Will this be the year our spread FINALLY beats Iowa?
- Thread starter Clones21
- Start date
I agree with your NOPE Brian...With NO running game and an offensive line that really is Offensive, WE have no chance to beat the squawks...
And if it comes down to Norm Parker v. Tom Herman....Well we've already seen how that works out....A big Win for the squawkeyes....
The Northwestern Spread offense we at isu do NOT have and probably never will have under Rhoads and Hermann....
The spread offense at ISU has been a complete bust when we play the mighty hawkeyes....
????
Bret Meyer fumbled on the 1st drive of the 2nd half. I don't recall any Iowa turnovers.
I think he had it backwards but I get the feeling he was trying to point out something other than the turnovers but I can't quite put my finger on what exactly that is.
I just watched a replay of the 2005 game, the turnover margin was 5-1 but it was caused by the ISU defense being that much better than the Iowa offense, not simple miscues, more like a QB being hit over and over throwing a duck. Tate was doing no better than Manson so don't throw that out there.
A lot of the time, but not all, the turnover battle is won by the team with the more aggressive defense.
seriously - doing ok?
come on into clive and i'll let you push me around in my wheelchair.
look forward to seeing you.
I think his point was that we had Jake Christensen. We didn't need turnovers to lose a game with him at QB. All he had to do was bounce a couple balls off the turf on the deep out to get the offense off the field.
This is true, but another thing that stood to me about this game is sure it was 23-3 but as bad as Iowa played I'm surprised it wasn't worse. Of the 23 ISU had a pick 6 and scored their last TD with under 3 minutes to go after the Iowa D had been on the field the whole damn day. So take out that pick 6 (as these aren't common) and it was really only a 9-3 game with 4 minutes to go. Sure it was really 16-3 at this point but I think the Iowa D might have had a little more fight if it had been 9-3 instead of basically just mailing it in knowing the O wasn't going to do anything anyway and especially score 13 points in 4 minutes. Even if it would have been 9-3 and Iowa held I still don't think they go down and score to win 10-9 anyway.
I believe we will need to establish our passing game before we attempt to run with any regularity. Pass to set up the run. Throw more on 1st down, and not just bubble screens & outs. Control the game this way, then in the second half, let the road-graders start moving a tired D and our RBs gash them - like Texas last year.
Steele will need to be more accurate on these throws than last week. He was a half-step or more behind the receivers on many throws. This led to 1 of the picks and a number of dropped passes. The other 2 picks were brain-cramp moments that should be more easily corrected.
However, I think Steele has a little gunslinger in him & will take chances at times. It will be high risk / high reward potential, & at times I think we will have to live with him giving it a shot. Seneca played this same way, & sometimes we reaped the benefits, and other times it sunk us.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Steele will need to be more accurate on these throws than last week. He was a half-step or more behind the receivers on many throws. This led to 1 of the picks and a number of dropped passes. The other 2 picks were brain-cramp moments that should be more easily corrected.
However, I think Steele has a little gunslinger in him & will take chances at times. It will be high risk / high reward potential, & at times I think we will have to live with him giving it a shot. Seneca played this same way, & sometimes we reaped the benefits, and other times it sunk us.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Oh, wow. I've heard "we beat ourselves" plenty of times from Iowa fans, but I don't think I've ever heard "we actually beat ourselves by more than you beat us."
But, to be a little hypocritical, Austen Arnaud, while a great Cyclone, never played too well against Iowa. I think we may be a little better off by default with a Californian in there.
Last edited:
Our Offensive line will need to get light years better. I know that KO was injured and HH didnt play so that makes a difference.
The fact is KO is still dinged so really we will probably get a similar performace from him?? HH being back will help but I dont think its enough. Iowas DL is better than UNI's and we STRUGGLED with them badly. The goal of our offense is to gain at least 4 yds on first down (from Louge(sp) on Murph and Andy yesterday) and if our OL doesnt play 100X better we will struggle similarly to what we have the past 2 yrs against IA.
I dont care what the rest of the team does if we dont at least play competively in the trenches our chances of winning are about 5%.
