A TEAM loss ...

[ghostOfHomer777]

Surely, the O is the group that had the most difficulties in the game .... but key mistakes were made in each phase of the game that ultimately led to the L.

• While our special teams did a number of special things ... the blown kick coverage towards the end of the game was pretty egregious. It led directly to points by PSU.
• I'm willing to give the D a pass on giving up 10 points .... since 3 were set up by a very short field by our coverage unit ... and 7 were set up by Nate's first INT. However, losing outside contain on McSorley was inexcusable - that gave PSU an easy TD. Furthermore, the lapse in our coverage while in cover-2 ... giving up the long pass play that ALSO set up a big score ... that too was inexcusable.
• Obviously our O missed on more opportunities than I care to mention .... but easily the most painful was the overthrow to Hock that was a perfect call and a sure TD! Another painful one was the late INT when we were deep in PSU's territory. A timeout needed to be called ... and it was mostly on Nate for trying to change the play late. He needs to realize that he should just call the TO rather than rush a snap. Of course, in his defense, he thought that the play change was communicated to everybody ... and clearly Noah didn't know what was going on (that's on Noah too).

However, you win as a team and you lose as a team. The good news is that at least the Hawks fought hard and didn't quit on each other. What they need to do is keep on focusing on improvement ..... next week isn't going to be any easier.

 

[iahawks10]

I guess the defense needed to score two TDs. Perhaps they should have set the offense up with better field position than the 44 yd line most of the game.

You’re right though. Team loss

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I guess the defense needed to score two TDs. Perhaps they should have set the offense up with better field position than the 44 yd line most of the game.

You’re right though. Team loss

Ultimately, the D still gave up 30 points ... for Iowa football, that is rarely a winning number. I don't know how any fan can skirt around that.

I agree that the O had a terrible game ... but that also happens sometimes. If one unit is having a down game ... the other needs to step up. The whole point is that, as a fan, we don't want the team to turn on each other. Frankly, as fans, whether we intend to deleteriously impact our team or not ... our negativity can obviously "get through" to our team. When the seeds of doubt are sown ... it can lead to players doubting the team and doubting the coaches. When that happens ... that is when the season goes off the cliff. We absolutely do NOT want that to happen.

We have to remember that for as frustrating as that game was for us to watch ... and I agonized through every offensive struggle and missed opportunity we had in that game ... it is that much harder on our players!

Given how much those guys invest into things ... it's easy to understand how emotions might flare-up ... but it's far better if the guys can remain positive (even in spite of disappointment) and remain unified.

If they fall apart from losses ... then it will be much harder to pull back together to hammer out much needed wins through final third of the season! There is STILL a lot of football left for the guys to play ... and they need to remember that and focus on that. It would do many of us fans well to remember that too!

 

[chiphawk59]

Surely, the O is the group that had the most difficulties in the game .... but key mistakes were made in each phase of the game that ultimately led to the L.

• While our special teams did a number of special things ... the blown kick coverage towards the end of the game was pretty egregious. It led directly to points by PSU.
• I'm willing to give the D a pass on giving up 10 points .... since 3 were set up by a very short field by our coverage unit ... and 7 were set up by Nate's first INT. However, losing outside contain on McSorley was inexcusable - that gave PSU an easy TD. Furthermore, the lapse in our coverage while in cover-2 ... giving up the long pass play that ALSO set up a big score ... that too was inexcusable.
• Obviously our O missed on more opportunities than I care to mention .... but easily the most painful was the overthrow to Hock that was a perfect call and a sure TD! Another painful one was the late INT when we were deep in PSU's territory. A timeout needed to be called ... and it was mostly on Nate for trying to change the play late. He needs to realize that he should just call the TO rather than rush a snap. Of course, in his defense, he thought that the play change was communicated to everybody ... and clearly Noah didn't know what was going on (that's on Noah too).

However, you win as a team and you lose as a team. The good news is that at least the Hawks fought hard and didn't quit on each other. What they need to do is keep on focusing on improvement ..... next week isn't going to be any easier.

