We will beat NW and Wisky

Iowa does beat NW but no
Way do they beat wiscy. Carlos Hyde ran at will against our defense, Gordon and White will do the same. Our vaunted run d? Only against ISU, Minnesota and 1-AA teams.
 
JCinthePowerI said:
When comparing Rudock's weapons to Stave's, Rudock is at a huge disadvantage. With that, creates huge apples to oranges differences between the two QB's.

First of all, teams have to respect Abbrederis with a safety over the top much more often than they have to respect any of Iowa's WR's with safeties over the top.

Secondly, teams have to bring 8 into the box at a much higher frequency because of Gordon.

Thirdly, the above two advantages creates more easy passing opportunities for Stave than for Rudock. I'd say 50% more easy passing opportunities (i.e., we'll give you the 6 yard stop route or we'll give you the 5 yard pass to the TE type opportunities).

So you take all that into perspective, and then you compare the two QB's. Visually, Rudock is a better scrambler. He makes more plays with his feet. Statistically, they're very similar. Rudock completes virtually the same percentage of his passes (60.3 vs. 61.8). Rudock has virtually the same TD to INT ratio (11-7 vs. 11-6). Rudock has more passing yards than Stave too, but I wouldn't put much stalk into that as Iowa needs to pass more than Wisconsin.

The first major point of separation comes in terms of rushing yards. Rudock has more rushing yards. Rudock has rushed for 139 yards and 5 TD's. Stave has negative rushing yards and 1 rushing TD.

All of the facts above, combined with the reality that Stave has not separated himself significantly from Rudock with his inherited advantages, points to the fact that Rudock is the better quarterback. Now go get your shine box.
Click to expand...

I would feel better if Stave was our qb rather than Rudock. I would even say I would feel better with Beathard.
 
TheeHawkeye said:
Joel Stave is better than Ruddock. Better arm by a long shot.
Click to expand...

I was in Camp Randall last weekend and I would take Ruddock over Stave. I think he is better in the pocket. Miller is far better than either. OSU would not have won today with Stave at QB.

I don't think our defense is near as strong as Wisconsin. We might win but it would be a big upset.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
I have no idea how we score with them.
Click to expand...

They can score on their own turnovers?

Gardner has been a walking turnover this season. When he takes care of the ball, you get what you saw today. When he doesn't, Michigan can almost let Akron and UCONN knock them off.

It's tough to score when you turn the ball over a lot.
 
hwks1 said:
Hawks are close... just missing little more athletic QB, a genuine playmaker on offense, one Clayborn on the Dline, a little better Oline and secondary.
Click to expand...

Iowa is missing 2 DE's they have a young Bryan Mattison (OTT) and a guy that wasn't good enough to overcome a bad leg injury. BM was a serviceable B10 lineman. But Iowa didn't get over the hump until he moved on. Just didn't have the necessary athleticism to maintain containment AND apply pressure.

The defensive backs also struggle. No pass rush and shaky DBs will kill you.

That is what Iowa is missing.
 
JCinthePowerI said:
Slow your roll, and spell our QB's name correctly. Joel Stave has two stud running backs. One could argue he has the best running back in college football. When he goes out, they replace him with another RB better than any of ours. Then he has a beautiful possession WR and very serviceable tight ends.

Rudock is a sophomore with way less at his disposal. Ruduck is also the better QB.
Click to expand...
I give the edge to roodock
 
We should beat NW. Then again Fitz has a way of outcoaching KFz -W
Wisconsin is a juggernaut. They'll beat us worse than OSU -L
If we don't win at Purdue...well... -W
Michigan is flawed, depends on which Michigan team shows up -W/L
Nebraska in Lincoln the second toughest game remaining (next to Wisconsin) -L

7-5 is possible with Ws over NW, Purdue and Michigan. If we play like yesterday the rest of the year, 8-4 is realistic. If we backslide, 5-7 is likely with 4-8...again... possible.

The big question is...did we see the real IOWA team yesterday? Have we turned the corner? Or will the play calling inexplicably get crappy again and the team go flat?

Over .500 KFz stays, under .500 he should go. FYI, our 4 wins have come against teams that are now a combined 8-21
 
Iowa should beat Northwestern, especially if Mark and Colter are out. Fitz thinks they'll be back, but you never know if he's sandbagging. They're a beat up bunch, and they were thin at most positions to begin with. Iowa should be able to run at will on them, especially in the 22 and 13 sets.

Lets worry about this game before worrying about Wisconsin.
 
What has Iowa proven that they can win these games?

Iowa is what I figured they would be this season - statistically an improved team from last year but the record won't show it. But the secondary is a liability. I didn't think they'd be this bad especially considering our DC was the former DB coach everyone praised about. This coaching staff is a liability as well. Why do they change the game plan in the second half when are winning? Let's not forget Ferentz is always good for a really bad loss every year as well. So I'm not marking that Purdue game down as a win just yet. I'm sure Purdue sees us as a great chance for a win.
 
HawkeyeRyno said:
What has Iowa proven that they can win these games?

Iowa is what I figured they would be this season - statistically an improved team from last year but the record won't show it. But the secondary is a liability. I didn't think they'd be this bad especially considering our DC was the former DB coach everyone praised about. This coaching staff is a liability as well. Why do they change the game plan in the second half when are winning? Let's not forget Ferentz is always good for a really bad loss every year as well. So I'm not marking that Purdue game down as a win just yet. I'm sure Purdue sees us as a great chance for a win.
Click to expand...

They haven't. But we see a badly banged Northwestern team coming to town, possibly without the only two players on their roster (at least on the offensive side of the ball), coming off a home loss to a team Iowa handled with ease three weeks ago.

As far as the coaching staff being a liability, that same staff came up with a game plan that kept Iowa in the game on the road against the #4 team in the country. I know that moral victories always end up in the loss column, but even the most pessimistic Hawk fan can see that this team is light years ahead of where it was last year.
 
HawkeyeRyno said:
What has Iowa proven that they can win these games?

Iowa is what I figured they would be this season - statistically an improved team from last year but the record won't show it. But the secondary is a liability. I didn't think they'd be this bad especially considering our DC was the former DB coach everyone praised about. This coaching staff is a liability as well. Why do they change the game plan in the second half when are winning? Let's not forget Ferentz is always good for a really bad loss every year as well. So I'm not marking that Purdue game down as a win just yet. I'm sure Purdue sees us as a great chance for a win.
Click to expand...

Northwestern's defense is not strong, and Iowa boasts a powerful running game. We should be able to run almost at will. And if Mark and Colter are out, the Wildcat offense is pretty toothless.
 
tm3308 said:
Northwestern's defense is not strong, and Iowa boasts a powerful running game. We should be able to run almost at will. And if Mark and Colter are out, the Wildcat offense is pretty toothless.
Click to expand...

Even if they're healthy, Iowa's running game should be able to keep them on the sideline for the majority of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top