**Official Iowa vs. Michigan Football Thread - 11am - FOX**

Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
6,965
Reaction score
-4,424
Nate is who he is. He's no CJ.Beathard. 9 wins is this teams ceiling. Which isn't terrible. We aren't winning next week and Nate isn't going in to Madison and winning. Gotta beat everyone else to get to a good bowl.
This is a typical Iowa team, good enough to win 8 maybe 9 games. They like to tease us with an occasional great season.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
Michigan didn't get ton of pressure off the edge which is bad. It's one thing if their ends are forcing Nate up in the pocket. The pressure was coming straight up the middle and few if any QBs will be successful when the pressure is coming from there. I get wanting to blame Nate and Brian because they were not great, but the guards were awful. On one of the last plays Iowa had 3 guys blocking 1 and let a rusher come free right into Nates face, that's inexcusable. Iowa ran a couple draws and a couple screens but only 1 of them worked. Saying they needed to run more is assuming the play is going to work.

Browns defense is predicated off the assumption that a QB can't complete enough throws down field in 1 on 1 matchups. Iowa tried and completed 1 or 2. When he went to zone couldn't block long enough to let any routes open up. Iowa had Ragaini wide open for a TD, throw wasn't great but it didn't matter because there was a hold.

Iowa lost by 7 on the road to a team ranked in the top 20 with more talent than them. Regardless of the outcome of this game they would still need to go to Madison and win. Assuming Wisconsin loses at Ohio State they can still afford another loss.

Hopefully the coaches know more about the team after today.

1) Goodson is the featured back. I don't know how they can justify anyone else getting more touches than him unless they're playing Illinois or Purdue.
2) ISM and Goodson should get a combined 25 touches minimum every game. 18-20 for Goodson and 5-10 for ISM (not counting kick returns)
3) The Paulsons are rotational players at guard. They were pathetic today.
4) Defense was great, although I'm not sure Michigan is any good on offense
5) That game can't make Michigan fans feel better about their team.
Goodson lining up at receiver and Stanley dropping a fantastic pass into him was fun.
 

Tugboat

Berntard
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
8,369
Reaction score
-9,000
I don’t think Michigan is much better than an average team. That was a blown opportunity.
 

CamelTones

Has Shoved A Live Shrimp Up His Ass
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
16,103
Reaction score
-14,617
The 4th down conversion on the last drive was a similar defensive alignment, still photos are misleading. That outside linebacker is bluffing a blitz and drops into a zone there. A quick throw outside is likely tackled by the corner. And you can see the deep safeties shadow by the hash marks on the screen. You're look at maybe a 10 yard game if both players see it and a perfect throw in stride is made.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
I feel like I’m in kindergarten football chat. We all knew going 12-0 was unlikely and we’ll still have a good shot at winning 9-10 games. The sky isn’t falling people. Iowa will need to adjust because PSU and Wisconsin will do the same thing.

Michigan had a great defensive game plan and schemed us well. We didn’t deserve to win with those turnovers and penalties. End of story
But our inability to make any adjustments to that game plan is just a bit disconcerting.
How do you know we didn’t? We still have to execute those adjustments. Drops and penalties were a major factor.
Right. When people say "make adjustments" they usually just mean, call plays that work.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
The 4th down conversion on the last drive was a similar defensive alignment, still photos are misleading. That outside linebacker is bluffing a blitz and drops into a zone there. A quick throw outside is likely tackled by the corner. And you can see the deep safeties shadow by the hash marks on the screen. You're look at maybe a 10 yard game if both players see it and a perfect throw in stride is made.
That doesn't change that Stanley was facing a blitzing defense as a 3rd year starter and was completely inept in dealing with it.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
The 4th down conversion on the last drive was a similar defensive alignment, still photos are misleading. That outside linebacker is bluffing a blitz and drops into a zone there. A quick throw outside is likely tackled by the corner. And you can see the deep safeties shadow by the hash marks on the screen. You're look at maybe a 10 yard game if both players see it and a perfect throw in stride is made.
Correct. I went back and looked at that play specifically and that's exactly what they did. This still shot is misleading.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
Our “normal” run plays we’re getting 5 yards a pop. Running game still actually seems pretty good to me.
You mean out of the I? Total we had 21 carries for 67.
Which is not great, bob, but good enough that they needed to stick with it. And find some ways to get to the edge besides just outside zone.
Agreed on that. Thought they bailed on the run too early, especially in some situations. Was just talking about "5 yards a pop"
 

