Miller: Will Breaks Be For/Against Iowa in 2010?

Bottom line... Iowa ought to be good enough to run away from a few teams that were close games last year.

Much like I wrote about how barring injuries 9 -3 would be a disappointment this year, for iowa to grow into its place as a top flight national program, they have to get the killer instinct. They have to be able to step on the throat of their opponent. When they are up 7 and driving, they need to get that last score and not rely on the defense to step up (ie: Michigan last year.)
 
Agreed Springsteen

Don't put yourself in a postition to need those breaks.

This year, we need to be the Indianas and Minnesotas without trouble.

Northwestern too, but they were actually a good team last year.

Stanzis turnovers are the key to the season IMHO.
 
Stanzi is freakishly good, but we're going to have to live with his turnovers... few people realize that Brett Farve is also one of the most interception prone QB's of all time too... why? He is a winner and makes the big throws when they count.
 
While the numbers might overall be nearly an even 50-50 in terms of the winning and losing close games, I believe that is far from simply being a uniformly random process. Furthermore, as the games string along to form a season, they are NOT independent of one another.

The undertones of the "article" suggests that how the ball bounces is purely random ... or, in technical terms, identical and independently distributed (uniform) random processes. However, that is FAR from the case. If you parse the data and check the context of when Iowa tends to lose close games versus when they tend to win close games, there seems to be a glaring correlation with the level that the squad executes our schemes and gameplans. In the years when the team has either been rather inexperienced and/or undisciplined, we've seen rather poor execution, and we've lost the vast majority of our close games. Reciprocally, when the squad has played really disciplined ball ... they've won the majority of close games.

There certainly are random elements to what happens. However, preparation and execution helps to minimize deleterious effects of randomness and uncertainty. For instance, Clayborn's block and recovery of the punt against PSU certainly didn't lack some randomness to it. The fact that Clayborn's ball hit the ball in such a way that it would hit the ground as it did and then bounce how it did ... definitely a good bit of randomness there. However, the fact that Clayborn steamrolled the blocker and blocked the ball in the first place was a result of preparation. Furthermore, Clayborn's quick reaction to grab the ball and take it to the house required great coordination and athleticism ... both being facets that resulted from all of the work that Clayborn put into building and refining his body and skills.

The 2001 and 2008 seasons seem to be rather interesting seasons insofar that they almost appear to be counterexamples to the aforementioned trend that I'm describing. However, it doesn't take much of a leap to also appreciate that both of those seasons were "transition years" ... where the personnel in the program were just learning how to win the close ones. Furthermore, at least if you look at the '08 season, the group was still plenty inexperienced too. In '08 the WRs were still rather ealry in their development and we were also contending with a QB competition (and then a new starting QB). The D also featured plenty of new faces in '08 ... in fact there were 6 first year starters on the D in '08 ... and yet the D still developed into a formidable group. Of course, missed tackles and loss of contain early in the season were obviously more than a little costly. Hmmmm ... there is that whole issue with execution again.

So what do I take away from these observations? I take away that WHEN the team appreciates the effort and preparation needed to win games ... then that puts them in a position to be VERY competitive in close games. If you pay attention to detail and execute at a high level ... and that is in addition to working and playing VERY hard ... that forces the opposition to BOTH out-hustle you and out-execute you if they want to win. The thing is that many programs simply aren't as well coached or as well prepared. As a result, it can be really hard for opposing teams to match the level of execution and the intensity ... and that then gives the Hawks an advantage. And that ends up helping tip the balance in favor of the Hawks.

So when you look at the 2010 season ... the squad is loaded with guys who appreciate all the hard work and attention to detail that is required to win ... and, consequently, I would be ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED if Iowa doesn't win the majority of the close games that they're involved in.
 
BSpringsteen said:
Stanzi is freakishly good, but we're going to have to live with his turnovers... few people realize that Brett Farve is also one of the most interception prone QB's of all time too... why? He is a winner and makes the big throws when they count.
Click to expand...
Wait.....did you just compare Stanzi to Favre?
 
Iowa's 2009 football team actually had lot of bad breaks in terms of injuries, mystery illnesses (Bulaga), HIV, etc. I figure the 2010 Hawks are due for a season where they have far fewer injuries.
 
