How the Hawks Outplayed Us

[kingcy]

Its not like Iowa went out and ran away with the game. ISU kept it close for the most part and at the end found away to win. If I am an Iowa fan I am more ****** that in the last 2 mins of the game White and Marble didn't have the ball in their hands. Iowa couldn't get the stops when they really needed them most.

 

[kentkel]

Iowa played well enough, and our rhythm was certainly disrupted. But, if we'd hit just our free throw average that was a 12 point win. Also, again last night, our newcomers forced some really poor and ill-timed shots. This was maddening as we'd done such a great job of passing it around the perimeter, and then someone would get impatient and force a really dumb shot, and then everyone would move away from the basket rather than go for a put-back rebound. Fred's got some good film to work with here, and I hope he does so!

On the upside, remember where we were a year ago at this time! We're still learning to play together, but this should be a good learning game!

I had a couple of Hawk fans admit this same thing to me today. And in response to the OP, we BEAT the Hawks - if they had outplayed us, they would have never let us go on an 8-0 run to end the game, nor would we have been in a position to have an 8-0 run to take over the game.

 

[Jambalaya]

I'm interested in the how of the Hawks dominant play. I know there are a ton of people on here with more bball smarts than me. I was unable to tune watch the game until the very end of the second half.

Iowa very talented and well-coached but lacks a player who craves to make the winning shot---or take over down the stretch. Hence, Iowa loses a lot of games vs good teams because they wilt a little in the waning minutes.

ISU has a couple alpha males in Georges and Kane, and to a lesser extent Ejim, who want the ball when the game is on the line

 

[cyclone87]

Last year ISU was clearly the better team and got manhandled in Iowa City so no the better team does not always win. Was Texas Tech better than us too?

Nobody feels guilty about winning. There's a difference between that and having an objective observation.

Iowa looked like the better team for much of the game last night, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the better team. I don't think ISU played very well last night. Really didn't think they were going to win it, but somehow they found a way.

 

[SyracuseCyclone]

Two things come to mind when thinking about Iowa's Achilles heel. One is that they're not nearly as deep as people say. Their bench guys get good minutes, but they don't do much with them other than keep the starters fresh. Iowa's got three guys averaging in double-digit scoring (before last night, we had six), and one of those guys is Roy Devyn Marble. Which brings me to number two...

Roy Devyn Marble has to be one of the most overrated players in Iowa history. He is a poor, poor shooter, and only scores a lot because he's a chucker that takes a lot of shots. It's hilarious when people mention him as a future NBA player.

Agree but the rest of their players work better as complimentary guys. None of their good players will be 'stars' whoever takes Marble's role next year.


Iowa played well. But even in the first half when they had a 10 point lead and looked the better team you just knew they weren't going to pull the game out unless they had a 10 point lead at the under 4. Second half ISU were clearly the better team.

I think they will get bounced in their first tournament game. I'll bet a 12/13 seed to upset them. But I also think they'll have a great run through their Big Ten schedule.

 

[CYCLNST8]

This thread needs to DIE. Please. Iowa State BEAT a good Iowa team. I don't care how it happened. Having more points when time expired is all that matters. Period. It's disrespectful to our players who have represented this university honorably & worked so hard to be 8-0. /thread. For the love of Cy, /thread.

 

[madguy30]

Felt like ISU was getting beat by 20 the entire game. While Iowa probably outplayed ISU, they lacked the ability to put that game away and ISU took advantage.

This may be a kool-aid moment (I have very few), ISU looked very different on offense for tempo from the 1st half to the 2nd. It almost seemed they were figuring out what worked for their matchups, and then adjusted accordingly.

ISU kept it within range for much of the game, then really put things in motion late. Not a great tactic, but it felt like they kicked into another gear late.

 

[nfrine]

I was unable to tune watch the game until the very end of the second half. What I saw for most of the game is the Cyclones getting outplayed.

You must be a troll....this was when the Cyclones schooled your Hawks with toughness.

