Everyone Is So Not Who I Thought They Were: Wisconsin Loses to Iowa 20-10
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 3:36 PM CDT
in Wisconsin
45 comments
Well, except for Northwestern. But that's a story for a different post. You know, if you only look at the first half of the Ohio State game and the first half of the Iowa game, then Wisconsin is 7-0. Wait... I'm not allowed to do that?
Aw, shucks.
So, maybe this glass isn't half full. The Badgers, once again, managed to play 30 minutes of great football before utterly collapsing. Except, this time the collapse came at home at Camp Randall and not on the road in a tough game in the 'Shoe. Today's game against Iowa really was a game of what ifs...
What if Bielema hadn't subbed Curt Phillips in for Scott Tolzien in the 2nd quarter and seemingly killed Wisconsin's offensive momentum for the rest of the game?
What if Tolzien hadn't thrown three more interceptions - one of which eventually resulted in 7 points for Iowa, and two which killed crucial 4th quarter drives?
What if Garrett Graham hadn't suffered a head injury in the first half?
What if John Clay hadn't also suffered an injury, which seemed to slow down his run game in the second half?
What if Nick Toon hadn't dropped a catchable pass at about the five yard line on third down?
What if Philip Welch hadn't subsequently missed a 38 yard field goal, leaving the score tied?
Finally, what if the Badger defense hadn't completely dissappeared for two quarters, allowing Iowa to put up 20, yes, 20, unanswered points?
In the end, though, the really great teams find a way to win despite all the what ifs on any given Saturday and the kinda-sorta-good teams, well, don't.
Seems like the 2009 Wisconsin Badgers are a kinda-sorta-good team, huh?
If you noticed, the top of my post is titled "Everyone is so not who I thought they were..." I'll get more into Wisconsin below, but I'd like to briefly talk about Iowa and Ohio State. As much as it kills me to write this, maybe Iowa is the best team in the Big 10. I was rather bruatlized by Iowa fans earlier this season for ranking them below OSU and Penn State. At the time, I said, "Show me more." Well, they have, and with OSU's shocking loss to Purdue today, I think I'm ready to change my mind.Graham takes a look at the Big 10 match-up of the week...
I replay the tough loss against Ohio State in week 6...
Iowa, I've concluded, is the res ipsa loquitur team. You don't really know how it happened, but they keep on winning against good teams, and you know that usually undefeated teams are great so, like with res ipsa loquitur, you're kind of forced to conclude that they are a great team. It's odd, though. They don't have a run game. Their QB can be good, but he also has an alarming propensity to throw interceptions at crucial moments. Their defense is obviously very, very good but usually that by itself is not enough to win a conference. Really, they shouldn't be this good. But they are. And that's all that matters.
Ohio State... well, after today they look like a great team that is going to be fatally undone by the very mediocre play of the quarterback Terrelle Pryor. Their defense is amazing. The front seven completely brutalized Tolzien and the Bucky offense last week. Their linebackers find ways to intercept balls and then score touchdowns off of them. Their special teams is consistently good, and has the ability to break off the great type of plays that define a conference champion. But... they too, don't have a running game. And their QB isn't nearly as capable as Ricky Stanzi.
Where does this leave the conference, then? Iowa still has a date at the 'Shoe, which they could easily lose. But, unless they also get upset by one of Michigan State, Indiana, Northwestern, or Minnesota they are going to win the Big 10. I don't think that they will go to the BCS championship game, but that says more about the BCS voters than it does the Iowa team. So, that means they'd be ticketed for the Rose Bowl, likely against USC. If, on the other hand, they lose to OSU, get upset in one of their other four conference match-ups, AND Ohio State doesn't lose another game, the Buckeyes would head to the Rose Bowl via the tiebreak rules.
Okay... back to Wisconsin. Wisconsin is not who I thought they were. They are worse. I was very happy about the road win at Minnesota, and, while the Ohio State game was painful to watch, I understood the loss. It is true that in both of those games they looked a bit shaky... but I chalked that up to a young team playing on the road. It's starting to look more like this play is endemic to the team itself, and not just a factor of being on the road.
So, here are the takeaways from today's game:
Offense:
I still love Scott Tolzien, despite his sudden rash of interceptions. He's having a lot more pressure put on him because of failures of our offensive line, and that plus a few bad decisions is causing the turnovers. It is important to note that these turnovers have come against the two best defensive units in the Big 10. If he can avoid doing that against lesser defenses, then Wisconsin can still finish this season strong.
