what makes me SICK

[whammer33024]

the real question is...what kind of SICK does it make you? puking sick? head cold sick? pneumonia? cancer?

please clarify so i know how much i should care about what you said

 

[DDHawkeye]

I think it is unreasonable to ever think you will be undefeated in any given season. Yes, this year was our best shot but it I still think it was unreasonalbe. Heck, I think it would have been unreasonable for Alabama fans to think they would be undefeated. It is just too hard in the BCS conferences to go undefeated. I think it is reasonable to hope it might happen but unreasonable to believe it will.

Hmmm.... well I guess I still feel that since we have been favored and possibly will be favored by Vegas in every game this year, that it wasn't unreasonable to think we would win those games individually. Now, when you extend that out to the whole season, to think we would win all the games still does not seem that unreasonable to me. I think what would be unreasonable is to get mad and call for the firing of coaches and bash on the players when they lose a game. But to think that it was possible that we would go undefeated this year, to me, was not unreasonable. Almost every year someone in a major conference finishes a season unbeaten, so I think it is unreasonable to think that it could never be Iowa one of these years.

 

[EddyP]

You know what makes me SICK? YOU DO! Why don't you run off to mamby pamby land and get some self confidence.....JACKWAGON!!!

 

[HawkI101]

Hmmm.... well I guess I still feel that since we have been favored and possibly will be favored by Vegas in every game this year, that it wasn't unreasonable to think we would win those games individually. Now, when you extend that out to the whole season, to think we would win all the games still does not seem that unreasonable to me. I think what would be unreasonable is to get mad and call for the firing of coaches and bash on the players when they lose a game. But to think that it was possible that we would go undefeated this year, to me, was not unreasonable. Almost every year someone in a major conference finishes a season unbeaten, so I think it is unreasonable to think that it could never be Iowa one of these years.

Yes, calling for coaches to be fired when losing a game would be unreasonable. Each year someone does finish undefeated (usually only 1 or 2 teams) and usually not the same teams so when it happens for a team that is more like an exception to a rule not what usually happens. I think you saying it is POSSIBLE is correct. Possibilities are a lot different than realistic expectations. Since Iowa has not been unbeaten in our lifetimes why would it be reasonable that it would happen now. Possible yes but unreasonable also.

 

[DDHawkeye]

Yes, calling for coaches to be fired when losing a game would be unreasonable. Each year someone does finish undefeated (usually only 1 or 2 teams) and usually not the same teams so when it happens for a team that is more like an exception to a rule not what usually happens. I think you saying it is POSSIBLE is correct. Possibilities are a lot different than realistic expectations. Since Iowa has not been unbeaten in our lifetimes why would it be reasonable that it would happen now. Possible yes but unreasonable also.

I agree with most of what you say here, but I still think it was reasonable to expect a victory in every game we have played so far (Iowa is VERY close to being an undefeated team right now), and I think it is still reasonable to expect victories in every game we have left. I know I'm just repeating myself now, but Vegas has favored us in every game and will likely favor us in the rest of our games (if we keep winning, that is). Which games have you expected us to lose? Do you expect us to lose against MSU?

 

[JailBreak81]

Hmmm.... well I guess I still feel that since we have been favored and possibly will be favored by Vegas in every game this year, that it wasn't unreasonable to think we would win those games individually. Now, when you extend that out to the whole season, to think we would win all the games still does not seem that unreasonable to me. I think what would be unreasonable is to get mad and call for the firing of coaches and bash on the players when they lose a game. But to think that it was possible that we would go undefeated this year, to me, was not unreasonable. Almost every year someone in a major conference finishes a season unbeaten, so I think it is unreasonable to think that it could never be Iowa one of these years.

We have not been favored in all of our games this year. We were the dogs at AZ.

 

[DDHawkeye]

We have not been favored in all of our games this year. We were the dogs at AZ.

If I'm not mistaken, we opened as the favorites against Arizona, but the line slowly moved to Iowa being the underdog by the time the game started. The line moved merely due to the way people were betting, but when the line was first set, Vegas favored Iowa over Arizona.

 

[JailBreak81]

If I'm not mistaken, we opened as the favorites against Arizona, but the line slowly moved to Iowa being the underdog by the time the game started. The line moved merely due to the way people were betting, but when the line was first set, Vegas favored Iowa over Arizona.

You are absolutely correct. The line changed shortly before kickoff. Therefore by the time the game kicked off we were not favorites. It does not matter WHY it changed, only that it did. We were not favored to win, and we didn't. Simple as that. Losing that game was not a surprise to any reasonable Hawk fan.