Ghost your analysis as usual is pretty much right on . I will add that I think some of the issues that you raised appear to me to be on going. Lack of communication has reared it's ugly head on defense, special teams, and offense. The interception from the 3 yrd. line is a prime example. play comes in late, NS starts his reads to far into the play clock, audibles, Easley and Fant have trouble get positioned for audible, KF realizes NS has checked into a play with a zero chance of success and fails to get a timeout called. Yeah Nate had a bad game but the real issue with this team is sometimes, in fact more than acceptable, important signals are not being conveyed.

 

[iahawks10]

As usual, placing blame where it don’t belong maybe.

Let’s all take a look at Iowa’s defense giving up these 30 points:

7 pts = 10 plays - 85 yds
7 pts = 1 play - 3 yds
3 pts = 4 plays - 31 yds
Halftime
7 pts = 4 plays - 77 yds
3 pts = 6 plays - 24 yds
3 pts = 4 plays - 5 yds
End of Game

At the very best you can put 17 points on the defense. That’s being generous and taking three points away from the coach’s for their boneheaded decision making at the end of the first half. Iowa’s defense and special teams played well enough to win this game by three TDs. The offense and coach’s were just bad enough to lose this one by six. Carry on.

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

If one unit is having a down game ... the other needs to step up.

Ghost, I think you're a great poster and respect the hell out of your opinions.

But...

There's no way you can pin this game on special teams or the defense. Both units played their asses off and gave our offense every possible opportunity to win this. What was the average starting field position for PSU and Iowa? Before half I believe PSU's was inside it's own 20 and Iowa's was around their 45.

As for the bolded -
They have been, for years now at this point. In fact, the D has been the only constant throughout the years, even during not so great seasons. They've always stepped up.

 

[Hawks2405]

The D gave up 30 points because Stanley pretty much gave PSU another TD with the first horrible interception. He then whiffed on the pass to Hockenson where there wasn’t a defender within 5 yards of him. It was at least a 14 point swing, if not more. Stanley single-handedly lost this game.

 

[David1979]

When you play a good team on the road and get gifted points in the first half and your defense is playing lights out, you have to take advantage and not make mistakes. Iowa didn’t do that. I felt they lost the game in the first half bc it was tied. Should have been at least 21-7 at half.

 

[Half-Full Hawk]

Out of utter disappointment and frustration, I told myself on Saturday I'm done with checking Hawkeye news, blogs, + message boards umpteen times a day. I failed. Still love me some Hawks despite the blown opportunity. I don't think the level-headed, team loss approach applies here. Of course the D was not perfect but they played good enough. Remember that we punted 5 straight times to open the 2nd half. Special teams was a net win (how about ISM on kick-off returns, #2 in the country?!). To me this is 90% on the O (zero TD's), and the cringe-worthy number of missed throws by NS. I love the guy, and I believe he'll bounce back, but that was a disaster. Not just the two picks, but countless overthrows and hurries that coulda woulda shoulda extended drives. The O line was also outplayed and allowed too much pressure on Nate. All that said we had a realistic chance to win against a very solid team on the road. PSU has two last-minute losses against good teams (two blown leads) and they could also argue they "should be" undefeated. Final point - the division is far from won or lost. Beat Purdue and we're back in the mix. Play better O. Beat Purdue.

 

[David1979]

Let’s not forget that PSU gave up over 500 yards to Indinana and over 400 to MSU the week before. This game was on the offense. You have to be able to move the ball and score in today’s game to win consistently.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Ghost, I think you're a great poster and respect the hell out of your opinions.

But...

There's no way you can pin this game on special teams or the defense. Both units played their asses off and gave our offense every possible opportunity to win this. What was the average starting field position for PSU and Iowa? Before half I believe PSU's was inside it's own 20 and Iowa's was around their 45.

As for the bolded -
They have been, for years now at this point. In fact, the D has been the only constant throughout the years, even during not so great seasons. They've always stepped up.

The whole point is to NOT play the blame-game AT ALL.

The point is to recognize that no unit played a completely "clean game." The D definitely played a great game ... for the most part ... but there were a few big plays that they let get past them. If you want to beat a quality opponent ... particularly when your O is struggling ... you cannot give up "easy" plays. Unfortunately, the aforementioned "easy plays" still occurred!

