What's the best way to start out the year?

patmyne

patmyne

Well-Known Member
Wondering what you guys thought about what's better for the team.

A. Blowout wins that allows rest for starters and quality reps for reserves or

B. Close call (I.E. UNI) that tests the team from beginning to end to see how the team handles adversity.

Thoughts??
 
I like the 40-3 game when the starters play a half and the reserves get valuable playing time.
 
We want impressive wins to not drop in the rankings. If we want to have a shot at the National Title this year, then we must play impressively. We can't aim to have close calls against weaker opponents (even though we will take the wins no matter what).
 
No more heart attack games. A nice sunny 80 degree day, a few cold ones, a nice thumbing (or 3) in the non-conference, sounds good to me.
 
if we are playing UNI or EIU or any like teams, the best way to start the year is with a blowout
 
Blowout, starters getting plenty of rest, usually a hot day so the rotation is important.
 
I agree with you guys. My only question (short of looking it up myself) seems that we have done better in the past when having close games early or even losing. Now i'm not saying I want either to happen. Just a thought that maybe it's best for us to be tested early. (and maybe even often like last year)

I understand in terms of polling and trying to win the national title why blowouts are essential. Last year however, we were still on pace to make it regardless of how we were winning.

Just talking here....
 
One of the players said that has been one of the focuses this summer...to "go for the kill" He said they had games last year that they should have put away...instead they let them hang around and make it a game. THAT's what I like to hear...
 
patmyne said:
I agree with you guys. My only question (short of looking it up myself) seems that we have done better in the past when having close games early or even losing. Now i'm not saying I want either to happen. Just a thought that maybe it's best for us to be tested early. (and maybe even often like last year)

I understand in terms of polling and trying to win the national title why blowouts are essential. Last year however, we were still on pace to make it regardless of how we were winning.

Just talking here....
Click to expand...

Except we weren't. We never had a shot to get past Texas or Alabama and having the UNI game being in the back of the mind of many pollsters certainly didn't help our chances.
 
I want blow outs early and often. Maybe a close gut check victory vs Az on the road, but that's it. I think these guys understand how to win the close ones.
 
I'd have to say a blowout, for several reasons:

1. Less chance of injuries to starters if they're not playing 4 quarters, and keeps the team fresher.
2. Gets the backups valuable experience playing in mop-up duty. You never know when someone may have to take the place of an injured starter. Plus, these guys may be our starters in the next year or two, so experience now will help later.
3. Keeps us high in the rankings compared to struggling.
4. Boost team confidence more than struggling to beat a weaker opponent?

I guess I'll have to trust that Ferentz knows what it takes to keep the team focused after a blowout win. He doesn't seem like the type to take any team lightly, no matter who they are or how much we are favored to win by.
 
Last edited:
Also, I think we win the N'western game last year if we had given Vandenberg the chance to get in some game action in a blow out. He def had the deer in the headlights look that whole game, getting a couple series against UNI or Ark St could have really helped this. So I would love to see some blowouts to give our backups a chance to get on the field.
 
Well blowouts are a good sign of a powerful offense, which Iowa must have in order to have a shot at running the table or winning the Big Ten outright.

I do agree that the close ones, even against lesser teams, help prepare the team for the major battles later on. A lot of teams have a tendency to relax a little after an easy non-conference schedule. But ours is not an easy one. I don't think we need to worry. Arizona and ISU are going to be tough games that might be really close. Blowouts against EIU and Ball State will help build confidence in the team, rest starters, and get underclassmen valuable PT.
 
HawkForce said:
One of the players said that has been one of the focuses this summer...to "go for the kill" He said they had games last year that they should have put away...instead they let them hang around and make it a game. THAT's what I like to hear...
Click to expand...

I hope there's something to this. It's a key ingredient that has been missing all too often under KFz.
 
I'd say that the best case scenario is a first game that gives the team a legit test through the better part of one half ... but with the game decided by the 3rd quarter. That way back-ups can enjoy quality game-action against the starters of the opposition.

However, in a blowout that is nearly decide within even the first quarter ... that is absolutely terrible. The starters don't get adjusted to the new season and the conditioning that is required to play a full 60 minutes.

While the backups see A TON of reps and probably have a lot of fun ... if the game is out of hand so early, it also suggests that the backups aren't benefitting from the sort of challenge that would really make them better. It's good for young guys to have confidence ... but it's bad if they are too confident (and get a little complacent).

In 2005, nothing was worse for the team than the blow-out victory against Ball State.

On the flip side, the Montana and Maine games were pretty ideal. Both Montana and Maine played really hard and they kept things interesting through 3 quarters. Heck, the nail wasn't successfully put in Montana's coffin until the 4th quarter!
 
I don't think Montana and Maine were ideal. While the final scores were okay, the offense didn't really get on track in either of these games. It was kind of a harbinger for things to come. I would like to see the starting Iowa offense be efficient and dominant. My preference would be for the team to put together four really long drives in the first half, which include a mixture of run and short passes. Punts in the first half should not happen. Let Donahue pat his stats in the second half.

The ideal halftime score would be 24 or 28 to nothing. Come out in the second half and light up the scoreboard with two dominant quick hitting scores.

Then let the subs come in and get good practice.
 
CAARHawk said:
I don't think Montana and Maine were ideal. While the final scores were okay, the offense didn't really get on track in either of these games. It was kind of a harbinger for things to come. I would like to see the starting Iowa offense be efficient and dominant. My preference would be for the team to put together four really long drives in the first half, which include a mixture of run and short passes. Punts in the first half should not happen. Let Donahue pat his stats in the second half.

The ideal halftime score would be 24 or 28 to nothing. Come out in the second half and light up the scoreboard with two dominant quick hitting scores.

Then let the subs come in and get good practice.
Click to expand...

And playing against weaker Ds would have been better for helping the O to get on track? Come on! The OL needs to face a challenge early so that it can work out the kinks early. I'd much rather have the squad face a challenge early ... especially in a game that they still (easily) win. That way, by the time the level of competition increases ... they'll be more prepared.

The O has a lot of moving pieces ... and when those moving pieces suffer from inexperience or lack of personnel continuity, it's hard for the group to get into a groove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top