nolookpass

Feels the Bern
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
70,858
Reaction score
-66,008
Trump should investigate if Brian is getting paid the same or more than Phil Parker
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
The 4th down conversion on the last drive was a similar defensive alignment, still photos are misleading. That outside linebacker is bluffing a blitz and drops into a zone there. A quick throw outside is likely tackled by the corner. And you can see the deep safeties shadow by the hash marks on the screen. You're look at maybe a 10 yard game if both players see it and a perfect throw in stride is made.
That doesn't change that Stanley was facing a blitzing defense as a 3rd year starter and was completely inept in dealing with it.
Sadly true. Nate wasn't put in good spots but the pants shitting was pretty evident. He reacted like a redshirt freshman when faced with pressure today.
 

Tugboat

Berntard
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
8,369
Reaction score
-9,000
Specific to the sacks-I’d like to see how many times the RBs fucked up blitz pick up and how many times the O-Line simply got overmanned.
 

CamelTones

Has Shoved A Live Shrimp Up His Ass
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
16,103
Reaction score
-14,617
Michigan didn't get ton of pressure off the edge which is bad. It's one thing if their ends are forcing Nate up in the pocket. The pressure was coming straight up the middle and few if any QBs will be successful when the pressure is coming from there. I get wanting to blame Nate and Brian because they were not great, but the guards were awful. On one of the last plays Iowa had 3 guys blocking 1 and let a rusher come free right into Nates face, that's inexcusable. Iowa ran a couple draws and a couple screens but only 1 of them worked. Saying they needed to run more is assuming the play is going to work.

Browns defense is predicated off the assumption that a QB can't complete enough throws down field in 1 on 1 matchups. Iowa tried and completed 1 or 2. When he went to zone couldn't block long enough to let any routes open up. Iowa had Ragaini wide open for a TD, throw wasn't great but it didn't matter because there was a hold.

Iowa lost by 7 on the road to a team ranked in the top 20 with more talent than them. Regardless of the outcome of this game they would still need to go to Madison and win. Assuming Wisconsin loses at Ohio State they can still afford another loss.

Hopefully the coaches know more about the team after today.

1) Goodson is the featured back. I don't know how they can justify anyone else getting more touches than him unless they're playing Illinois or Purdue.
2) ISM and Goodson should get a combined 25 touches minimum every game. 18-20 for Goodson and 5-10 for ISM (not counting kick returns)
3) The Paulsons are rotational players at guard. They were pathetic today.
4) Defense was great, although I'm not sure Michigan is any good on offense
5) That game can't make Michigan fans feel better about their team.
Michigan's offense is terrible. Patterson is a shitty quarterback.
This is true. Though I think Patterson is getting the GDGD/James Vandenburg treatment.
 

Kerky

Does Not Return His Shopping Cart
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
-3,983
But our inability to make any adjustments to that game plan is just a bit disconcerting.
How do you know we didn’t? We still have to execute those adjustments. Drops and penalties were a major factor.
Right. When people say "make adjustments" they usually just mean, call plays that work.
Well we know one adjustment that wasn't made and that was speeding up and going up tempo or at least not running the clock down to within 5 seconds on every freaking play.
 