The special teams got a block (albeit, due to a bad snap ... which was an unforced error) ... Recinos was hitting on his kicks ... and we obviously had the good trick play to Brincks. However, despite the positives ... the negative still led to points. If the cover team is doing their job ... the ball shouldn't every go past the opponents 35 yard line.

What leads to the loss is NEVER a single play. It's always a culmination of many plays together. The O drove the ball for more yardage than Penn State ... despite Stanley having a really bad game. That tells me that the O was doing A LOT right. The problem is that at key moments ... particularly when we had good field position OR had the ball in scoring position ... we failed to score TDs.

You combine all the bad plays together ... they didn't all belong to the O.

Besides, if you're following my argument at all ... last time I checked ... if the O has a great game but the opponent still scores more points ... then the TEAM still lost the game. It's not like the O wins but the D loses ... that's not how it works.

To win a game ... you have to execute well and execute consistently in all facets of the game. The Hawks don't have a single group that can make that claim through the entire PSU game. Consequently, I hold firm to my contention ... that the TEAM lost that game.

If we start encouraging a "blame game" ... then it's not hard for it to spread to the team. And then we'll be seeing our beloved team lose more ... and I hope that none of us wants to see that!

 

[mrF6n6]

I agree with you that we ought not encourage the "blame game"...
but lets face it... people play that game even when Iowa wins...
its ridiculous, imo.

whats interesting... Iowa still has a chance to win the West...
all they need is for Wisconsin to miraculously lose one game to either Rutgers, Penn State, Purdue, or Minnesota.

I know it seems like an impossibility... but stranger things have happened.

when you think back at the great 2003 and 2004 Iowa Hawkeye football teams... consider this...
the 2003 team had 3 losses that year... one of them to Purdue...
the 2004 team had 2 losses... back to back...
losing 2 games in a single season is not always a failure...
the opportunity for success is still there.

the story of this 2018 Iowa Hawkeye football team is still being written.
unless you're the Author... you don't know the ending.

 

[David1979]

The D was great. Don't kid yourself. The teams defensive efficiency went up after that game.

 

[Franisdaman]

The D was great. Don't kid yourself. The teams defensive efficiency went up after that game.

on the McSorely TD run, we had no LBs behind the DL (well there was 1, but he covered someone else); I do not understand Phil Parker's call there; you still have to respect McSorely, hurt or not, imo

 

[David1979]

on the McSorely TD run, we had no LBs behind the DL; I do not understand Phil Parker's call there

Yeah I didn't either. You usually don't see him be that aggressive either.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

on the McSorely TD run, we had no LBs behind the DL (well there was 1, but he covered someone else); I do not understand Phil Parker's call there; you still have to respect McSorely, hurt or not, imo

Anthony Nelson crashed on the inside ... but we didn't have much of any help there. That was a bad play by Anthony .... and not one that he would have made on the left side ... although it was one that we'd see by him a year or so back. He should have gone more straight up the field ... and then try to squeeze the interior gap. Instead he crashed ... which closed the interior gap ... but then that left the outside wide open.

McSorely made the grade-school read ... and even if he were worse-off ... he'd still have made an easy first down. However, his mobility was still more than adequate and gashed us for the score.

Of course, PSU deserves credit for doing a great job of the seal block on Colbert. Colbert was Nelson's only help ... and he got sealed off from the play. Thus, Colbert needs to learn from that play and do a better job of working off the block.

 

[cecilB]

Surely, the O is the group that had the most difficulties in the game .... but key mistakes were made in each phase of the game that ultimately led to the L.

• While our special teams did a number of special things ... the blown kick coverage towards the end of the game was pretty egregious. It led directly to points by PSU.
• I'm willing to give the D a pass on giving up 10 points .... since 3 were set up by a very short field by our coverage unit ... and 7 were set up by Nate's first INT. However, losing outside contain on McSorley was inexcusable - that gave PSU an easy TD. Furthermore, the lapse in our coverage while in cover-2 ... giving up the long pass play that ALSO set up a big score ... that too was inexcusable.
• Obviously our O missed on more opportunities than I care to mention .... but easily the most painful was the overthrow to Hock that was a perfect call and a sure TD! Another painful one was the late INT when we were deep in PSU's territory. A timeout needed to be called ... and it was mostly on Nate for trying to change the play late. He needs to realize that he should just call the TO rather than rush a snap. Of course, in his defense, he thought that the play change was communicated to everybody ... and clearly Noah didn't know what was going on (that's on Noah too).

