Take-aways

[#1DieHardHawk]

1. What happened to the Shanahan/McVay/LaFleur offense? There wasn't a semblance of it last night. Minimal misdirection. Minimal motion. Almost zero "pop-passes." No screens. You have to wonder if Lester has lost some confidence in the players' ability to learn and execute the core concepts. To be fair, that kind of offense would be hard to master in 1-2 years. There's too much turnover at the college level.

2. Brown was okay, but looked robotic most of the game (in other words, pretty much like every QB we've had the last 20 years...). Almost zero rhythm or progressions. He was so locked in on Diaz, it was almost like he forgot that there were other pass-catchers in formation. I'd like to see Hecklinski start the UNI game, at the very least to see if he displays better in-the-moment processing and ability to go through his progressions efficiently. It undoubtedly will fall on deaf ears, but IMO, settling on Brown at this point would be a mistake. Heck will make the occasional gunslinger mistake, but I'll take that over robotic everyday.

3. Our interior O-line needs to man-up. Zone blocking is one thing, but at the end of the day, sometimes you just need to impose your will and kick some ass. TBH, I didn't quite get all of the Pieper hype in the preseason. He's a solid starter, but Lauck is the stud of the group. The rest need to develop some nastiness.

4. The defense overall played well, but the lack of pressure from the edges was a little concerning. It's not like opposing tackles are going to be easier to beat in conference play. Buffington is living up to the hype. He looked like Jack Campbell back there.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

1) There seemed to be more interesting offensive calls during the NIU game than the IA St. game. There seemed to be better designed plays called in the NIU game to get players in space. I don't think it was just going up against NIU's bad D.

2) Please scratch the Toosh Push! This is not Gronk back there. It you don't scratch it, please stop running it 1.5yrd or more from line to gain. If run it, please only run it 1yd or closer. I yelled at the TV, this was not going to work on that play had to gain 1.5-2 yrds.

3) I don't think Lester went into the game with planned design run plays for Brown. I think the running game was so abysmal that he had to resort to it to try to get some yrds on the ground to loosen the D a bit. The o-line is a bit concerning after the scrimmage last week.

4) Hat's off to Buhr for really performing well after the misses he had the first game. That performance yesterday with the kick to tie and then to go ahead can really pave the way now as far as being confident. Also, huge props to Philpott I think for getting that hold down. The snap was a bit high and to the right and he got up to get it and got down with the laces spun. That kick is not good without that. Great job!

5) With no TO's, this game in the 2nd half ended up being a game of field position. The O had to gain 20-30 yrds before stalling out so the punter had a chance to flip the field. I thought Iowa's punter Everitt did a phenomenal job, especially in the 2nd half of flipping the field and pinning IA St. within the 15. He was consistent all game but really shined late in the game making key punts. I think his overall average was pretty good to.

 

[Grady]

1. What happened to the Shanahan/McVay/LaFleur offense? There wasn't a semblance of it last night. Minimal misdirection. Minimal motion. Almost zero "pop-passes." No screens. You have to wonder if Lester has lost some confidence in the players' ability to learn and execute the core concepts. To be fair, that kind of offense would be hard to master in 1-2 years. There's too much turnover at the college level.

2. Brown was okay, but looked robotic most of the game (in other words, pretty much like every QB we've had the last 20 years...). Almost zero rhythm or progressions. He was so locked in on Diaz, it was almost like he forgot that there were other pass-catchers in formation. I'd like to see Hecklinski start the UNI game, at the very least to see if he displays better in-the-moment processing and ability to go through his progressions efficiently. It undoubtedly will fall on deaf ears, but IMO, settling on Brown at this point would be a mistake. Heck will make the occasional gunslinger mistake, but I'll take that over robotic everyday.

3. Our interior O-line needs to man-up. Zone blocking is one thing, but at the end of the day, sometimes you just need to impose your will and kick some ass. TBH, I didn't quite get all of the Pieper hype in the preseason. He's a solid starter, but Lauck is the stud of the group. The rest need to develop some nastiness.