In the words of Chris Martin... "Great teams find a way to win." Team leadership speaks volumes. If the leadership and resilience is anything like it was last year,(which I believe it will be) the breaks will continue to fall in our favor.
 
He did compare him to Favre, but what he is really saying is that Stanzi is kind of a gunslinger. He takes some chances.

A better comparison for me is Tom Brady. Brady's stats his Junior campaign at Michigan were 15td's and 12 int's. Very similar to Stanzi's. Now his senior year he improved much like I think Stanzi will with a 20td and 6 int. total.

As far as these "breaks" are concerned, what are we talking about here? Last year the only "break" Iowa received was the richochet against Indiana, otherwise it was just playmakers making plays. Clayborn's blocked punt and return was a playmaker making a play. Iowa was the better team. Stanzi's drive at the end of the Michigan St. game was clutch or playmakers making plays. The two blocked kicks against Northern Iowa, again players making plays. Heck they proved it wasn't luck the second time they blocked the kick. Northern Iowa was the team that was living on "luck" when Iowa failed to cover the ball off the first block.

I'll contend that Iowa didn't receive any "breaks" last season, save the richochet. Look at the injuries they had to fight through. Bulaga out against Iowa St. and Penn St. along with Moeaki. Dace Richardson being lost at a crucial point in the season at Michigan St. Julian Vandervelde never being healthy. How bout your leader Ricky Stanzi being lost when you are up 10-0 against Northwestern and Iowa doesn't score another point after Ricky went out. How bout Ricky being gone for the biggest game of the year against the Buckeyes? Robinson being hurt, not to mention Hampton being lost before the games even kicked off! Those are examples of "breaks" that went against Iowa, yet they still had the playmakers to win games. Actually after looking at that it shows you the depth that Iowa has.

To me it has very little to do with these perceived "breaks" and more to do with playmakers/depth!

Btw, good article Jon, lots of good statistics.
 
Last edited:
PatrickAdamovicz said:
He did compare him to Favre, but what he is really saying is that Stanzi is kind of a gunslinger. He takes some chances.

A better comparison for me is Tom Brady. Brady's stats his Junior campaign at Michigan were 15td's and 12 int's. Very similar to Stanzi's. Now his senior year he improved much like I think Stanzi will with a 20td and 6 int. total.

As far as these "breaks" are concerned, what are we talking about here? Last year the only "break" Iowa received was the richochet against Indiana, otherwise it was just playmakers making plays. Clayborn's blocked punt and return was a playmaker making a play. Iowa was the better team. Stanzi's drive at the end of the Michigan St. game was clutch or playmakers making plays. The two blocked kicks against Northern Iowa, again players making plays. Heck they proved it wasn't luck the second time they blocked the kick. Northern Iowa was the team that was living on "luck" when Iowa failed to cover the ball off the first block.

I'll contend that Iowa didn't receive any "breaks" last season, save the richochet. Look at the injuries they had to fight through. Bulaga out against Iowa St. and Penn St. along with Moeaki. Dace Richardson being lost at a crucial point in the season at Michigan St. Julian Vandervelde never being healthy. How bout your leader Ricky Stanzi being lost when you are up 10-0 against Northwestern and Iowa doesn't score another point after Ricky went out. How bout Ricky being gone for the biggest game of the year against the Buckeyes? Robinson being hurt, not to mention Hampton being lost before the games even kicked off! Those are examples of "breaks" that went against Iowa, yet they still had the playmakers to win games. Actually after looking at that it shows you the depth that Iowa has.

To me it has very little to do with these perceived "breaks" and more to do with playmakers/depth!

Btw, good article Jon, lots of good statistics.
Click to expand...


Well said, Patrick!

Good teams make their breaks. I expect Iowa to do just that this fall.
 
What really grinds my gears about these questions (and the insistence that Iowa got lucky with the way we won last year) is that these "lucky" plays take place all the time. How many times have we seen a pick in the flat (i.e. a likely pick six) get dropped? How many times have we seen a broken tackle lead to a long TD? The reason our "lucky" plays are so memorable is because they came at the end of the game. We need to be making those plays all game long so by the time the 4th quarter comes we're a score or two up and don't need to rely on the "luck".