However, you win as a team and you lose as a team. The good news is that at least the Hawks fought hard and didn't quit on each other. What they need to do is keep on focusing on improvement ..... next week isn't going to be any easier.

They always are. Some plays are bigger than others, but more than the obvious ones could have changed the outcome for the better.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

on the McSorely TD run, we had no LBs behind the DL (well there was 1, but he covered someone else); I do not understand Phil Parker's call there; you still have to respect McSorely, hurt or not, imo

Ya idk. Iowa was in man coverage, Hockaday went with the back, which was his job, leaving McSorley unaccounted for

 

[justinjdry]

That defensive gaff on the mcsorley run is just fine considering the performance they have put up all season as a squad. By now, in most seasons, the Hawkeyes have given up at least 4 50+ yard TD's. It was bound to happen at some point and happening against PSU isn't all that surprising at all.

As for Stanley, he threw at least 4 worm burners to his receivers along with the already mentioned overthrows and interceptions. I was already saying to my friends that his performance against PSU was farcical but THIS article just puts the icing on the cake.

Nathan Stanley played awful and cost Iowa the game. It's indisputable.

Sometimes things just happen that we can't explain. Stanley's farce of a day is one of those things. It's all good. I don't hate Nate.

 

[HawkinK.C.1]

Anthony Nelson crashed on the inside ... but we didn't have much of any help there. That was a bad play by Anthony ....

Anthony was the DE on the opposite side, right? Mcsorely ran to Parker Hesse's side, correct?

 

[iahawks10]

The whole point is to NOT play the blame-game AT ALL.

If we start encouraging a "blame game" ... then it's not hard for it to spread to the team. And then we'll be seeing our beloved team lose more ... and I hope that none of us wants to see that!

I’m confused because your entire OP is about placing blame. Basically, playing the blame game.

I’m not about to start threads blaming the offense, Nate Stanley, either Ferentz, etc... but I have no problem responding to threads that are nonsense. Placing any significant amount of blame on the defense or special teams for this loss is exactly that, nonsense.

You basically said that the opponent’s offense should never start beyond the 35 yd line. How many times did Iowa’s offense start beyond their 35 yd line on Saturday and how many offensive points did it lead to?

The defense and special teams weren’t perfect by any means. That doesn’t mean they are responsible for the loss.

Iowa’s offense needs a lot of work right now. In the last two weeks, the defense has one more TD than the offense does. Think about that for a minute.

Another question. How many of you were willing Stone to score on his INT because you weren’t overly confident that the offense could? I’d bet there were more than not.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Upon further review on the fake punt. Great playcall. Iowa got everything they wanted and Mansell didn’t throw the ball to Hockensen who was ridiculously wide open. I don’t know if TJ gets to the endzone, but it would’ve been close. Sometimes the guys in the game need to make the play and this one should’ve been made. I get the other side of going in 17-14 and I was one of them, until I went back and watched the play.

 

[madmustang4]

D and special teams did their jobs. Passing game did not do it's job. It was not a team loss. It was a passing game loss.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I’m confused because your entire OP is about placing blame. Basically, playing the blame game.

The intention was simply to illustrate that problems arose with EVERY unit ... I wasn't highlighting every issue.

The "blame game" arises typically when one party perceives themselves as "blameless" ... and then points the finger at a different party. If you look at the posts of many fans ... a common refrain is that the D was "not the problem." My message was simple ... ANY deviations from clean, consistent play were the problem. I'm not talking about "perfect play" ... not by any stretch of the imagination. Just guys doing their jobs, doing their best, and making "makable" plays. When you have a "break-down" ... on ANY unit ... that is a departure from clean, consistent play.

That is all ...