Despite my detractors last week, I still love John Clay. He is a feature back. Starting because Zach Brown was out due to a concussion, Clay managed to rack up 70 rushing yards in the first half. He suffered a leg injury of some kind in the second quarter, and it might have been that or fatigue that made him ineffective in the second half. I also have to give credit to Montee Ball, the freshman, for stepping in admirably after that injury to Clay. He had some great carries, including a 10 yard TD run. It is my hope that Clay's injury is not serious and that he'll be ready to go for next week, because if he's out, the Wisconsin offense is in trouble.
Defense:
I think that the defense is still a great unit - for the first half of the football game. I have no idea where they go after the half, and that is something that needs to be addressed. They are a young unit with great capacity for improvement over the next two years, but they need to learn to play for 60 minutes. They tend to come out strong - forcing both OSU and Iowa to 3 and outs in the start of these past two games, but then they fade. They have the ability to force turnovers - today's fumble recovery was their 17th of the season - but the secondary is weak and our cornerbacks get beat on pass plays far too often.
Special Teams:
The special teams is merely okay. Philip Welch had a great middle of the season.. after going only 2/5 in FG attemps in the first two games he had three straight perfect weeks. Then, he missed two last week and one this week. One of the missed ones against OSU was an absurdly long 57 yarder, which is excusable, but the other was a 33 yarder. Today's missed FG was a 38 yarder. Those two misses are not okay. His job as a kicker is to come on and put up points on the board when asked. If the offense is forcing him into extremely long situations, then it's understandable that he would miss a few, but he can't be missing chip shot or routine field goals. Our kick returns today were not nearly as bad as last week, but they still weren't good. David Gilreath really doesn't look comfortable out there. I'm not sure if the special teams mediocrity is because of the players or because of Brett Bielema. Maybe after this season he should hire a full time ST coach.
Coaching:
Our offensive playcalling was fine for the first half... Clay was performing well and Tolzien threw the ball when he needed to. The second half? Not so much. Time after time, Iowa stacked eight players and shut down the Wisconsin run game. Time after time, we continued to run on first down. The one time that we threw on first down in the fourth quarter we threw to the running back! I'm not sure why the versatility in the Badgers' offense disappeared, but the coaches need to remember that interceptions and receiver drops aside, Tolzien is a good QB - if you give him plays to throw on.
I'm reluctant to blame the performance of the defense on the coaching. Our blitzes were getting picked up too easily in the late game, but a lot of the other defensive issues can be blamed on missed tackles, idiotic penalties, and a secondary that just gets beat. I feel like if the coaching were to blame, the defense wouldn't be good at all, not good for a half and then non-existent for the second half.
So... After the bye, Wisconsin next gets Purdue at home. Purdue is not a good team. Yes, they did just beat Ohio State, but I think we can all agree that was completely unexpected. Wisconsin needs to take a hard look at the film from the last two weeks and figure out where things have gone so wrong. The season and a good bowl bid can still be saved. Let's start now.
On to game 8, On to getting back on track, and ON WISCONSIN!!!
0 recs |
45 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
You nailed it
Seems like the 2009 Wisconsin Badgers are a kinda-sorta-good team, huh?
Wisky is the classic 8-4/9-3 kind of team. Not good enough to run the table, but better than the mediocre bowl teams (think Minnesota).
You’re also dead on with Clay. He was a shell of himself in the second half. I have to think that he was affected by getting reclined by Angerer. In the first half, Iowa beat Wisconsin physically. In the second half, they beat them with points. What fun!
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Bama Hawkeye on Oct 17, 2009 4:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
It disappoints me, but I am encouraged by the thought that next year, if the defense really improves, they could be at the top of the conference.
Do you think Iowa goes to the Rose Bowl now?
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that too
Wisconsin has consistently been a kinda-sorta-good team for the past 7-8 years, except maybe for Bielema’s first season (and I thought that team was pretty lucky)
I hope Clay comes back. It looked like he was bent in half on that tackle – I was really glad to see him come off the field under his own power
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
by berselius on Oct 17, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
When I saw that, my first thought was “Season over, see you next year.” I was amazed that he (1) left under his own power and (2) came back. But was definitely only at 70% after that.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Oct 17, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a well-written analysis, but just one quibble. At this point in the second straight season of this phenomenon, I think we might be at the point where we can start saying it’s not anybody’s fault when their team turns the ball over multiple times against Iowa. It’s just going to happen.
by YpsiTerrier on Oct 17, 2009 4:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Iowa has an excellent defense to be sure
And they do seem to create turnover opportunities (the same could be said of OSU), but I don’t feel comfortable saying that the Badger offense is completely blameless for those. If it were just one interception… sure… but three?