4. The defense overall played well, but the lack of pressure from the edges was a little concerning. It's not like opposing tackles are going to be easier to beat in conference play. Buffington is living up to the hype. He looked like Jack Campbell back there.

Re #1: You have to realize the Defense that ISU was playing. For all but 2-3 plays when Iowa had 3rd down and 15 yds or more, the Clones were lining up BOTH their Safeties within 8-10 yds of the LOS on EVERY PLAY-- usually 8 yds. The typical 'Shanahan offense' is not going to be successful vs that, which is why ISU ran it.

The pros would never be able to run that Defense, because the QBs would torch them over and over again with deep passes. The Clones were basically making Iowa throw deep to beat them -- and other than one 56-yd completion, it worked as planned.

Re #4: Iowa's DLine is really undersized, which is why a mediocre OLine with size gave them trouble. Expect more of that as the season goes on. It must also be pointed out that Iowa's DBacks had a HORRIBLE game tackling at or near the LOS. Lutmer, Watson, and #5 all whiffed at ISU runners even with a clear shot at them -- which led to probably 30-40 extra rushing yds. Really, really poor.

 

[haydensly]

Re #1: You have to realize the Defense that ISU was playing. For all but 2-3 plays when Iowa had 3rd down and 15 yds or more, the Clones were lining up BOTH their Safeties within 8-10 yds of the LOS on EVERY PLAY-- usually 8 yds. The typical 'Shanahan offense' is not going to be successful vs that, which is why ISU ran it.

The pros would never be able to run that Defense, because the QBs would torch them over and over again with deep passes. The Clones were basically making Iowa throw deep to beat them -- and other than one 56-yd completion, it worked as planned.

Re #4: Iowa's DLine is really undersized, which is why a mediocre OLine with size gave them trouble. Expect more of that as the season goes on. It must also be pointed out that Iowa's DBacks had a HORRIBLE game tackling at or near the LOS. Lutmer, Watson, and #5 all whiffed at ISU runners even with a clear shot at them -- which led to probably 30-40 extra rushing yds. Really, really poor.

You make some good points. I kept saying during the game that we should keep trying deep shots. Only one worked but I t thought we should have tried more, especially in the second half. We're going to have to solve that to keep all those safeties out of the box.

 

[NCHawker]

IOWA CITY — Well, folks, they did it again. Iowa "won" a football game on Saturday night, if you can call staggering across the finish line in the dumbest, ugliest, most soul-crushingly boring way possible a "win." The Hawkeyes edged Iowa State 16-13, and if you actually enjoyed watching it, please seek help, because that was 60 minutes of your life you're never getting back.


Let's start with the obvious: Iowa's offense, once again, could not find the end zone through the air. Zero passing touchdowns. Zero. In a rivalry game. Kirk Ferentz's crew completed 21 of 30 for 191 yards and somehow turned that into nothing but incompletions of consequence — just enough moving of the chains to keep the Kinnick faithful from actively booing, but never enough to threaten an actual scoreboard explosion. The lone Iowa touchdown was a bruising, inspirational, groundbreaking one-yard plunge from H. Brown. One yard. That's the ceiling here, everybody.


Meanwhile Iowa State, playing on the road, actually had the better passing punch — Jaylen Raynor found Benetti for a 4-yard score — and out-rushed Iowa 138 yards to a positively pathetic 93 on the ground, at a full yard-per-carry worse clip. Iowa "won" the total yardage battle 284-255, which in this offense's world apparently counts as a laugher.


So how did the Hawkeyes actually get to 16? Field goals. Three of them, care of Buhr, capped by a 42-yarder with 19 seconds left because heaven forbid this team ice a game with anything resembling authority beforehand. Iowa needed the final seconds of regulation to beat a team it was significantly favored over. That's not a signature win, that's a near-disaster that ended in relief instead of triumph.


Both teams combined for zero turnovers, which tells you everything about how little either offense was doing anything interesting enough to actually cough the ball up. Iowa State actually forced six three-and-outs and out-possessed Iowa in time of possession, 30:18 to 29:42, for a game they somehow still lost by three, largely because their own offense settled for two field goals instead of finishing drives.