I think our D will look a little better because JVB is not a run threat like Renne and that is how he really hurt us. I know the JVB is a much better passer but Wally found a way to contain Gabbert from Mizzou last year so i trust he can do the same vs JVB. If Coker and the OL go off then we are screwed.
2 weeks ago I felt like we would have as good of a chance to beat Iowa as we have in 3 years but today with the injuries and the struggles that we had last week I dont feel the same way at all.
The fact is KO is still dinged so really we will probably get a similar performace from him?? HH being back will help but I dont think its enough. Iowas DL is better than UNI's and we STRUGGLED with them badly. The goal of our offense is to gain at least 4 yds on first down (from Louge(sp) on Murph and Andy yesterday) and if our OL doesnt play 100X better we will struggle similarly to what we have the past 2 yrs against IA.
I dont care what the rest of the team does if we dont at least play competively in the trenches our chances of winning are about 5%.
I think our D will look a little better because JVB is not a run threat like Renne and that is how he really hurt us. I know the JVB is a much better passer but Wally found a way to contain Gabbert from Mizzou last year so i trust he can do the same vs JVB. If Coker and the OL go off then we are screwed.
2 weeks ago I felt like we would have as good of a chance to beat Iowa as we have in 3 years but today with the injuries and the struggles that we had last week I dont feel the same way at all.
I think this has been largely overlooked.
I would feel a lot better if a guard had a gimpy ankle rather than a tackle, especially our left tackle. I'm very concerned about mobility in 350# left tackle with a bum ankle.
I suppose that I don't see the connection between containing Gabbert from Mizzou and containing Iowa's Vandenberg. While both are precision-passer types ... the style of Os couldn't be more different.
Mizzou feature a spead O with a finesse running game. At the expense of not getting quite as many TFLs against the running game ... you can still slow such a running game with relatively few hats in the box. Then, by dedicating fewer hats to the box ... you then can benefit by having more guys back in coverage. Thus, given that ISU has been operating most of the time with 5 DBs in Big 12 play ... ISU is "built" to slow such an O.
In contrast, Iowa won't hesitate to flash a power running attack ... usually using 2 TEs and sometimes even 3 TEs. Thus, in order to respect the run and account for the number of hats ... a D needs to place more hats in the box. Furthermore, against a more down-hill running game ... usually teams opt for 4-3 or 3-4 sets. Thus, just 2 LBs likely won't cut it.
Of course, as we'll both agree, ISU has some darn good LBs. Knott is top-notch, Klein is excellent, and you have other really promising guys. Thus, ISU has the personnel to operate out of the 4-3 against Iowa.
However, lets not forget the big reason why ISU was able to slow Mizzou ... they had guys back in coverage ... and they only had to worry about a finesse running game.
Against Iowa there will be more hats towards the LOS ... thereby putting more pressure on the secondary. There will be a much higher likelihood that DBs could get caught on islands. While ISU has a good bit of talent and experience in the secondary ... and thus the guys are capable of faring well on islands ... Iowa still poses a really tough challenge to ISU's DBs. The first thing is that Iowa will play-action the DBs to death ... thus, they're always going to have to worry about reading run versus pass. The second thing is that they're going to have to do a lot tackling against a power rushing attack ... and that can lead to guys getting dinged. Lastly, there's the issue that Iowa's WRs and TEs are BIG GUYS. Given that L. Johnson and Reeves aren't all that tall ... they're going to have their hands full with McNutt and Davis, both of whom are pretty tall. Secondly, the safeties will likely get caught in coverage with Iowa's TEs ... and we're talking about 6-5/255 Herman and 6-7/265 Fiedorowicz.
Anyhow, the point here being ... defending Iowa is an entirely different beast than defending Mizzou. And, on top of all the above ... Vandenberg is a precision passer. If Iowa's receiving targets can get open and IF Vandenberg has the time ... Vandenberg will likely be able to hit them.
The problem I see for us is, at least to this point our offense seems to run alot of plays that are meant to trick the opponent. Iowa is not a team that is easily tricked. In order to beat Iowa we need to out-execute them, which thus far has not happened with this offense.
We have to take what Iowa gives us. Take those 5 and 10 yard passes they give you.