Kerky

Does Not Return His Shopping Cart
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
-3,983
The 4th down conversion on the last drive was a similar defensive alignment, still photos are misleading. That outside linebacker is bluffing a blitz and drops into a zone there. A quick throw outside is likely tackled by the corner. And you can see the deep safeties shadow by the hash marks on the screen. You're look at maybe a 10 yard game if both players see it and a perfect throw in stride is made.
That doesn't change that Stanley was facing a blitzing defense as a 3rd year starter and was completely inept in dealing with it.
Sadly true. Nate wasn't put in good spots but the pants shitting was pretty evident. He reacted like a redshirt freshman when faced with pressure today.
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
How do you know we didn’t? We still have to execute those adjustments. Drops and penalties were a major factor.
Right. When people say "make adjustments" they usually just mean, call plays that work.
Well we know one adjustment that wasn't made and that was speeding up and going up tempo or at least not running the clock down to within 5 seconds on every freaking play.
To be fair, this strategy left them with the ball at midfield late and a chance to tie. I agree that I would have liked some tempo or something to mix it up and wake up offense a bit. But there was a pretty good argument to not do that and get into the grind that Kirk's Iowa is comfortable with.
 

Talkin' Goat

Lothario
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
8,719
Reaction score
-18,828
Iowa losing 11 am game means the rest of the day is annoying as fuck. Dammit.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
How do you know we didn’t? We still have to execute those adjustments. Drops and penalties were a major factor.
Right. When people say "make adjustments" they usually just mean, call plays that work.
Well we know one adjustment that wasn't made and that was speeding up and going up tempo or at least not running the clock down to within 5 seconds on every freaking play.
They were consistently snapping with less than 5 on the play clock. They also went quick a fair amount early, probably 10 plays or so total. Not sure the success rate but didn't feel much different.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
That doesn't change that Stanley was facing a blitzing defense as a 3rd year starter and was completely inept in dealing with it.
Sadly true. Nate wasn't put in good spots but the pants shitting was pretty evident. He reacted like a redshirt freshman when faced with pressure today.
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
8 sacks, a grounding, 3picks, and a pass with his left hand on the last offensive play...he was really really bad today.
 

HoundedHawk

Bayard
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
31,918
Reaction score
-26,313
Rushing No. Gain Loss Net TD Lg Avg
Young,Toren 8 40 0 40 0 15 5.0
Goodson, Tyler 6 17 2 15 0 5 2.5
Sargent,Mekhi 7 15 3 12 0 5 1.7
Smith-Marsette 1 0 1 -1 0 0 -1.0
Stanley,Nate 8 0 65 -65 0 0 -8.1
Totals 30 72 71 1 0 15 0.0

I didn't expect that. Toren had twice the average per carry as Goodson.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
That doesn't change that Stanley was facing a blitzing defense as a 3rd year starter and was completely inept in dealing with it.
Sadly true. Nate wasn't put in good spots but the pants shitting was pretty evident. He reacted like a redshirt freshman when faced with pressure today.
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
He missed more and took more sacks than making throws. Way more. We asked a limited QB to do too much. It's not on him entirely.
 

HoundedHawk

Bayard
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
31,918
Reaction score
-26,313
Sadly true. Nate wasn't put in good spots but the pants shitting was pretty evident. He reacted like a redshirt freshman when faced with pressure today.
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
8 sacks, a grounding, 3picks, and a pass with his left hand on the last offensive play...he was really really bad today.
I actually think the pass by his left was impressive. Just to get it off was impressive.
 

nolookpass

Feels the Bern
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
70,858
Reaction score
-66,008
Rushing No. Gain Loss Net TD Lg Avg
Young,Toren 8 40 0 40 0 15 5.0
Goodson, Tyler 6 17 2 15 0 5 2.5
Sargent,Mekhi 7 15 3 12 0 5 1.7
Smith-Marsette 1 0 1 -1 0 0 -1.0
Stanley,Nate 8 0 65 -65 0 0 -8.1
Totals 30 72 71 1 0 15 0.0

I didn't expect that. Toren had twice the average per carry as Goodson.
Misleading. Young had 1 big gain 2 start 2nd half.