But sure, hang the banner. Get the trophy polished. Iowa beat Iowa State by a field goal at home, without a single passing touchdown, and everyone in Hawkeye nation will call it a "gritty, defensive struggle." It wasn't grit. It was 60 minutes of two offenses that can't finish drives, saved at the buzzer by a kicker, in front of a crowd that spent the fourth quarter praying for literally anything to happen. Book it: this offense finds a way to make beating Ohio State next month look like beating a Big Ten team should — mediocre, ugly, and about three points too close for comfort.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

IOWA CITY — Well, folks, they did it again. Iowa "won" a football game on Saturday night, if you can call staggering across the finish line in the dumbest, ugliest, most soul-crushingly boring way possible a "win." The Hawkeyes edged Iowa State 16-13, and if you actually enjoyed watching it, please seek help, because that was 60 minutes of your life you're never getting back.


Let's start with the obvious: Iowa's offense, once again, could not find the end zone through the air. Zero passing touchdowns. Zero. In a rivalry game. Kirk Ferentz's crew completed 21 of 30 for 191 yards and somehow turned that into nothing but incompletions of consequence — just enough moving of the chains to keep the Kinnick faithful from actively booing, but never enough to threaten an actual scoreboard explosion. The lone Iowa touchdown was a bruising, inspirational, groundbreaking one-yard plunge from H. Brown. One yard. That's the ceiling here, everybody.


Meanwhile Iowa State, playing on the road, actually had the better passing punch — Jaylen Raynor found Benetti for a 4-yard score — and out-rushed Iowa 138 yards to a positively pathetic 93 on the ground, at a full yard-per-carry worse clip. Iowa "won" the total yardage battle 284-255, which in this offense's world apparently counts as a laugher.


So how did the Hawkeyes actually get to 16? Field goals. Three of them, care of Buhr, capped by a 42-yarder with 19 seconds left because heaven forbid this team ice a game with anything resembling authority beforehand. Iowa needed the final seconds of regulation to beat a team it was significantly favored over. That's not a signature win, that's a near-disaster that ended in relief instead of triumph.


Both teams combined for zero turnovers, which tells you everything about how little either offense was doing anything interesting enough to actually cough the ball up. Iowa State actually forced six three-and-outs and out-possessed Iowa in time of possession, 30:18 to 29:42, for a game they somehow still lost by three, largely because their own offense settled for two field goals instead of finishing drives.


But sure, hang the banner. Get the trophy polished. Iowa beat Iowa State by a field goal at home, without a single passing touchdown, and everyone in Hawkeye nation will call it a "gritty, defensive struggle." It wasn't grit. It was 60 minutes of two offenses that can't finish drives, saved at the buzzer by a kicker, in front of a crowd that spent the fourth quarter praying for literally anything to happen. Book it: this offense finds a way to make beating Ohio State next month look like beating a Big Ten team should — mediocre, ugly, and about three points too close for comfort.

.......................and lucky for both teams this debacle could be seen televised nationally on NBC!

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Re #1: You have to realize the Defense that ISU was playing. For all but 2-3 plays when Iowa had 3rd down and 15 yds or more, the Clones were lining up BOTH their Safeties within 8-10 yds of the LOS on EVERY PLAY-- usually 8 yds. The typical 'Shanahan offense' is not going to be successful vs that, which is why ISU ran it.

The pros would never be able to run that Defense, because the QBs would torch them over and over again with deep passes. The Clones were basically making Iowa throw deep to beat them -- and other than one 56-yd completion, it worked as planned.

Re #4: Iowa's DLine is really undersized, which is why a mediocre OLine with size gave them trouble. Expect more of that as the season goes on. It must also be pointed out that Iowa's DBacks had a HORRIBLE game tackling at or near the LOS. Lutmer, Watson, and #5 all whiffed at ISU runners even with a clear shot at them -- which led to probably 30-40 extra rushing yds. Really, really poor.

Actually, that offense is designed precisely for that kind of defense.

When the safeties play close to the line of scrimmage, you have all kinds of options.