 

[ctghawk]

Multiple individual players made mistakes.
One player made significantly more than one or two mistakes.
Sorry.

 

[unoHawkeye]

The intention was simply to illustrate that problems arose with EVERY unit ... I wasn't highlighting every issue.

The "blame game" arises typically when one party perceives themselves as "blameless" ... and then points the finger at a different party. If you look at the posts of many fans ... a common refrain is that the D was "not the problem." My message was simple ... ANY deviations from clean, consistent play were the problem. I'm not talking about "perfect play" ... not by any stretch of the imagination. Just guys doing their jobs, doing their best, and making "makable" plays. When you have a "break-down" ... on ANY unit ... that is a departure from clean, consistent play.

That is all ...

I don’t think any rational fan or any player/coach perceives that any unit is “blameless” in any loss. However, (aside from maybe special teams) there will be deviations from “clean, consistent play” in every game, win or lose. Typically, if you limit it to only a few, as Iowa’s defense was able to do Saturday, you are still in great position to win a game.

Sorry, but I have no issue playing the blame game when the defense and special teams accounts for 24 points and the offense accounts for 0. If you want to give Recinos’ 30 yard kick to the offense, fine. 21 and 3.

I understand where you’re coming from, but don’t agree that one unit shouldn’t be held more responsible than another when said unit scored zero touchdowns the entire game, despite regularly starting with good field position. Especially when the other unit forced 6 punts, 1 fumble, 1 interception, and scored 1 touchdown

 

[unoHawkeye]

Homer, I’d like to add that I think your mentality is the right one for the players and coaches to have. But as a fan/observer, I don’t see anything wrong with being objective and saying that the offense didn’t pull their weight

 

[HoundedHawk]

It's only a team loss, because the whole team has it registered as a loss on their record.

But you can't blame team parts that did well with the loss. No part will ever be flawless. You don't have to be flawless to not have blame.

The defense did well.

Special teams did well.

The offense didn't score a touchdown. It didn't do well.

Then you have to go down the offense and look at its parts.

Remember the horrific game Matt Sherman had against Michigan? Stanley had 10 more incompletions than Sherman had attempts. 31 INCOMPLETIONS to Iowa receivers. Try to wrap your mind around that.

Nate Stanley lost this game. And I suspect that is what he thinks. Not because he didn't do well, not because he was below average, but because he was actually horrific. And this was in terms of accuracy and crucial decisions at crucial times. It was the worst QB performance in the KF era. I don't think we'll ever see the likes of it again. It was the Stanley Stinker, and it will go down in infamy.

 

[iahawks10]

Homer, I’d like to add that I think your mentality is the right one for the players and coaches to have. But as a fan/observer, I don’t see anything wrong with being objective and saying that the offense didn’t pull their weight

I think Homer’s head is in the right place and agree with your point. I hope that there isn’t a player on that team reading our collection of idiotic thoughts critiquing their performance.


Stanley knows he didn’t preform well. Film will verify Stanley’s thoughts of the game and there’s probably no one more upset about it than Stanley. Others made mistakes as well.

 

[Forgery5]

We are again waisting an outstanding defense by having a pathetic offense. What will it take to hire a real OC?!

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

We are again waisting an outstanding defense by having a pathetic offense. What will it take to hire a real OC?!

This is more of a response than you actually deserve, but I'll give it to you anyway.

You're not very bright. The offensive calls and schemes Brian has come up with this year have been solid. Execution has not.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

We are again waisting an outstanding defense by having a pathetic offense. What will it take to hire a real OC?!

It wasnt brian that missed all those passes. I went back and watched the game again last night and there were about 8-10 plays that I found myself saying "if they would have made that they win". You realize TJ "made" (overturned) a super man catch that was completely unnecessary because Stanley missed like 8 feet outside? There were many many good play calls that were executed poorly. You want to get on a coaches tail, go after the o line. If you really have a bone to pick with Brian the one to go after is not using fant enough early but that's small potatoes.

 

[24 so far]

The whole point is to NOT play the blame-game AT ALL.

