X and O guy...Please explain in detail...
- Thread starter goods10
- Start date
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
On the surface I would say that it's more about the Jimmy's and the Joe's than the X's and the O's with Wisconsin. Their OL simply overwhelms people.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
I think OL has alot to do with it. Iowa had the smallest Line in the big ten(not saying the worst) and Wisconsin someone correct me If I'm wrong, but I believe had the biggest. And if your playing Iowa/Wis style u need to be able to push people around. I still say the day the two teams played Iowa was the better team.
blkngoldUofI
Well-Known Member
don't think it's an x and o thing either. maybe more of a OC and HC on their end that put the pedal to the metal without looking back. KF and KOK would never ever rack up that many points against the worst team even if they could. their o-line is the biggest, ours the smallest but what does that have to do with anything when Iowa should have beaten them? KF plays things close to the vest and doesn't want to hurt feelings while BB doesn't care, I'm somewhere in the middle there.............would love more games that are easy on my ticker.
Wisconsin has a ridiculous OL, along with a good QB, good receivers and a stable of excellent running backs. Iowa has a young, inexperienced and somewhat undersized OL, good but shaky QB, good receivers and a decimated RB corp.
Wisconsin also has a coach who seems determined to play to win. Iowa has coaches that like to play not to lose. Works when you have strong players, are relatively injury free, execute damn near perfectly and have some luck.
The turning point for the offense this year was, IMO, the Indiana game. We could have and should have blown the Hoosiers out of the water, yet we were utterly incompetent in the red-zone. After that, the offense never seemed the same.
Wisconsin also has a coach who seems determined to play to win. Iowa has coaches that like to play not to lose. Works when you have strong players, are relatively injury free, execute damn near perfectly and have some luck.
The turning point for the offense this year was, IMO, the Indiana game. We could have and should have blown the Hoosiers out of the water, yet we were utterly incompetent in the red-zone. After that, the offense never seemed the same.
Our tackling did look subpar most of the year, but was downright atrocious when I saw it in person at the Minnesota game. Their guys were not only hitting the wide open spaces in our defense, but it seemed that they were hitting at least 5 Hawkeyes before finally being dragged down after a 5-10yd gain.
HawkeyeNTexas
Well-Known Member
Hawks could have put up 50 against ISU, but the coaches chose not to. Could have done the same to Penn State, but coaching staff shut down the offense in the second half. I think it has to do more with coaching style than anything.
theiowahawkeye
Well-Known Member
Then how do you explain Northwestern, Indiana, and Minnesota? And why couldn't Iowa score any more against Michigan - who has just as bad of a defense?
blkngoldUofI
Well-Known Member
That is all BS! OL did a greta job this year. Stanzi not only is a winner but look at the kids numbers and the RB position produced just fine.
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
They take risks that Iowa isn't willing to take and I also agree that there OL blows defenses up.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
Iowa's OL was good not great, nobody's hatin on them the OP's question was why wisky is so much more explosive. They rushed for 3000 yards on 5.5 a carry we rushed for 1700 on 4.1. I'm thinking OL size had a little at least to do with that. Plus they had 3 RB's if we had our full stable we could of looked similiar. We were undersized at OL and Wisconsin was the biggest. Stanzi actually had better stats except for completion percentage 74 percent for Tolzien that's pretty rediculous.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
What risks did they take, We threw it 324 times, they threw it 255. They ran 538 times and we rushed 412. I don't think handing it to your RB's and shoveing it down someones throat qualifies as taking risks.
bighawkeyedaddy
Well-Known Member
When it got late in games where we needed to pound the ball and put the game away, the OL flat out failed. How many chances did we have to ice the game and couldn't do it? How many times was Stanzi sacked or pressured on last minute drive attempts?
blkngoldUofI
Well-Known Member
and how many time did a defender miss a tackle or fail to break up a pass? how many game winning drives did Iowa give up? the offense could have done a lot more and so could have the defense, they both rely on one another to be decent. it's just been one of them years of what ifs' and could of, should of, would of types of things................very frustrating for sure.
bighawkeyedaddy
Well-Known Member
Totally agree blkngold, you can blame all 3 units as none of them played up to their potential (offense, defense, special teams). But in regards to why Wisconsin is where they are and why Iowa is sitting at 7-5, I feel the biggest difference is their dominating offensive line puts teams away. That and their coaches don't pee their pants at the thought of trying to win a game by more than one score once in awhile.
briankaldenberg
Well-Known Member
I'll tell you why:
1) Wisconsin has 3 RB's that are better than any of our RB's at the current time. (Coker will be good, but he's a true freshman)
2) Wisconsin has 2 RB's that are head and shoulders better than our RB's.
3) Wisconsin has possibly one of the best offensive lines they've ever had.
4) Wisconsin has a QB who seems to just make plays and is a very good manager of 3rd and middle yardage situations.
5) Wisconsin's offense runs lots of barely past the chains routes on 3rd and passing situations whereas I can't count how many times this year we've thrown the ball to a TE or RB 4 yards short of the marker or we've thrown the ball 5 to 20 yards down field past the marker on 3rd downs.
1) Wisconsin has 3 RB's that are better than any of our RB's at the current time. (Coker will be good, but he's a true freshman)
2) Wisconsin has 2 RB's that are head and shoulders better than our RB's.
3) Wisconsin has possibly one of the best offensive lines they've ever had.
4) Wisconsin has a QB who seems to just make plays and is a very good manager of 3rd and middle yardage situations.
5) Wisconsin's offense runs lots of barely past the chains routes on 3rd and passing situations whereas I can't count how many times this year we've thrown the ball to a TE or RB 4 yards short of the marker or we've thrown the ball 5 to 20 yards down field past the marker on 3rd downs.
Put in a different way:
Wisc successfully used their strengths (3 good RB, good OL) to drive their offense. They adjusted their offense when needed to take advantage of the weaknesses in the opposing defense and consistantly put themsleves in a good position to continue their drives (IE: 3 and short). Their QB is pretty so-so, so they consistanly put him in a position to succeed - mainly as a game manager (something he does very well).
Iowa, on the other hand, didn't. We didn't really play to our strengths, and we certainly didn't adjust much to the opposing defenses weaknesses. We did not put ourselves in good positions to continue drives, finding ourselves in 3rd and long quite a bit.
Injuries account for some of that, but our OC accounts for much more. In my opinion, KOK has consistantly failed to get the most (or even close to it) out of the talent on the field. When you have 2 pro-calibre receivers, an all-BigTen TE, a better-than-average QB (perhaps with pro potential), and a better-than-average OL, you have enough tools to successfully move the ball - even with your 2nd/3rd/4th string RB (and do note that our RB's averaged 4.1 ypc, so it isn't like they are useless)...