One, misdirection. That gets both the safeties and LBs leaning one way and you attack the other. Rather than being able to range and play downhill, the safeties are forced to sift through the traffic and make plays against the grain.

Second, play-action/RPO. Even if the run game is struggling, the LBs and safeties have to use that extra second to process. If they are playing close, it's actually easier to use seam routes, crossers and dig routes just behind them on the 2nd level (It doesn't have to be a "deep" pass). If you go deeper, your best bet is post routes to the vacated center of the field. How many post routes did we see yesterday? Almost none.

Third, go empty set by motioning the RB out to the slot and shift the receiver into a stacked formation. If both safeties are forced to bail out of the box, the numbers are in your favor and you run a QB draw. If they don't bail, the OLB and corner are forced to cover the TE, RB in the slot and a WR. Perfect situation for a scissor or smash route to the outside.

Lastly, come-back routes. Safeties near the line of scrimmage force their corners to play on an island and give more cushion. Well timed comeback, back-shoulder or arrow routes can make them pay for that. I only saw one or two comeback routes, both of which were forced to Diaz.

Either Lester's idea of the Shanahan/McVay/Lafleur offense is quite a bit different than what we see with those teams, or he has lost confidence in the players' ability to comprehend and execute the scheme, and has dumbed it down substantially.

What I saw yesterday was a QB that was locked onto one receiver, Diaz, that couldn't work through progressions, and, when nothing developed, was unable to check it down to a designated part of the field. That's pretty disappointing when Lester's been working with the majority of the skill players for over two years.

Watch a Cignetti coached team. His OC runs a similar system The QB, WRs, RBs and TEs find the open spots and the QB confidently spins the ball in rhythm over and over like a well-oiled machine. Hell, even Wiscy's new QB shows a great grasp of that rapid processing. Both of those QBs have a quick, accurate release. That's not possible unless you have a good grasp of the scheme and understand where the ball should go. Our skill players, primarily the QB, are not displaying any sustained rhythm - they are either not on the same page or don't understand what the page is. Again, that shouldn't be the case based upon everything we've been told by Lester and his invested time.

 

[HuckFinn]

Say what you will, doubters. Iowa is currently ranked ahead of Michigan and Oregon!

(Yeah, yeah, I know. But it’s fun!)

 

[NCHawker]

I'm hoping that Iowa can demonstrate offensive versititliy and competence against Michigan and Washington. The back end of the schedule looks doable. From what I've seen Wisky reminds me of ISU.

YOu know darn well that what happened against ISU is on tape and every opponent is going to do what they saw.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I'm hoping that Iowa can demonstrate offensive versititliy and competence against Michigan and Washington. The back end of the schedule looks doable. From what I've seen Wisky reminds me of ISU.

YOu know darn well that what happened against ISU is on tape and every opponent is going to do what they saw.

LOL. We are still at the point teams can stack the box and see it Iowa can throw over the top!

 

[SCHawkeye2]

LOL. We are still at the point teams can stack the box and see it Iowa can throw over the top!

And, like every other year, we keep rushing into the 8-man box.

 

[Westernhawk]

Re #1: You have to realize the Defense that ISU was playing. For all but 2-3 plays when Iowa had 3rd down and 15 yds or more, the Clones were lining up BOTH their Safeties within 8-10 yds of the LOS on EVERY PLAY-- usually 8 yds. The typical 'Shanahan offense' is not going to be successful vs that, which is why ISU ran it.

The pros would never be able to run that Defense, because the QBs would torch them over and over again with deep passes. The Clones were basically making Iowa throw deep to beat them -- and other than one 56-yd completion, it worked as planned.

Re #4: Iowa's DLine is really undersized, which is why a mediocre OLine with size gave them trouble. Expect more of that as the season goes on. It must also be pointed out that Iowa's DBacks had a HORRIBLE game tackling at or near the LOS. Lutmer, Watson, and #5 all whiffed at ISU runners even with a clear shot at them -- which led to probably 30-40 extra rushing yds. Really, really poor.

Lutmer is awesome but I thought he had a pretty rough game all around.