 

[Rural]

Agree but the rest of their players work better as complimentary guys. None of their good players will be 'stars' whoever takes Marble's role next year.


Iowa played well. But even in the first half when they had a 10 point lead and looked the better team you just knew they weren't going to pull the game out unless they had a 10 point lead at the under 4. Second half ISU were clearly the better team.

I think they will get bounced in their first NIT game. I'll bet a 12/13 seed to upset them. But I also think they'll have a great run through their Big Ten schedule.

Just had to fix that

 

[Psiclone]

I will also say that our Cyclones are going to make some teams look really bad in conference play when things click and we are firing on all cylinders. Give the Hawks credit for disrupting our flow last night. But give us more credit for finding a way to win.

I'm interested in the how of the Hawks dominant play. I know there are a ton of people on here with more bball smarts than me. I was unable to tune watch the game until the very end of the second half. What I saw for most of the game is the Cyclones getting outplayed. I was really impressed with the offense and defense of the Hawks. Everyone says we had an off-night, but we have to give the Hawks and Fran credit. I was disturbed by how the Hawks seemed to disrupt our offense- nothing seemed to flow. They had some amazing looking plays we couldn't seem to stop. And their dominance on the boards was a blow-out.

Does anyone have thoughts on the Hawks scheme and game plan? Obviously other coaches are going to look at this game closely in preparation for us. Or is it as simple as saying, we were the grittier team- we found a way to win?

We had mental lapses on defense, especially on their fast breaks. You cannot have two players guarding the middle leaving the wings open, let players get behind you when you are already back on D, or overplay and allow easy back door plays. Most of these lapses were due to not communicating who had whom on the fast break.

i also don't agree that they had "dominant play." Yes, they got out to relatively large leads in the first when Kane was on the bench, but we also had runs when we came back and had the lead several times in the second half. The only "dominant" play that counts is what happens in crunch time when close games are won. We executed and hit our free throws, they didn't. So, for the time period when it counts the most, it was us who were dominant, as we have been so far in close games. That is a reflection of coaching, confidence, and a mentally tough will to win.

 

[Cyclonepride]

After watching the game again on TV, we played better, and it was a better overall game that I thought seeing it in person.

We had some definite lapses, and the Hawkeyes are better overall than I thought they were . However, I disagree that they win more than half (or even half) if we played ten games. We have the better team.

 

[cyclonestate]

One of the fundamental truths in college basketball and football is that the difference between a great season and an average/below average season is the ability to win close games. Fans of average/below average teams like to take comfort in the narrowness of their losses (Lord knows we do this in football), but a loss is just as bad whether it's by 3 points or 23 points. At the end of the day, you're still an average/below average team.

 

[Clonefan94]

If getting outplayed means winning by 3 to a ranked opponent, I'd let teams outplay us all year. I just don't understand how a winning team gets outplayed. This is the kind of chatter that fuels the "Better team lost" mentality that so many are complaining about here. To say Iowa outplayed us and still consider them a good team, really doesn't add up. If you are the better team and you outplay the other team, you don't lose to that team in the process. Maybe this does actually say something about the talent on our team.

2 teams went out and played a great game. One team got the victory, that's it. All this other talk about "better team" "Outplayed", it's all jibberish to make a fanbase feel better about what ultimately is a loss. I've seen a couple of Iowa's games this year and considering the environment, this was definitely their best effort to date. And even with that, ISU still kept it close enough to make a final run and win by 3. Our free throw shooting is abysmal, thankfully theirs dropped off the cliff in the 2nd half as well.

 

[kcdc4isu]

ISU 85 Iowa 82 end of discussion, we out played them, we win they lose !!!

 

[HititHard]

Maybe like .5 Lafesteresque...unless I missed him going over the 50 point mark, but I thought I was watching pretty closely.

What I meant was it was a high water mark game for him. Lafester never had another game close to that one game and I doubt if that player ever gets close to the kind of performance he had Friday.