Tough to get a feel for Iowa-Michigan game

JonDMiller

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
On the one hand, I was encouraged to see what MSU did on offense...on the other hand, Iowa is not built like their running game...yet I think Iowa's play action game is better and think that Iowa has a much better passing game than MSU.

On defense, MSU did a great job of bottling up DRob, forcing him to start and stop a lot, he never got a big steam of momentum going...and I think Iowa's defense is better than MSU's, but I give them the nod at linebacker.

Anyone else struggling to come up with their definitive take?
 
Could not agree more, Jon.

One thing that is particularly troubling for me is determining what type of team we have. Yes we have looked impressive in some wins, but in hindsight those wins are looking less and less impressive (e.g. Iowa State, Penn State).

Against a quarterback like Robinson, I think I would rather have my strength at linebacker than defensive line, as the linebackers seem to be the crucial element necessary to stop an elusive, fast quarterback.

I picked Michigan in my preseason predictions and I am going to stick with it.

Go Hawks!
 
Two things:

As we all know, we run a "bend, don't break" defense. Not sure how this matches up with UM's offense. But I don't get a real good feeling about that. Not sure we want UM to keep dinking and dunking us down the field by completing passes in the open zone spots.

What I do know is D-rob lit us up with his legs when he came into the game last year. Granted, we hadn't expected to play against him, but still, he was effective in Iowa City.
 
I was reading a little and it looks like Michigans Oline was going to grade out pretty well. To me, that means the Lbers were big in that game. The LBers are key. Michigans Oline is good enough to give creases, but I doubt they can get to the second level against Iowa.
 
I can't remember where I saw the stat but of Denard's rushing attempts, 119 total through 6 games, Only 5-6% of those runs have been when he drops back to pass and takes off running.

Rather than scramble around a lot of he does his damage on the zone read plays.
 
Iowa doesn't lose this game unless they give up multiple big plays. The key to stopping Rich Rod's offense has always been to make them sustain long drives and not let them break big plays. Luckily for Michigan they hadn't faced a defense capable of doing that until last week.
 
I think there will be big plays by D-Rob, and big plays by DJK and McNutt. Two is greater than one. Hawks win a thriller.
 
Count me as very skittish on this one -- have been ever since last year's game. Despite Iowa having an excellent overall defense, I've seen them struggle to contain far less talented / athletic running QB's way too many times over the years.

Not only is DR talented and athletic, he's just flat out fast. It doesn't matter how great the Hawkeye d-line is, he just needs a small opening for a short time to get past them and he will be gone -- Iowa doesn't have anyone in the back 7 that would catch him. Then, if the safeties get too aggressive, he will burn them with p.a. (It's been a very quiet season for Sash, I hope he's not too amped up to make something happen that he overplays DR.)

Iowa will win if and only if they get a 10-14 point lead and begin to force Michigan into more of a passing mode. With the limited rushing capability (no slight to the OL or A-Rob but they have really struggled with playing a full 60) I worry that Hawks will get into a scoring battle and that would favor Michigan.

Hmmm ... guess I am getting a feel for the game. Iowa needs to strike quickly, hold Michigan and strike again. They then need to be deliberate, effective and physical with the rushing / p.a. game, scoring at least every other possession. If Hawks can build a double-digit lead before Michigan scores, they will win.
 
One thing that I caught during the Michigan St v Michigan game is that the MSU front 7 was seemed to be pretty physical and got pressure when they needed. When they did get pressure and the rest of the D played their assignments it seemed that Robinson wasn't nearly as effective.

I think a big key will be our front 4 being able to beat the Michigan line and provide pressure and our trailing DL guys mopping up or guys at the second level being able to stay disciplined and make tackles in space.
 
KF teams have been brutal off of the bye week. It seems like they go back into beginning of the season mode and coach and play tentatively.

Also, really think they need to take the bubble wrap off of Coker and let the offense get into full swing. We have seen glimpses, but the brakes continually get applied.
 
I'm expecting Iowa to really control the time of possession. The best way to contain Denard Robinson is to keep him off the field.

Long drives, power football. Wear down Michigan's defense with physical play. Iowa's defense will stay fresh and ready for Denard.

If Iowa has any special teams errors this week, it could be a long day.
 
I don't know but I see Clayborn having his way with the oline...DRob can't run very far if big ole 94 is wrapping him up....Hawks by 10 put it on the board.
 
CAARHawk said:
KF teams have been brutal off of the bye week. It seems like they go back into beginning of the season mode and coach and play tentatively.

Also, really think they need to take the bubble wrap off of Coker and let the offense get into full swing. We have seen glimpses, but the brakes continually get applied.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that we've seen the "brakes applied" quite as much as you might think. Against PSU, they adjusted to our running game by stacking the box, but still executing in a disciplined fashion. The problem with how we countered is that we suffered from some poor execution and we didn't make PSU pay for giving us some of those advantages.