 

[DDHawkeye]

You are absolutely correct. The line changed shortly before kickoff. Therefore by the time the game kicked off we were not favorites. It does not matter WHY it changed, only that it did. We were not favored to win, and we didn't. Simple as that. Losing that game was not a surprise to any reasonable Hawk fan.

But would a reasonable Hawk fan be surprised if we had won it?

 

[AtownHawk1]

Our special teams and too many Busch Lights.

 

[tm3308]

You are absolutely correct. The line changed shortly before kickoff. Therefore by the time the game kicked off we were not favorites. It does not matter WHY it changed, only that it did. We were not favored to win, and we didn't. Simple as that. Losing that game was not a surprise to any reasonable Hawk fan.

Vegas lines don't mean s*** anyway. They are completely based on getting the money split evenly between the two teams. Vegas does not choose it's favorites based on who they think will win, at least not when the line swings like it did just before the Arizona game. Their initial line is the only one that can be even remotely construed as who they think will win the game.

Now if you believe that the initial line is Vegas' pick for who will win the game, then Iowa WAS favored to win every game, and it DOES matter why the line changed. Sure, they weren't technically favored for Arizona. But if the line only changed to influence the money being bet, then Vegas still thought the Hawks would win.

That said, I'll take the opinion of the pundits over Vegas, simply because Vegas doesn't care who wins, they just want the money split evenly.

 

[JailBreak81]

I guess then if the Vegas odds mean nothing, and it is now down to what the talking heads think then I will just stick with the way I felt before the game. F$&% the talking heads. Most of them are completely clueless. I said for weeks before the season even started that I thought we would lose that game. In my mind we were most certainly not the favorites in that game. We lost like I thought we would. I would have been pleasantly surprised if we had won. In my mind that would have been an upset. Iowa plays like chit West of the Central timezone. That is nothing new.

 

[tm3308]

I guess then if the Vegas odds mean nothing, and it is now down to what the talking heads think then I will just stick with the way I felt before the game. F$&% the talking heads. Most of them are completely clueless. I said for weeks before the season even started that I thought we would lose that game. In my mind we were most certainly not the favorites in that game. We lost like I thought we would. I would have been pleasantly surprised if we had won. In my mind that would have been an upset. Iowa plays like chit West of the Central timezone. That is nothing new.

Then we weren't the favorites in YOUR opinion. But, we were the favorites nationally, there's really no denying that.

 

[racerhawk]

Im sick of reading posts that claim "we are just IOWA"

that things cant get better than what is currently happening... maybe its the fact that everyone thinks that way that is holding Iowa back..

Why cant Iowa get to the level of Ohio St., Alabama, Texas, etc... Boise St. has come from a Juco school to a national title mentioned team almost every season...

how about everyone try getting in the mindset every season that Iowa can do it and maybe just maybe someday luck with change..

its almost a case of the lovable losers.. if you are a Cubs fan you know what I'm talking about

Where do I begin?

Boise State plays a schedule where they have to get up for big games about 2-3 times per year, including the bowl game. Iowa has to beat several good teams and several decent teams...every year. That argument about BSU is just BS...you.

Secondly, programs that WHINE about making it "to the next level" tend to fire good coaches (Tom Davis, Lloyd Carr, and even Glen Mason). Their teams then do go on to the next level, except that the next level is not up. Cheers.

Iowa is just fine. We lost a very close game to a very good team because the hawks made mistakes, mostly on special teams. Leave it at that.

Texas, which currently has the number 1 ranked recruiting class going into next year (and is nearly always in the top five nationally), just got embarrassed by little brother in Austin in front of over 100k fans. Consider that.

 

[DDHawkeye]

Vegas lines don't mean s*** anyway. They are completely based on getting the money split evenly between the two teams. Vegas does not choose it's favorites based on who they think will win, at least not when the line swings like it did just before the Arizona game. Their initial line is the only one that can be even remotely construed as who they think will win the game.

Now if you believe that the initial line is Vegas' pick for who will win the game, then Iowa WAS favored to win every game, and it DOES matter why the line changed. Sure, they weren't technically favored for Arizona. But if the line only changed to influence the money being bet, then Vegas still thought the Hawks would win.

That said, I'll take the opinion of the pundits over Vegas, simply because Vegas doesn't care who wins, they just want the money split evenly.

That is what I was trying to say.

