Hawkeyes (Mostly) Dismantle Iowa State

deanvogs said:
Did you really think Saturday was that bad? Or did 5 min. of the game pizz you off? I'm just wondering, because when you look at it, Iowa dominated 50-55 min. of that game. Heck ask any Clone fan out there, we demoralized that fan base with what we did to them.
Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY why I think it was that bad. ISU looks historically bad this year, even for them, and we did our best to let them in. An opponent with a pulse would have beaten us last week and this week. I chalked it up to the classic "overlook" last week, but I just can't do it anymore. I hope I am wrong, but I can't keep watching the same boring movie over and over, and expecting a different ending.
 
blubberhawk said:
Pleased as hell with the win. Question for you and others.

Why did Iowa not go for two after the last touchdown?
28-7 would have looked a lot better than 27-7. Had we not gotten the two points, 26-7 was no different than 27-7 as far as what ISU still needed to win the game.

I understood kicking after the previous score, but with only 7 minutes left, Iowa should have went for two. Had ISU recovered the last onside kick, they would have won the game with a touchdown.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I thought the same exact thing.....I hoped the coaching staff would figure that out when there was the whole booth review....but no. I said at the time that a quick score and onside could would still make it a game.....and that happened. I guess our coach doesn't have the little math sheet to pull out to see when you go for one vs two.
 
DMHawkI said:
I thought the same exact thing.....I hoped the coaching staff would figure that out when there was the whole booth review....but no. I said at the time that a quick score and onside could would still make it a game.....and that happened. I guess our coach doesn't have the little math sheet to pull out to see when you go for one vs two.
Click to expand...

We finally actually covered on onside kick and no fake punts. baby steps.
 
theboat said:
That is EXACTLY why I think it was that bad. ISU looks historically bad this year, even for them, and we did our best to let them in. An opponent with a pulse would have beaten us last week and this week. I chalked it up to the classic "overlook" last week, but I just can't do it anymore. I hope I am wrong, but I can't keep watching the same boring movie over and over, and expecting a different ending.
Click to expand...

We aren't some great team, so I'm not gonna cry when we get outplayed in a game for about 5 min., especially when we controlled the rest of the game offensively and defensively.

All the negative Nancy's don't want to hear the coulda shoulda woulda game on close losses.....I agree with that, and it also hold true for wins under 7 pts.

BTW you did watch the same movie on Saturday, and you got your "different" result.....a win, not a loss like the last 2 years in a close game with ISU.
 
deanvogs said:
We aren't some great team, so I'm not gonna cry when we get outplayed in a game for about 5 min., especially when we controlled the rest of the game offensively and defensively.

All the negative Nancy's don't want to hear the coulda shoulda woulda game on close losses.....I agree with that, and it also hold true for wins under 7 pts.

BTW you did watch the same movie on Saturday, and you got your "different" result.....a win, not a loss like the last 2 years in a close game with ISU.
Click to expand...
Yes. ISU is so terrible that they pulled it out. Doesn't make me feel better.
 
theboat said:
That is EXACTLY why I think it was that bad. ISU looks historically bad this year, even for them, and we did our best to let them in. An opponent with a pulse would have beaten us last week and this week. I chalked it up to the classic "overlook" last week, but I just can't do it anymore. I hope I am wrong, but I can't keep watching the same boring movie over and over, and expecting a different ending.
Click to expand...

ISU looks like ISU. (which is historically bad, except they usually play better against Iowa) Their good years are of the 5-7 variety and they still may reach that this year. The Big 12 is very average this year and there are wins to be had if ISU plays well. This is not one of Iowa's better teams either and yet went into Ames and pretty much dominated the game. This was a good win for Iowa and now time to move on.
 
blubberhawk said:
Pleased as hell with the win. Question for you and others.

Why did Iowa not go for two after the last touchdown?
28-7 would have looked a lot better than 27-7. Had we not gotten the two points, 26-7 was no different than 27-7 as far as what ISU still needed to win the game.

I understood kicking after the previous score, but with only 7 minutes left, Iowa should have went for two. Had ISU recovered the last onside kick, they would have won the game with a touchdown.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It is a bit of 6 of one and half dozen of the other. The old adage is 'dont chase the points but take the easy scores' so kick the PAT and lead by 20 with 6-7 minutes to go. ISU would need 3 TDs to win.

If you go for two and miss and are ahead by 19 then 2 TDs, 2 2-pt conversions, and a long FG ties you (I know that is a lot to happen but ISU did get the 2 tds). If they were behind by only 19 at 26-7 and scored the first TD and then if they make the two point conversion the score is 26-15, which looks scary to me.
 
uihawk82 said:
It is a bit of 6 of one and half dozen of the other. The old adage is 'dont chase the points but take the easy scores' so kick the PAT and lead by 20 with 6-7 minutes to go. ISU would need 3 TDs to win.

If you go for two and miss and are ahead by 19 then 2 TDs, 2 2-pt conversions, and a long FG ties you (I know that is a lot to happen but ISU did get the 2 tds). If they were behind by only 19 at 26-7 and scored the first TD and then if they make the two point conversion the score is 26-15, which looks scary to me.
Click to expand...

It still would have taken 3 possessions, 2 tds, 2 made 2 pt. conversions and a made field goal just to tie at 26-7. I think it was well worth the risk to try to get to 28-7.
 
theboat said:
That is EXACTLY why I think it was that bad. ISU looks historically bad this year, even for them, and we did our best to let them in. An opponent with a pulse would have beaten us last week and this week. I chalked it up to the classic "overlook" last week, but I just can't do it anymore. I hope I am wrong, but I can't keep watching the same boring movie over and over, and expecting a different ending.
Click to expand...

Boat, buddy, I'm not sure what to tell ya. Hawks dominated for 55 minutes and GD called a great game. We aren't in a position to dominate ANYONE for 60 minutes, but I'll take 55 especially against the clowns in Lames. It's probably the second most dominant game we've had in Lames since the Hayden years. Enjoy the win dude, we are on the upswing!
 
blubberhawk said:
ISU looks like ISU. (which is historically bad, except they usually play better against Iowa) Their good years are of the 5-7 variety and they still may reach that this year. The Big 12 is very average this year and there are wins to be had if ISU plays well. This is not one of Iowa's better teams either and yet went into Ames and pretty much dominated the game. This was a good win for Iowa and now time to move on.
Click to expand...
I don't think even the most optimistic Clone fans are expecting 5-7 wins now.
 
nationalchamps said:
Boat, buddy, I'm not sure what to tell ya. Hawks dominated for 55 minutes and GD called a great game. We aren't in a position to dominate ANYONE for 60 minutes, but I'll take 55 especially against the clowns in Lames. It's probably the second most dominant game we've had in Lames since the Hayden years. Enjoy the win dude, we are on the upswing!
Click to expand...
Logical fallacy.If a game is 60 minutes, and you dominate said game for the first 55 minutes (92% of the allotted time), the logical inference is that you are the dominant team and should continue to dominate the remaining 5 minutes (8% of the allotted time).
 
ThunderHawk said:
Logical fallacy.If a game is 60 minutes, and you dominate said game for the first 55 minutes (92% of the allotted time), the logical inference is that you are the dominant team and should continue to dominate the remaining 5 minutes (8% of the allotted time).
Click to expand...
How can verifiable data be a logical fallacy?

How do you answer a paradox with a paradox?
 
Man Weisman ran with some attitude in the game. Ruddock was in rythm I really hope we can keep it up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top