As for coming off bye weeks ... I don't know. Iowa lost to Illinois coming off the bye week ... however, I don't really know if I'd read too much into that. As much as I hate to admit it, Illinois came up with a pretty good gameplan on D for that game. They made pretty significant personnel changes in order to account for Iowa's physical running game and to cover Myers. And, you have to remember that Stanzi was just a first year starter that year ... and Illinois did a pretty decent job of bringing heat at him. In the end, the fact that Iowa got burnt deep for a TD on a blown coverage (due to miscommunication) and gave up a TD due to a fumble by Stanzi ... those are 14 EASY points that were given up. I don't think that that description necessarily agrees with your assertion that the coaches and players are being tentative.
 
SDK46 said:
Two things:

As we all know, we run a "bend, don't break" defense. Not sure how this matches up with UM's offense. But I don't get a real good feeling about that. Not sure we want UM to keep dinking and dunking us down the field by completing passes in the open zone spots.

What I do know is D-rob lit us up with his legs when he came into the game last year. Granted, we hadn't expected to play against him, but still, he was effective in Iowa City.
Click to expand...

I think that this reasoning is completely off.

Michigan simply isn't accustomed to having to "work" for ALL their points. They're a dynamic squad that attempts to be on the cusp of breaking a big play on every down. The life-blood of the O is to explicitly get their speed in space ... and then make everything into a footrace.

Iowa needs to make sure that they prevent such big plays. Because if they do ... then you have to remember that the heart of the Michigan O relies upon running plays and the short passing game ... and such an O increases the number of chances to make TFLS or hold the O to short gains ... that is, assuming that the D tackles VERY well.

The point being that it's still very possible to get Michigan "caught behind" in terms of down and distance ... and that can lead their O to stall ... just like any other O. However, the key is to prevent them from capitalizing on the "rare" big plays that are responsible for so many of their scores.
 
As a piece of supporting evidence for the above contention, I just counted around 16 TD drives my Michigan that were took very few plays and/or very little time off the clock. That really highlights the great dependence that Michigan has on the big play.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
I really don't think that we've seen the "brakes applied" quite as much as you might think. Against PSU, they adjusted to our running game by stacking the box, but still executing in a disciplined fashion. The problem with how we countered is that we suffered from some poor execution and we didn't make PSU pay for giving us some of those advantages.
Click to expand...


The breaks were definitely applied against PSU. Iowa threw what I believe is 7 passes the whole second half. Stanzi was carving up that secondary at will. People bring up the field position in the second half, but there were two possessions where Iowa pushed the ball passed the 30 yard line after being backed up on the goal line. Both times they used the pass to get away from the goal line. After they were able to flip the field position, they simple went back to run, run, pass on 3rd and + 10 yards to go, because as you said, Penn St. stacked the box. I have no doubt that Iowa put the breaks on the offense. Sorry, but Ferentz isn't going to pile on the points, especially against Joe Pa. Had Penn St. been able to score, Ferentz would've ordered O'keefe to open it back up.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
As for coming off bye weeks ... I don't know. Iowa lost to Illinois coming off the bye week ... however, I don't really know if I'd read too much into that. As much as I hate to admit it, Illinois came up with a pretty good gameplan on D for that game. They made pretty significant personnel changes in order to account for Iowa's physical running game and to cover Myers. And, you have to remember that Stanzi was just a first year starter that year ... and Illinois did a pretty decent job of bringing heat at him. In the end, the fact that Iowa got burnt deep for a TD on a blown coverage (due to miscommunication) and gave up a TD due to a fumble by Stanzi ... those are 14 EASY points that were given up. I don't think that that description necessarily agrees with your assertion that the coaches and players are being tentative.
Click to expand...

Homer look beyond Illinois.

2002- No Bye
2003- at OSU Loss
2004 Win OSU at Kinnick
2005 - at NW Loss. Foot off the pedal.
2006 - No Bye
2007 No Bye
2008 - at Illinois Loss
2009 No Bye

That is three out of four losses after bye weeks. If you look at away games after the bye, it is 0-3.

Also, these are games when Iowa was quite possibly the better team. Remember, OSU 2003 was not a juggernaut.
 
CAARHawk said:
Homer look beyond Illinois.

2002- No Bye
2003- at OSU Loss
2004 Win OSU at Kinnick
2005 - at NW Loss. Foot off the pedal.
2006 - No Bye
2007 No Bye
2008 - at Illinois Loss
2009 No Bye

That is three out of four losses after bye weeks. If you look at away games after the bye, it is 0-3.

Also, these are games when Iowa was quite possibly the better team. Remember, OSU 2003 was not a juggernaut.
Click to expand...

How many wins does Iowa have in Columbus in their entire history?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top