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At a certain point
Having more than 2-3 “What ifs” in a post just means that your team isn’t as good. The games get played, and little moments, oft forgotten, can change the outcome. But when you need half-a-dozen or more examples of when it went against you then it’s evidence that maybe it just wasn’t your day. I’m not trying to be a d*ck, I thought Wisconsin played one hell of a game, but the key ended up being halftime adjustments, Iowa made them, Wisconsin didn’t (though I think Clay’s return actually hindered Wisconsin more than if he had been out) and Iowa found a way. And yes, at this point, you just have to concede that we’re going to take the ball away from you multiple times a game. The only question is whether Ricky decides to give it back to you (gift wrapped with a TD) or not. Today, he didn’t. And that’s why Iowa came out on top.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Oct 17, 2009 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of the picks
Was an awful throw to Gilreath in the flat. He had separation from the corner, but Scott threw it way too far to the sideline, where another defender was able to make a diving grab. That one’s entirely on Tolzien, in my opinion.
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets." - Bob Uecker
by texwestern on Oct 18, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only one complaint
You blame Clay’s ineffectiveness on him potentially being injured. That’s all fine and good, but did you not see the Iowa DL moving the Wisky OL backwards starting in the 2nd half? There were no more holes after halftime. Period. Clay could have been injured, but even completely healthy, he would have been running into an Iowa defense that stepped it up 110% after the break.
Similarly, Iowa doesn’t have a running game, but you ignore the fact that Iowa played with its correct starting 5 for just the 2nd time this season (arguably, the 1st, with Reiff moving into the starting 5 today). With that flux, you’ll struggle to get the blocking assignments down like you’re supposed to — a key in the zone blocking scheme that Ferentz likes to use. I’m not saying that A-Rob or Wegher will dominate anybody, but they’re but decent backs, and can keep defenses honest when given the chance.
My hope, and I touched on this in the “predictions” thread, is that Iowa used this game to find some consistency on offense. I think they’re dangerously close to doing that. I’m no longer afraid of going to East Lansing, and I’m seeing a run through the conference as a legit possibility. I’m a blind optimist, but shutting down Wisky today really made me feel warm inside.
by imadirtyoldman on Oct 17, 2009 6:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's clear that
Iowa made adjustments on defense during the half and we know that Wisconsin’s defense played significantly worse after the half. While not technically part of the defense, I would include the O-line as part of that significantly worse play. So, yes, it’s true that Iowa adjusting had something to do with Clay’s ineffectiveness. But, he had 70 yards on 14 carries in the 1st half and 5 yards on 7 carries in the second. That is too great of a drop off, in both attempts and production, to be limited to the adjustments Iowa made. He took a very hard hit and wasn’t the same afterwards. I think almost all of that was due to injury or injury and fatigue.
As for the Iowa running game, or lack thereof. Yes, the two backs they have are adequate. But, almost every team in the Big 10 (I actually can’t think of any that don’t, but I might be forgetting someone) has at least an adequate RB or two. Further, the running game as defined includes the play of the guys attempting to make holes. If you have a great back but blocking that can’t make holes for him, you will still have a not good running game.
To clarify, also, when I said they don’t have a running game I mean they don’t have the type of running game that can burn up the field and consistently put points on the board. Much of their offense lives or dies with Ricky Stanzi. This seems to be working well enough for the Hawkeyes thus far, so I don’t think the imbalance of their offense will hurt them in conference games. The only area where I see it being a problem is in a bowl game, whether that bowl be the Rose Bowl, BCS championship, or something else. If they happen to draw a team with a good pass defense in the secondary and/or a team that can get past the O-line to harass Stanzi, the lack of a balanced offense and the Stanziballs might hurt them significantly.
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
As far as it goes. At the end of the day, Robinson outgained Clay, 95 yards to 75. Yes, a lot of that has to do with Clay’s injury (there was absolutely no reason to believe that an Iowa back would out-gain Clay at the half, even if he hadn’t played a down in the 2nd). But it remains equally true that the Wisconsin O-line, that looked absolutely dominant in the 1st half disappeared in the second. Quite simply, the holes weren’t there for Clay to hit and pass protection broke down (that explains Tolzien’s picks more than anything else, he was getting hit almost everytime he dropped back).
