to old Kirk/new Kirk/any Kirk our way out of this one
* The stuff we've done all year (and gotten away with it because of our charmin-soft schedule) wasn't going to work terribly well
* We still lack any sort of creativity or explosiveness on offense, especially when matched against a defense that DOES bring speed/athleticism
* While I didn't think we'd shut McCaffrey down, I had no inclination that he would embarrass us the way we did
Click to expand...


You obviously have an excellent grasp of football schematics, much more than the average recliner occupant. All these statements seem perfectly legitimate. I'll have to keep an eye out for your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top