That being said, I think the majority of big momentum-swinging plays will go in our favor because of our personnell at the skill positions. Marvin McNutt has proven himself to be a go-to receiver in pressure situations as has DJK (on returns as well). We all know that Clayborn has a knack for making the big play when it counts the most, and if the coaches can be believed Jewel Hampton will be hungry to make big plays this year too. In the secondary, Sash and Greenwood have saved our bacon more than once and the coaching staff has been very complimentary about Micah Hyde's development. Combine that with Ricky Heismanzi and his legendary 4th-quarter heroics and I think we stand more than a 50-50 chance with the game on the line.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
While the numbers might overall be nearly an even 50-50 in terms of the winning and losing close games, I believe that is far from simply being a uniformly random process. Furthermore, as the games string along to form a season, they are NOT independent of one another.

The undertones of the "article" suggests that how the ball bounces is purely random ... or, in technical terms, identical and independently distributed (uniform) random processes. However, that is FAR from the case. If you parse the data and check the context of when Iowa tends to lose close games versus when they tend to win close games, there seems to be a glaring correlation with the level that the squad executes our schemes and gameplans. In the years when the team has either been rather inexperienced and/or undisciplined, we've seen rather poor execution, and we've lost the vast majority of our close games. Reciprocally, when the squad has played really disciplined ball ... they've won the majority of close games.

There certainly are random elements to what happens. However, preparation and execution helps to minimize deleterious effects of randomness and uncertainty. For instance, Clayborn's block and recovery of the punt against PSU certainly didn't lack some randomness to it. The fact that Clayborn's ball hit the ball in such a way that it would hit the ground as it did and then bounce how it did ... definitely a good bit of randomness there. However, the fact that Clayborn steamrolled the blocker and blocked the ball in the first place was a result of preparation. Furthermore, Clayborn's quick reaction to grab the ball and take it to the house required great coordination and athleticism ... both being facets that resulted from all of the work that Clayborn put into building and refining his body and skills.

The 2001 and 2008 seasons seem to be rather interesting seasons insofar that they almost appear to be counterexamples to the aforementioned trend that I'm describing. However, it doesn't take much of a leap to also appreciate that both of those seasons were "transition years" ... where the personnel in the program were just learning how to win the close ones. Furthermore, at least if you look at the '08 season, the group was still plenty inexperienced too. In '08 the WRs were still rather ealry in their development and we were also contending with a QB competition (and then a new starting QB). The D also featured plenty of new faces in '08 ... in fact there were 6 first year starters on the D in '08 ... and yet the D still developed into a formidable group. Of course, missed tackles and loss of contain early in the season were obviously more than a little costly. Hmmmm ... there is that whole issue with execution again.

So what do I take away from these observations? I take away that WHEN the team appreciates the effort and preparation needed to win games ... then that puts them in a position to be VERY competitive in close games. If you pay attention to detail and execute at a high level ... and that is in addition to working and playing VERY hard ... that forces the opposition to BOTH out-hustle you and out-execute you if they want to win. The thing is that many programs simply aren't as well coached or as well prepared. As a result, it can be really hard for opposing teams to match the level of execution and the intensity ... and that then gives the Hawks an advantage. And that ends up helping tip the balance in favor of the Hawks.

So when you look at the 2010 season ... the squad is loaded with guys who appreciate all the hard work and attention to detail that is required to win ... and, consequently, I would be ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED if Iowa doesn't win the majority of the close games that they're involved in.
Click to expand...

This may be the best post I've read on here in quite some time. VERY well thought out and well reasoned.
 
I think that you could argue that the breaks went against Iowa in 2009 and they still found a way to win 11 games. If Iowa gets a few more breaks this year, they win those games by 10+ pts.
 
I'm looking for a more productive offense this year to put a few games away early in the 2nd half and the battle-tested cardiac kids will stay calm and win the close ones at the wire.
 
StickUP said:
I think that you could argue that the breaks went against Iowa in 2009 and they still found a way to win 11 games. If Iowa gets a few more breaks this year, they win those games by 10+ pts.
Click to expand...

This is a good way of looking at it. Yes, we had to escape in games we should have dominated but that didn't happen because the whole team played badly. It's hard to escape the impact of 15 INTs, no matter what Stanzi's 4th Quarter QB rating is (184.3). If some of those "bounces" didn't go our opponents' way, we wouldn't have needed the "bounces" at the end of the game. If Ricky can limit the turnovers this year I see a lot of those close games becoming comfortable victories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top