Iowa’s backs aren’t world-beaters, and they’re going to have to scratch and claw for every yard. But this is yet another game where they do JUST ENOUGH to get the job done. It’s not pretty, and it causes me and all other Iowa fans uncalcuable angst, but it gets the job done. At least, until it doesn’t.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Oct 17, 2009 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
At that’s the thing. Right now, and through the rest of the regular schedule, I think that Iowa’s running will be fine. With the exception of OSU, they’ve gotten through the hardest teams, so I don’t see it being a significant problem. As you said, it gets the job done, until it doesn’t. And the thing you have to be worried about is who you draw for your bowl game. There are teams out there with great run defenses and weak secondaries, and teams that have amazing secondaries and can’t stop short runs. You guys better hope you get the former. I think Stanzi and the Iowa O-line would be effective against a team like that… we’ve already seen Iowa be effective even when they rush for single digits, after all. The run game at Iowa is an alternative now and again, but I think if they’re put in a position to rely upon it, whether because of the opposing D or Stanziballs, that’s a problem.
Heaven forbid you do go to the BCS Championship and get Florida or Alabama. That might not be pretty.
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couple of thoughts
The inherent pessimist in me is scared sh*tless about the MSU game next week. We should win, but the outcome of today’s MSU-jNWU game gives me anything but confidence. If Michigan State had loss, I would expect nothing else but a John L. Smith-era meltdown. But now, MSU has something to play for, they’re on the verge of redeeming a season that seemed lost barely two weeks ago. Looking ahead on the schedule, the only game I am confident about (and just barely) is the Indiana game. But if today proved anything, nothing can be taken for granted (see e.g., OSU-Purdue).
To answer the wildly optimistic hypothetical, an Iowa-Alabama national title game is infinitely preferable to an Iowa-Florida game. Alabama is basically the SEC version of Iowa (and Wisky, and tOSU), a smash-mouth, small-ball team that seeks an advantage by never making a mistake and waiting for the other team to screw up. Florida is high-risk, high-reward, and has the type of offense that Iowa has shown a huge weakness against. Iowa-Alabama isn’t pretty from the media standpoint, it’s just two teams trying to beat the crap out of one another and would probably set a record for low cumulative score in a BCS championship game. Iowa-Florida would be a blowout, one way or another (probably in the rampantly overrated “dynamic” Gators favor). But all this is wildly premature, if Penn State from last year teaches us anything (and as an Iowa fan, it should), it is that every week is a battle. Never, EVER, count your chickens until they’ve hatched.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Oct 18, 2009 1:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You missed my point re: Iowa's OL
Yes, the OL has just as much to do with the running game as the RB’s, but Iowa’s theory on blocking is different than most at the collegiate level. It’s the same reason that Iowa rarely has true Freshmen lineman. Also the reason Iowa rarely graduates a lineman before his senior year. Iowa’s blocking scheme (and I’ll just say zone blocking, but I’ll defer to anybody who can put it better than that) is rather complex, and it takes a few years to master. Similarly, it takes a few games for the line to get up to speed together, in terms of gaps and assignments, and that can take even longer if the starting 5 keeps getting shuffled around.
Which is my ultimate point. Is Iowa ever going to Shonn Greene anybody into the ground this year? No, of course not. But to say that the running game is not good (“If you have a great back but blocking that can’t make holes for him, you will still have a not good running game.”) is a bit of a premature statement. If the OL is still failing to put up holes in another 2 weeks, after they’ve played together as a unit for more than one week, then you can say the OL is underperforming. But to say that now? When the OL has been juggled around every week of the season thus far? When it takes a few weeks of continuity to make the holes that were so evident last year due to the schemes? That’s just not a fair statement, and it borderlines on falsity.
Wait a few weeks, hmlee, and if Iowa still can’t open up holes after they’ve had the same unit start for a few weeks, then you can call the running game a failure. Until then, because of the scheme Ferentz uses with his OL, you just can’t make that statement.
by imadirtyoldman on Oct 17, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know
much more about Iowa than I do. I base my statements off of evaluations of how they’ve done thus far. We’re seven weeks in, with multiple non-con and conference games under the belt of the season. Right now, I don’t see Iowa as having a real running game. It’s not about it being a “failure” so much as it’s not “there” as a significant part of their offense. If Stanzi were somehow to come down with incomplete-itis and fail to throw a decent pass for a quarter or a half, could Iowa score solely on the ground? I don’t think so.