 

[JailBreak81]

Apparently the people in the know saw the flaw in Iowa being favored so they bet against them. We were obviously not the favorites in that game. The line would not have moved otherwise. You are talking as if the line moving was just because tons of AZ homers started betting against Iowa. That is not the case. The serious sports bettors (their opinions/bets, and how that changes the lines in Vegas holds WAY more weight than some overpaid analysts) saw a chance to make money. Vegas, who was obviously wrong to begin with, changed the line accordingly. This is not hard stuff here. We were the underdogs in that game.

 

[DDThompson]

Im sick of reading posts that claim "we are just IOWA"

that things cant get better than what is currently happening... maybe its the fact that everyone thinks that way that is holding Iowa back..

Why cant Iowa get to the level of Ohio St., Alabama, Texas, etc... Boise St. has come from a Juco school to a national title mentioned team almost every season...

how about everyone try getting in the mindset every season that Iowa can do it and maybe just maybe someday luck with change..

its almost a case of the lovable losers.. if you are a Cubs fan you know what I'm talking about

I'm not a Cubs fan and equating the Cubs with the Hawks doesn't fit. The Hawks win with "undervalued" players. The Cubs lose with over-priced "stars".

Iowa has become a perennial Top 20 team. Becoming a Top 10 perennial team is a much more difficult task over a long period of time. Screaming because NCG expectations weren't met because of two games of special teams foul play is ridiculous.

Tom Davis was expected to take Iowa BB from a Top 20 program to a Top 10 program. This type of attitude is why we traded Tom Davis for Steve Alford. That worked well, didn't it? And basketball is supposed to be easier to rebuild than football. How's that working?

We can expect a competitive team that does things the right way. We should not expect a NC caliber team every year. It was stupid expectation for Tom Davis; it is stupid expectation for Kirk Ferentz.

 

[cabse5]

I debated long and hard about making this post. I really don't want a "bloody forehead" from banging my head against a "wall" trying to explain something that people may not want to grasp. Which, IMO, also justifies this thread.

Iowa's D is designed to dominate the line of scrimmage, to stop the run. At the beginning of the 2010 Big Ten season, Iowa had 3 teams on it's schedule that had a run-first offense. They were Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State. I'm not sure what Minnesota runs.

After last Saturday, you can scratch Wisconsin from the list of run-first offenses in the Big Ten. You could add Nebraska to the list of teams that use a run-first offense.

Three maybe 4 possible Big Ten opponents of Iowa use a run-first offense.
That means at least 7 (including Nebraska) possible Big Ten opponents of Iowa use something else.

Iowa's D struggles against offenses that are not run-first or force Iowa's D to use matchup principles.

Iowa's D struggles even if they have pro-player caliber linebackers like Angerer and Edds.
I think it's unrealistic to blame the D's woes on linebackers who are not of pro player caliber.
How often is Iowa going to have linebackers who are of pro player caliber anyway?

There's a fundamental problem here for the D. The secondary needs to be fixed. I don't know, nickel packages, press man to man coverage by the corners. Just changes on D, man. Get the other's O wondering what's coming next. Maybe these changes would cause the other's QB to hesitate and get sacked. I have no complaints with the D's front.

Oh yeah, recruit some athletes.

I believe great defense builds chamionships.

 

[olivecourt]

Iowa's D is designed to dominate the line of scrimmage, to stop the run. At the beginning of the 2010 Big Ten season, Iowa had 3 teams on it's schedule that had a run-first offense. They were Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan State. I'm not sure what Minnesota runs.

Don't worry, Minnesota doesn't know what kind of offense they run either.

 

[olivecourt]

There's a fundamental problem here for the D. The secondary needs to be fixed. I don't know, nickel packages, press man to man coverage by the corners. Just changes on D, man. Get the other's O wondering what's coming next. Maybe these changes would cause the other's QB to hesitate and get sacked. I have no complaints with the D's front.

Who are the nickel backs you'd like to see on the field? How comfortable do you feel with Micah Hyde in press coverage? How far will Denard Robinson run down the field when we blitz the house on him? How big will the meltdown on HawkeyeNation be if we started giving up 60-yard touchdown catches on pump fake double moves?

There is no magic scheme that doesn't have vulnerabilities. If guys executed their responsibilities in the scheme we have, we're not having this conversation. The way we play D should force teams to make great plays over and over again while getting hit repeatedly in order to score. I could be, and often am wrong, but I don't think the fact that Wisconsin did that and beat us by one point reveals a fundamental flaw. I recall watching Ohio State blitz the bejeezus out of Wisconsin... and getting 31 points dropped on them. Kind of like we did.