 

[Captain Insane-O]

Here are my takeaways:

1. Overall, this is a solid group all the way around but I have to keep reminding myself that there are so many new players, players in new roles, and that this is only the 2nd game of the season. Even our returning players like Lutmer and RVZ are in new roles for them. It takes time and reps.
2. The offensive line is not last year's offensive line. I think they can get there, or close to there as the individual talent is there, but they are not nearly as cohesive and in sync as last year's. One missed block or assignment can blow up a play and on the re-watch, many of the runs were blocked pretty well but a missed chip, slow to stop penetration or releasing the double team killed the play.
3. I admit I was no Hank Brown fan and was disappointed to see him edge out Heck. But, he is playing pretty solid. Good. Not great. He is mostly making the right read, he is mostly putting the ball where it is catchable and he is mostly taking care of the ball. But remember, he is still young and hasnt played a lot. He missed on more of the deep throws than he made, he was lucky to have that one tipped at the line or that may have been a pick six, and he is locking on to Diaz a bit too much. But overall, I like where he is at this point and this is all teachable. I think he gets much better from here.
4. This offense is not simple and it takes time for all parts to come together. When it does it is a great thing, like what we saw at the end of last year as Gronowski just got better and better. We will be a much better team at the end of the season than we are now.
5. Defensively, I don't think we have anything to worry about. I think the dline looks good as we were all worried about that, and the back seven will get better very quickly with regards to their cohesiveness and positioning.
6. Special teams looks really good, outside of punt returner. Wetjen would have righted a lot of wrongs that happened Saturday night, but remember, it took him some time too. RVZ or James is no Wetjen, they are rare, but I think they will do their job. I am pleasantly surprised by the kicker and punter.
7. With regards to the game, ISU pretty much played Iowa's script and for the most part everything went their way. There were only 112 plays played the entire game (53 by ISU, 59 by Iowa) so that alone made possessions a premium. They were able to benefit by some pre-snap penalties that put Iowa behind the down and distance, benefitted from some aggressive coverage that didn't get called, and reading/guessing at penetrations and stacking the box to stop the run. For them to win they had to make it ugly and they did just that.
8. With respect to ISU, I think they are a lot better than anyone thought and they are well coached. This Rogers guy is going to be a problem in this series for Iowa. I don't think they dominated anywhere, I think their dline and linebackers played well but played their hearts out, hustled to the back side of plays and kept themselves clean. I also don't think their oline dominated our dline either, I think for the few runs they had it was mostly with our back end support being out of position.
9. KF and TL were in a predicament on how to approach and adjust in this game. They knew that they could go over the top, but, its not a high percentage play even though it may be the right one. And they saw this game, like all of us, going the way it did and they probably had a pretty good idea that ISU was going to have a tough time scoring in the second half and especially the fourth quarter. But, they also had probably the best kicker in college football too, and he could literally line up at midfield and make it. So I think it went this way: Iowa tries to get up 2 scores early because it is probably over at that point, but ISU got a stop and then when KF went for it 4th down and didnt get it, that was the major shift in the game. After they kick a field goal then score a touchdown because of a couple of poorly thrown balls, it was from then on do whatever you have to do to win. After the 56 yarder to Diaz KF kind of took the air out the ball from then on.
10. Sorry for the length. I just wanted to point some things out to support my idea that this team, right now, is far from great but has all the potential improve and get there. And I sure as hell am glad we won!

 

[Fryowa]

Brown is staying in the pocket and actually going through reads which is good. Not freaking out. He’s kind of a halfway point between Stanley and CJB and I can’t decide if I like that or not.