What if you given me in your elaboration is reasons for why they haven’t been good so far, not evidence showing that they have been good. Since you know more about them, you’re probably right in your reasons. And if you are right, then they will develop a running game in the next few weeks and maybe won’t have as much trouble in their bowl game as I foresee at the moment.
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that's supposed to be
“What you’ve given me” in the 2nd paragraph
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thus far,
Iowa is 7-0, and has yet to give up a single second half point in any of their road games. Good god, you sound like an ISU fan or Des Moines sports radio with the nits you’re picking.
You act like you were surprised that Iowa went into Camp Randall and whipped the Badgers.
by TarHeelHawk on Oct 17, 2009 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am
The Badgers have played very well at home this season and I thought, prior to this week, Iowa was due for an upset. Didn’t happen because the Badgers didn’t play nearly as well in the second half and Iowa made the adjustments it needed to.
Anyway, what you call picking nits I call realism. I’m not an Iowa fan, so I have no problem with it.
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't saying "nitpicking"
Only saying that your analysis is a bit premature. If Iowa still can’t run the ball in 2-3 more weeks, then yeah, the running game sucks. But if the OL finally plays together for 3 weeks and suddenly starts opening up holes, then you know why.
by imadirtyoldman on Oct 18, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if it happens
That Iowa develops a run game in the next few weeks because of the OL opening up holes I will stand corrected and give you a shout out in one of my recaps…
by hmlee on Oct 18, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know your bad if Stanzi is better than you.
Kidding aside, I’ve been very impressed with Stanzi. He seems to always throw an early interception, but he always manages to come back from that mistake. That’s very impressive.
FIRE BRUCE BOCHY NOW!!!!!!
AND TAKE BRIAN SABEAN WITH HIM!!!!!
by 49er16 on Oct 17, 2009 9:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He's definitely a slow starter
In my cursory look at the team most of his Stanziballs seem weighted towards the first half.
by hmlee on Oct 17, 2009 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've read a lot of "We gave them the game" what-if analyses this year. They're going around.
Roughly seven, if I recall.
As for Clay, this is football? One of the objects is to make the running backs want to stop running the ball. When the RBs stop running, the defense checks a box and goes on to the next problem set. This is how you win games? I believe Wisconsin had four yards rushing in the second half. This is called winning through intimidation and control, not what-iffing. What if? Clay wasn’t hurt, worried, or tired? Well, what if Clay were Jim Brown? Would’ve been a different outcome.
The comment that the Iowa offense is over-leveraged on Stanzi is mistaken (also contradicted by events: he’s had iffy games that, as you note above, other teams generously “gave” Iowa in that manner that Wisconsin “what-iffed” yesterday). No team is going to play Iowa straight-up with seven in the box. There’s more respect for Iowa’s line and scheme than that. Defenses are just saying, It’s more likely we win if they throw instead of run. Let’s see what happens when we make them throw a bit. Typically what happens is we complete a few passes and defenses stop cheating extra guys into the box and … Iowa has a second half scoring advantage this year of roughly 100-40, said scoring being generated by a solid mix of runs and tosses. I suppose a person could say, “What if we hadn’t let them do that?” One might as well say, “What if? we played 12 guys on defense and no one noticed?”
Most perplexing is the idea that a top-5 team in takeaways somehow “what-iffed” their way into three more. True, what if? Tolzein hadn’t thrown three picks, gosh, the game might have gone differently. Iowa has now embarrassed all but two of its opponent QBs, each of whom delivered what will be, I’m sure, a bottom decile performance, when they look back at their careers. That’s just curious: what if? they hadn’t?
What if? there were another analysis of the game? Perhaps Iowa coached better and made better adjustments at half-time, and the Iowa boys played harder and with more confidence and with more ability at key positions across all sixty minutes. What if? Iowa just went out and won the game?
Mr. Boh Knows ...
by Bellanca on Oct 18, 2009 6:02 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
You're a little off on your Rose Bowl scenario.
