How bad did our first game "wash" hurt us?

[biggs3]

I've seen this brought up sporadically in other threads, but not discussed too much in depth. Do you think the conditions of our opening game set the team back an entire week from the "learning what we did wrong" point of view?

Was Iowa St. essentially our opening game in which we will have discovered and hopefully corrected some fatal flaws (e.g. tackling, blown coverage, kicking coverage, etc.). This really was the first time they went full speed and were able to determine if shortcomings were due to performance instead of the horrible conditions. Without mistakes on so many fundamentals then I think we win in Ames. Here's hoping to a positive outcome from here on out!

 

[storminspank]

I know this is dumb answer, but...

It didn't help Iowa much.

 

[azhawkeyefan]

I think there is something to this. We are a "developmental" team, and I think we'll see this team improve greatly over the season. After the first game, the consensus from all of us monday morning qb's and the media was that we still didn't know much about our team. I'm sure the coaches to some extent had questions that were unanswered as well from that first game.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

In many ways the ISU game was the opening game of the year. In the Tenn Tech game the first team had one quarter unmolested by the rain. They played well in the second quarter and when the rain reappeared their production was again slowed. Then after the rain delay the first team rested while the backups played.
Against ISU it was obvious that the players were not ready. They were often unsure of their assignments and got caught in bad positions. There were two or three plays where ISU had recievers wide open, not just by a step but by 10 yards or more. That seldom happens to a Iowa defense.
All in all it was a less than ideal first game for a team with so many new players.

 

[gnfnr]

I know this is dumb answer, but...

It didn't help Iowa much.

Please allow me to agree with this and then take in a somewhat alternative direction. It didn't help Iowa AT ALL. Iowa might have had a better test playing 1's vs. 1's. Seriously. It was a terrible team and all Iowa had to do was show up, for the most part. With the status of certain, ahem UNI, athletic programs in the state, I do not understand why Iowa and Iowa State should not both have to play UNI every year. UNI gives Iowa and Iowa State everything they could ever hope for in an early opponent. (Yes, I know ISU played them week 1, which is great; then Iowa should have played someone like Western Illinois or one of the Dakota schools or even a FBS team like Northern Illinois week 1 and not paid for nothing). It's a very good program that will compete hard and force Iowa to compete vs. going thru the motions. If UNI played both Iowa and ISU each year and got paid an equivalent amount to what Iowa pays teams like Arkansas State and Louisiana-Monroe and Tennessee Tech - the state of Iowa comes out as the winner, UNI gets automatic marquee match-ups, and Iowa and ISU get the true tests that they SHOULD win, but have to actually prep for and adjust to. Win/win/win/win.

OK, done.