he had a number of other runs where there was a lot more meat on the bone for somebody quicker
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
8 sacks, a grounding, 3picks, and a pass with his left hand on the last offensive play...he was really really bad today.
I actually think the pass by his left was impressive. Just to get it off was impressive.
I agree with that. My complaint is that he was unable to adjust to the pressure, at all. For a smart guy/student of the game he brought none of that to the field today. He's big, has a great arm, has a ton of experience, but seems to really falter mentally.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
Sadly true. Nate wasn't put in good spots but the pants shitting was pretty evident. He reacted like a redshirt freshman when faced with pressure today.
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
8 sacks, a grounding, 3picks, and a pass with his left hand on the last offensive play...he was really really bad today.
Several of the things you listed are not on him, several are. The grounding was really bad. Couple of the sacks he managed poorly. Many were a free rusher up the middle.
The last pick was 4th down with no one open and they made a good play on his best read. First one was bad and all on his poor decision. 2nd one was a 1-1 shot he took where Tracy ran a poor route and their stud made a great play.
 

Hawk4Life94

Douche4Life who uses musical Christmas lights
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
31,885
Reaction score
-9,256
People shit on preferred walk ons... but #64 was a huge miss today.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
This is a bit over the top imo. He also made some throws with guys in his face.
8 sacks, a grounding, 3picks, and a pass with his left hand on the last offensive play...he was really really bad today.
Several of the things you listed are not on him, several are. The grounding was really bad. Couple of the sacks he managed poorly. Many were a free rusher up the middle.
The last pick was 4th down with no one open and they made a good play on his best read. First one was bad and all on his poor decision. 2nd one was a 1-1 shot he took where Tracy ran a poor route and their stud made a great play.
Agreed. Although I also place a lot of blame on him for those free rushers. Some of that blame is just my own frustration, but he should be seeing that coming and making teams pay for it. That's the entire point of having a 3rd year smart guy starter.
 

Kerky

Does Not Return His Shopping Cart
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
-3,983
Nate is always going to be a mixed bag. You can't expect him to carry the day b/c of his inconsistencies but you have to put it on his coach to realize that and put him in better positions for success.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
Nate is always going to be a mixed bag. You can't expect him to carry the day b/c of his inconsistencies but you have to put it on his coach to realize that and put him in better positions for success.
Absolutely. He's a good QB. Not a game changer.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
I get that but a couple were just total blown pickups by our RB and/or interior OL not being on same page. Some is just vision and awareness but having a 1st year freshman center probably didn't help, regardless of how good he's been physically. He hasn't seen anything like them and we blew some easy calls.
 

Talkin' Goat

Lothario
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
8,719
Reaction score
-18,828
If Nate Stanley is truly an academic All-American, then I’m an astronaut.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
I will also add that Nate had MANY opportunities to tuck it and run. Many times to put us in a more manageable position. For as well as they schemed for that in the Iowa State game, it was extremely disappointing that Nate didn't take advantage on this game.
 

Thomas Wolsey

Likes Your Post
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,989
Reaction score
-6,722
The first fumble was a huge problem. They still had chances, but if they didn’t fuck up so much early, that could very easily been a classic frustrating Ferentz game.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
The first fumble was a huge problem. They still had chances, but if they didn’t fuck up so much early, that could very easily been a classic frustrating Ferentz game.
No doubt. That and the one big play they hit changed the course early.

But when you get the ball to midfield or better 15 times, score some points.
 

Bob

Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
-5,715
Nate was really bad in the first half, but in the second they were getting a free blitz up on the middle on damn near every drop back which is hard for anyone to deal with. You'd like to think our oline guru coach and OC could scheme up a way to deal with that at some point.

And I really don't want to hear about how Linderbaum is the best center we've ever had again for awhile. Maybe he'll get there but he's looked like an overmatched freshman against the only two real defenses we've played.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
1,665
Reaction score
-1,848
I can’t blame Nate too much. That was one of the worst OL performances I’ve ever seen. The Paulsens are both shit. Polasek has been a failure.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
5,993
Reaction score
-3,866
I get that but a couple were just total blown pickups by our RB and/or interior OL not being on same page. Some is just vision and awareness but having a 1st year freshman center probably didn't help, regardless of how good he's been physically. He hasn't seen anything like them and we blew some easy calls.
I agree with pretty much all of that. Developmental program is developmental. But it's still frustrating with a quarterback as experienced as Stanley also looking completely shell shocked.