Yes, Ohio State has two losses now, but only one conference loss. So if they win out, finishing 10-2 (7-1) and Iowa only loses at the ’Shoe, finishing 11-1 (7-1), it will be Ohio State that goes to the Rose Bowl, since head-to-head is the first tiebreaker, and overall record is second.
I am Billy Butler's Gold Glove.
by cbrett42 on Oct 18, 2009 8:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
btw
I was a perfect 5-5 on this week’s predictions. WOOHOO!
by imadirtyoldman on Oct 18, 2009 9:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bielema
Every game this season, it seems our Badgers come out flat in the third quarter. Personally, I attribute this to Bret Bielema’s halftime adjustments—or lack thereof. Against mediocre teams, Bucky gets away with it because a terrific athlete like John Clay or Schofield makes a few momentum-changing plays. But against a very good team like Iowa or OSU, especially ones with very good coaches who CAN make adjustments, Bielema’s game plan seems to fall apart. If this is a trend the rest of the year, expect another couple of losses. With some talk before the season of Bielema on the hot seat, I thought he’d be off the hook for sure after the 5-0 start. Now, I think 8-4 with a bowl loss could (and maybe should) get Coach B the axe.
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets." - Bob Uecker
by texwestern on Oct 18, 2009 10:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You think so?
I think it might get him one more year, unless the bowl loss is particularly embarrassing….
by hmlee on Oct 18, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could see him getting fired
But he’s avoided the things that hurt so bad last year (obvious coaching mistakes like the MSU TO, team controversy, etc)…And Wisconsin is a stable program, so I’ll bet he makes it a couple more years.
It is odd to see the extremely diverse Badger offense get not so diverse as the game goes on.
The Rivalry, Esq.
Big Ten Football: 3 Yards and a Cloud of Field Turf
by grahamfiller10 on Oct 18, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a bad article, but...
You cannot play the game of “what if” especially when it comes to injuries. Injuries are simply part of the game, even when it affects the outcome. If you want to talk about Garrett Graham and John Clay’s injuries, it’s only fair to talk about the explosive running game that Jewel Hampton could have provided for the Hawkeyes if he hadn’t torn his ACL before the season. Or you wonder if Iowa would have won more convincingly against Arizona, Arkansas State, and Penn State if Tony Moeaki hadn’t been sidelined with an injury. After all, he was the difference maker in our wins against Michigan and Wisconsin…
by Iowamutt on Oct 18, 2009 12:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that
pre-season injuries are very different from ones that occur during a game. My what-ifs are related to the game at hand, not the season as a whole. Injuries to two of the more reliable offensive producers on the Wisconsin team – one that removed a player from the game, and one that all but removed a player, are going to be big factors in the final outcome. Injuries to a player several weeks before the game are not nearly that much.
In any case, as I said above, great teams find ways to overcome what-ifs on Saturdays. The Badgers didn’t. Ergo, not a great team this year.
by hmlee on Oct 18, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Graham hurt his head, Clay got scared.
But the major hit of the day was Morse on Taylor, driving Wisconsin’s leading tackler from the game with an open field pancake.
I think that there was more intimidation in this game than was apparent on first view.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
by Bellanca on Oct 18, 2009 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that I would equate
a leg injury with “getting scared”… Since, after all, Clay didn’t appear to be scared by the Iowa DL for the 70 yards he rung up prior to the injury…
by hmlee on Oct 18, 2009 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think what he's saying
is that when you’re hurt, and apparently hurt bad, but then realize that it’s not really that bad, you have two choices. Believe you’re invicible, or that it could really be bad next time. He wasn’t scared, per se, but I would believe that he was scared of having a serious injury after the first one.
I certainly don’t know how his leg felt, but it looked real bad. It’d make me tenative going forward.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Oct 19, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well being
“tentative” about aggravating an injury and “scared” of the Iowa DL are two very different things with very different connotations….
by hmlee on Oct 19, 2009 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Their QB can be good, but he also has an alarming propensity to throw interceptions at crucial moments."
