Shots fired at Scherff

[00clone]

These are the arguments we get into during the summer, after a 3-9 season...was it domination, or wasn't it domination?

:no::no:

 

[Rhoadhoused]

These are the arguments we get into during the summer, after a 3-9 season...was it domination, or wasn't it domination?

:no::no:

Haha I figured we should know what domination looked like after last season. I was at the KSU game, WOOF.

 

[sunnysideup]

The issue was not physical domination. Physical domination is an offensive line opening up gaping holes and a running back trucking LBs and breaking off big runs. Not everything has to be hyperbole, you can just lose a game because you got beat and outplayed, it doesn't have to be a grand statement about physical dominance.

Iowa had a good line and a decent fullback at RB. We couldn't get stops on 3rd down when we needed them and the offense couldn't do jack **** the first 40 minutes of the game.

It was a matter of not making plays, not being physically outmatched and manhandled. Weisman's long carry was 13 yards. If an offensive line is physically outmatching and dominating their opponent, they would have a carry over 13 yards over 60 carries.

But that's Weisman. He doesn't break off big runs. Be happy they didn't discover Canzeri until after the midway point of the season.

But if it makes you feel better to think ISU lost because they didn't make plays, have at it brah.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

But that's Weisman. He doesn't break off big runs. Be happy they didn't discover Canzeri until after the midway point of the season.

But if it makes you feel better to think ISU lost because they didn't make plays, have at it brah.

Ok brah. You know your argument can't just be what you are arguing right? You can't prove a point by just repeating what you want to be the truth over and over. You can't just prove Iowa manhandled and dominated us by just saying it over and over.

But if it makes you feel better to repeat the same thing over and over with no proof or argument to back it up and think you won the discussion, go for it.

 

[ISU42]

The issue was not physical domination. Physical domination is an offensive line opening up gaping holes and a running back trucking LBs and breaking off big runs. Not everything has to be hyperbole, you can just lose a game because you got beat and outplayed, it doesn't have to be a grand statement about physical dominance.

Iowa had a good line and a decent fullback at RB. We couldn't get stops on 3rd down when we needed them and the offense couldn't do jack **** the first 40 minutes of the game.

It was a matter of not making plays, not being physically outmatched and manhandled. Weisman's long carry was 13 yards. If an offensive line is physically outmatching and dominating their opponent, they would have a carry over 13 yards over 60 carries.

We couldn't get stops on third down? Even when we knew what they were going to do? It kinda sounds like somebody was having their way with us.

 

[bostrem00]

I would rather us try and prevail on the field than start a Twitter war, BUT that is just my .02.

[video=youtube;Pvkk_Tce0Kc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvkk_Tce0Kc[/video]

 

[Rhoadhoused]

We couldn't get stops on third down? Even when we knew what they were going to do? It kinda sounds like somebody was having their way with us.

Not getting stops on 3rd and short hardly means we were physically outmatched, dominated, or manhandled. If they were so dominant they would have had more big plays. End of story. Our team easily had the talent, size and skill to beat Iowa last year.

They outplayed us, but that happens. Our offense and execution was a much, much bigger issue.

 

[Wesley]

Haha I figured we should know what domination looked like after last season. I was at the KSU game, WOOF.

Baylor was domination.

 

[Doc]

But that's Weisman. He doesn't break off big runs. Be happy they didn't discover Canzeri until after the midway point of the season.

But if it makes you feel better to think ISU lost because they didn't make plays, have at it brah.

Yeah, it's Weismann, but it was still just 3 something per carry for him. The big drive early where they ran it down our throats repeatedly still just ended up with Iowa getting 3 points rather than 7.

People thought UNI's DL manhandled us in that Steele Jantz win, but our OL mostly just wasn't prepared to handle those slants -- it wasn't a matter of being weak or not tough enough.

 

[sunnysideup]

Ok brah. You know your argument can't just be what you are arguing right? You can't prove a point by just repeating what you want to be the truth over and over. You can't just prove Iowa manhandled and dominated us by just saying it over and over.

But if it makes you feel better to repeat the same thing over and over with no proof or argument to back it up and think you won the discussion, go for it.

Hmmmmm...

Nobody is agreeing with you...

But not dominated so whatevs.

 

[sunnysideup]

Yeah, it's Weismann, but it was still just 3 something per carry for him. The big drive early where they ran it down our throats repeatedly still just ended up with Iowa getting 3 points rather than 7.

People thought UNI's DL manhandled us in that Steele Jantz win, but our OL mostly just wasn't prepared to handle those slants -- it wasn't a matter of being weak or not tough enough.

The dagger drive that took over 7 minutes off of the clock in the 4th quarter featured one pass and ended with them in the endzone. It was like death by a thousand cuts. We couldn't stop them and every coach on the ISU bench knew what was coming. Sounds like physical domination to me.

 

[ISU42]

Not getting stops on 3rd and short hardly means we were physically outmatched, dominated, or manhandled. If they were so dominant they would have had more big plays. End of story.

Why would they have to have more big plays? We're talking about Kirk Ferentz...the most conservative football coach in America. The guy is perfectly fine winning a 3-0 and controlling the LOS and TOP.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Whatever by your guys' method of discussion all I have to do to be right is declare myself right, so.....

I'm right.

 

[RING4CY]

That's crazy. My max was 490. And I by far had the highest on my team in high school. Granted, he's got much more size, age, training, etc. but still, that's still a third more. Yikes.

I maxed out at 600 squat in high school. Then again, I was just a placekicker in high school, never missed a leg day, and always skipped arm day.

 

[Doc]

The dagger drive that took over 7 minutes off of the clock in the 4th quarter featured one pass and ended with them in the endzone. It was like death by a thousand cuts. We couldn't stop them and every coach on the ISU bench knew what was coming. Sounds like physical domination to me.

I totally agree that they manhandled ISU's defense that drive, but I don't think they manhandled our defensive guys the whole game.

 

[ISU42]

Yeah, it's Weismann, but it was still just 3 something per carry for him. The big drive early where they ran it down our throats repeatedly still just ended up with Iowa getting 3 points rather than 7.

People thought UNI's DL manhandled us in that Steele Jantz win, but our OL mostly just wasn't prepared to handle those slants -- it wasn't a matter of being weak or not tough enough.

It was 4.1 ypc.

 

[Rabbuk]

Baylor wasoneof the worst games I've seen. Also utah in 200 was pretty bad.

 

[Doc]

It was 4.1 ypc.

3 + 1.1 :smile:

Seriously though, I stand corrected.

 

[sunnysideup]

Whatever by your guys' method of discussion all I have to do to be right is declare myself right, so.....

I'm right.

Nope.

I'm right.

kthxbye

 

[Doc]

Baylor wasoneof the worst games I've seen. Also utah in 200 was pretty bad.

Oh god, Utah in 2010 or 2011 was terrible. That last game in Columbia was brutal as well.