 

[HuckFinn]

Here are my takeaways:

1. Overall, this is a solid group all the way around but I have to keep reminding myself that there are so many new players, players in new roles, and that this is only the 2nd game of the season. Even our returning players like Lutmer and RVZ are in new roles for them. It takes time and reps.
2. The offensive line is not last year's offensive line. I think they can get there, or close to there as the individual talent is there, but they are not nearly as cohesive and in sync as last year's. One missed block or assignment can blow up a play and on the re-watch, many of the runs were blocked pretty well but a missed chip, slow to stop penetration or releasing the double team killed the play.
3. I admit I was no Hank Brown fan and was disappointed to see him edge out Heck. But, he is playing pretty solid. Good. Not great. He is mostly making the right read, he is mostly putting the ball where it is catchable and he is mostly taking care of the ball. But remember, he is still young and hasnt played a lot. He missed on more of the deep throws than he made, he was lucky to have that one tipped at the line or that may have been a pick six, and he is locking on to Diaz a bit too much. But overall, I like where he is at this point and this is all teachable. I think he gets much better from here.
4. This offense is not simple and it takes time for all parts to come together. When it does it is a great thing, like what we saw at the end of last year as Gronowski just got better and better. We will be a much better team at the end of the season than we are now.
5. Defensively, I don't think we have anything to worry about. I think the dline looks good as we were all worried about that, and the back seven will get better very quickly with regards to their cohesiveness and positioning.
6. Special teams looks really good, outside of punt returner. Wetjen would have righted a lot of wrongs that happened Saturday night, but remember, it took him some time too. RVZ or James is no Wetjen, they are rare, but I think they will do their job. I am pleasantly surprised by the kicker and punter.
7. With regards to the game, ISU pretty much played Iowa's script and for the most part everything went their way. There were only 112 plays played the entire game (53 by ISU, 59 by Iowa) so that alone made possessions a premium. They were able to benefit by some pre-snap penalties that put Iowa behind the down and distance, benefitted from some aggressive coverage that didn't get called, and reading/guessing at penetrations and stacking the box to stop the run. For them to win they had to make it ugly and they did just that.
8. With respect to ISU, I think they are a lot better than anyone thought and they are well coached. This Rogers guy is going to be a problem in this series for Iowa. I don't think they dominated anywhere, I think their dline and linebackers played well but played their hearts out, hustled to the back side of plays and kept themselves clean. I also don't think their oline dominated our dline either, I think for the few runs they had it was mostly with our back end support being out of position.
9. KF and TL were in a predicament on how to approach and adjust in this game. They knew that they could go over the top, but, its not a high percentage play even though it may be the right one. And they saw this game, like all of us, going the way it did and they probably had a pretty good idea that ISU was going to have a tough time scoring in the second half and especially the fourth quarter. But, they also had probably the best kicker in college football too, and he could literally line up at midfield and make it. So I think it went this way: Iowa tries to get up 2 scores early because it is probably over at that point, but ISU got a stop and then when KF went for it 4th down and didnt get it, that was the major shift in the game. After they kick a field goal then score a touchdown because of a couple of poorly thrown balls, it was from then on do whatever you have to do to win. After the 56 yarder to Diaz KF kind of took the air out the ball from then on.
10. Sorry for the length. I just wanted to point some things out to support my idea that this team, right now, is far from great but has all the potential improve and get there. And I sure as hell am glad we won!

Nothing wrong with the length. Good read. Fair analysis.

 

[SwirlinLingerie]

Brown is staying in the pocket and actually going through reads which is good. Not freaking out. He’s kind of a halfway point between Stanley and CJB and I can’t decide if I like that or not.

Texting with a buddy after the game, we landed on a mix of Chandler and Rudock.

 

[BuiltLikeWilt]

Brown is staying in the pocket and actually going through reads which is good. Not freaking out. He’s kind of a halfway point between Stanley and CJB and I can’t decide if I like that or not.

Is the hair part of it?? I was thinking we have one that is Ricky Stanzi ish and one who is Drew Tate ish...granted raw and un proven

 

[guffus]

Lutmer is awesome but I thought he had a pretty rough game all around.

Yes, he may be better suited for the CASH position

 

[haydensly]

Yes, he may be better suited for the CASH position

Not sure if he is 100% healthy yet. They said during fall camp that he was limited. And he has yet to return punts because they said he is on a "pitch count".

This may be affecting how much he practices and how he plays. Not making excuses for him but he doesn't look anything close to the player we saw last year and it just seems to me that there is more to it than he simply isn't playing well.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Hank is a skinnier but faster version of Stanley. They both have big arms, but tend to stare down receivers and struggle with a messy pocket.