Actually the Sargent play is a good example. Sargent gets a little chip in, is open with room, it looks designed as he's turned looking for the ball.

Stanley did essentially nothing to help that play be successful. He's right where you'd expect one to be in the pocket. If he shuffled like 3 feet to his right he has room from the blitzer. Instead it's a sack. That's bad quarterback play in general. It's awful quarterback play for a 3rd year starter.

Maybe the mistake was Sargent not actually trying to block and he was saving face looking for the ball, but it seemed like he had a good idea.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
-6,737
Nate was really bad in the first half, but in the second they were getting a free blitz up on the middle on damn near every drop back which is hard for anyone to deal with. You'd like to think our oline guru coach and OC could scheme up a way to deal with that at some point.

And I really don't want to hear about how Linderbaum is the best center we've ever had again for awhile. Maybe he'll get there but he's looked like an overmatched freshman against the only two real defenses we've played.
Agree on the hype but I thought he held his own at ISU when you consider a very good nose, first road game and their D.

As many mistakes as we made, you also have to recognize that Brown is an elite pressure DC with studs everywhere when he can get into those situations. The biggest problem is we couldn't keep them honest or make them pay at times. He's going to pressure your QB in passing situations, especially without a mobile guy.
 

CamelTones

Has Shoved A Live Shrimp Up His Ass
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
16,103
Reaction score
-14,617
I will also add that Nate had MANY opportunities to tuck it and run. Many times to put us in a more manageable position. For as well as they schemed for that in the Iowa State game, it was extremely disappointing that Nate didn't take advantage on this game.
That was Iowa State who rushes 3 and drops 8. There were not exactly openings for him to run today as Michigan sent more guys than there are blockers on most plays. He tried a couple times and everyone was bitching that he didn't throw it away. Nate was not great today but it's not all on him.

Not enough credit is being given to Michigans game plan. Any adjustment Iowa makes would have been met by a Michigan adjustment. Iowa didn't really have trouble moving the ball, they just couldn't do anything once they crossed the 40. Some of that was play calling. Some of it was penalties. It sucks, its frustrating, but it happens.
 

Hawkeye_Pierce

May Have Fondled a Tranny
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
8,832
Reaction score
-10,161
I’m going to ramp up the CF rhetoric but I think Iowa was the better team and just played about as poorly on offense as possible. Even then there were times when it looked good for a few plays. They just stepped on their dick again and again. My takeaway from the game isn’t that Iowa is bad and will be lucky to go 8-4 but that they played like shit and lost which is why today was such a tough watch.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
15,501
Reaction score
-14,945
Michigan would beat Iowa at home more often than not. Sure, Iowa played shitty, but that's what happens when you can't block the other guys.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
I will also add that Nate had MANY opportunities to tuck it and run. Many times to put us in a more manageable position. For as well as they schemed for that in the Iowa State game, it was extremely disappointing that Nate didn't take advantage on this game.
That was Iowa State who rushes 3 and drops 8. There were not exactly openings for him to run today as Michigan sent more guys than there are blockers on most plays. He tried a couple times and everyone was bitching that he didn't throw it away. Nate was not great today but it's not all on him.

Not enough credit is being given to Michigans game plan. Any adjustment Iowa makes would have been met by a Michigan adjustment. Iowa didn't really have trouble moving the ball, they just couldn't do anything once they crossed the 40. Some of that was play calling. Some of it was penalties. It sucks, its frustrating, but it happens.
I'm not just making shit up. There were at least five instances in the second half where he could have tucked it and run for a positive play. Instead we got an incompletion or an ineffective play.
 

FrodoTBaggin

Balding
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
50,821
Reaction score
-48,041
There's safety help here but shaded to the bottom half of the field. If Nate decides quickly, he hits his tight end down the seam and good things happen. Instead it's a sack
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top