Actually, a crucial interception by definition means that the team could not overcome it. So, in my world, all his interceptions have come at markedly NON-crucial moments.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Oct 18, 2009 3:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Your definition of crucial
and mine differ. But okay.
by hmlee on Oct 18, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be picky
but a standard definition of “crucial” is, marked by final determination of a doubtful issue. all of Stanzi’s interceptions have been overcome. I think his intereceptions have been disruptive, but not crucial to the final outcome—expect that Iowa may have won by significantly more.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Oct 18, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Final determination
Of what though? Your definition would seem to indicate the issue in doubt is the game or the season. That seems to be a bit… expansive to me. Especially considering the way that Iowa has won some of its most recent games. Stanzi has a tendency to throw interceptions that kill Iowa drives which otherwise most likely would have produced points. An alarming number of these interceptions are returned for TDs, thus producing points for Iowa’s opponent, and therefore not just resulting in a neutral situation (lack of points for Iowa) but a clearly negative one (positive points for opponents). In terms of the game, then, the Stanziballs appear to be of a “extremely significant or important” nature (in other words, according to my trusty dictionary, crucial.)
The specific definition of crucial that either of us uses is irrelevant to the point at hand, however. The point is that Stanzi, as a QB, tends to throw interceptions which are often returned for touchdowns. This affects the score of the game in a very meaningful way. Iowa has thus far overcome them, but in quite a few cases these eventual victories came about as a combination of skill on the part of the defense and a certain degree of luck. It is easy to envision a scenario in which some of the games that Iowa has won turned out the other way as a proximate result of the Stanziballs. Therefore, my contention that that (along with the other things I mentioned in the recap) creates a sort of incongruity when thinking about Iowa as a team. They shouldn’t be this good. But they are.
by hmlee on Oct 18, 2009 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, then that is like saying
that our running back doesn’t break tackles at crucial moments or our defense doesn’t make interceptions at crucial moments. I think you are trying to say that because Stanzi throws interceptions that are returned to touchdowns, he has thrown three, that this fact suggests we are an overachieving team that is where we are in spite of ourselves. But your argument makes little sense. It also suggests that if Stanzi did not throw crucial interceptions we would be blowing people away. I think that that those interceptions have not significantly altered the games one way or another in the final analysis. One was thrown on the first play of a game. Please, not crucial in any way. Another was thrown in the fourth quarter when we were well ahead and it kept the other team in the game, but they still had a significant hill to climb—which they failed to climb. Yet another was thrown in the second quarter of our most lopsided win. Almost irrelevant.
Anyway…they are dramatic to be sure. But determining…no, not really. This analysis is the kind that misleads people about this team. Once people watch us up close they see what is going on here. The guy probably has the best second half QB rating the Big Ten and among the Tops in the nation. I will look for that and then a better analysis will state that we have a QB that when the game is in the balance, plays his best football.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Oct 19, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't find that breakout of passer ratings by half or quarter.
But Iowa has outscored our opponents 94-41 in second half with three second half shutouts. The lowest point total for Iowa in second half is 10 points.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Oct 19, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That says more about your defense
than your quarterback. My intent is not to “mislead” people about the Hawkeyes, but rather to comment on what I see as the reality of the team. They are not perfect. They’ve been playing well, despite some oddities in their construction and on-field play. It shouldn’t matter to you whether or not I comment on these – they keep winning, so whatever it is they’re doing is working. For now at least…
by hmlee on Oct 19, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which NCAA team is perfect?
Alabama? Florida showed they are not in back to back weeks. Texas most certainly is not. Winning at the college level is much more complicated than in the pros. Iowa has scored 21 more points in the second half than in the first. That is all Stanzi…he is about as good as it gets in adjusting to the defenses and making plays with the game on the line. His rating is in the 180s in the second half. No one else in the Big Ten is really even close. That people think Iowa is a hyper flawed team is merely a function of them thinking that tams should blow people out. That is not our scheme. Sure, we can win a game big but our scheme is about never being out of a game (and in almost three years we have been in every game down to the last series except for some blowout wins). So while most teams have a game during the year where they just are never in it, Iowa doesn’t have that game.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Oct 19, 2009 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The opposite of what I saw
“I still love Scott Tolzien, despite his sudden rash of interceptions. He’s having a lot more pressure put on him because of failures of our offensive line”
The offensive line impressed me. Two of those interceptions were not caused by pressure but by bad QB reads. The line was creating great running lanes and the front four of Iowa was as ineffective as I’ve seen them this year for most of the game.
“What if Bielema hadn’t subbed Curt Phillips in for Scott Tolzien in the 2nd quarter and seemingly killed Wisconsin’s offensive momentum for the rest of the game?”
Nothing to do with the game at all. Iowa adjusted to the run game and the pressure was on Tolzien to throw. That’s why the offense stopped moving.
by iarocks on Oct 18, 2009 11:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on The Rivalry, Esq.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