The point is to recognize that no unit played a completely "clean game." The D definitely played a great game ... for the most part ... but there were a few big plays that they let get past them. If you want to beat a quality opponent ... particularly when your O is struggling ... you cannot give up "easy" plays. Unfortunately, the aforementioned "easy plays" still occurred!

The special teams got a block (albeit, due to a bad snap ... which was an unforced error) ... Recinos was hitting on his kicks ... and we obviously had the good trick play to Brincks. However, despite the positives ... the negative still led to points. If the cover team is doing their job ... the ball shouldn't every go past the opponents 35 yard line.

What leads to the loss is NEVER a single play. It's always a culmination of many plays together. The O drove the ball for more yardage than Penn State ... despite Stanley having a really bad game. That tells me that the O was doing A LOT right. The problem is that at key moments ... particularly when we had good field position OR had the ball in scoring position ... we failed to score TDs.

You combine all the bad plays together ... they didn't all belong to the O.

Besides, if you're following my argument at all ... last time I checked ... if the O has a great game but the opponent still scores more points ... then the TEAM still lost the game. It's not like the O wins but the D loses ... that's not how it works.

To win a game ... you have to execute well and execute consistently in all facets of the game. The Hawks don't have a single group that can make that claim through the entire PSU game. Consequently, I hold firm to my contention ... that the TEAM lost that game.

If we start encouraging a "blame game" ... then it's not hard for it to spread to the team. And then we'll be seeing our beloved team lose more ... and I hope that none of us wants to see that!

Dude. Iowa's Defense and Special Teams put their Offense in great field position multiple times in this game, and the Offense consistently failed to capitalize on it. Plain and very simple.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Ghost your analysis as usual is pretty much right on . I will add that I think some of the issues that you raised appear to me to be on going. Lack of communication has reared it's ugly head on defense, special teams, and offense. The interception from the 3 yrd. line is a prime example. play comes in late, NS starts his reads to far into the play clock, audibles, Easley and Fant have trouble get positioned for audible, KF realizes NS has checked into a play with a zero chance of success and fails to get a timeout called. Yeah Nate had a bad game but the real issue with this team is sometimes, in fact more than acceptable, important signals are not being conveyed.

Actually, on the play from the 3, I think he checked into a play with incredibly high odds of success. The issue was not enough time to make it happen. If everyone is on the same page, Fant takes his defender into the endzone and Young is wide open for an easy pitch and catch TD. The problem is that Fant wasn't ready and Stanley tried to force the pass with the defender still there.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Homer, I’d like to add that I think your mentality is the right one for the players and coaches to have. But as a fan/observer, I don’t see anything wrong with being objective and saying that the offense didn’t pull their weight

I've made no claim stating that the O wasn't struggling. In fact, I've been explicit in mentioning that the O obviously struggled the most. However, the D and ST still have a lot of room for improvement too. My point was simply that mistakes were made by all.

Also, if we're being "objective" ... then given what we've seen from the O (and Nate Stanley, in particular) ... we know that he can be an amazingly exemplary QB too. The "objective" analysis would NOT be to throw him under the bus ... but rather to highlight that Ferentz has been encouraging him to loosen up for a very good reason. Obviously, when he's "having issues" ... he gets amped up too much about it ... and it negatively impacts his game.

An "objective" analysis would also point out that PSU was doing a good job of putting Stanley under duress too ... and part of that is a credit to PSU ... and part of that is on Iowa's pass-pro.

Lastly, as others have noted ... an "objective" analysis also points how the offensive plan actually seemed pretty decent. The plan adapted to try to work Stanley out of its funk ... and the play-calling led to some plays that offered the Hawks some huge opportunities. Unfortunately, poor execution led to misses on NEARLY ALL of those opportunities ... and the Hawks lost as a result.

 

[David1979]

An objective analysis would say that the offense was the biggest problem in the game. When your offense scores zero points on the road against a good opponent. You will lose. As I stated before, objectively Iowa's defense performed well and in fact as a result of the game their defensive efficiency went up by a few points. The area that cost them the game was the offense as is typically the case under Ferentz.

 

[HawkInArk]

I've made no claim stating that the O wasn't struggling. In fact, I've been explicit in mentioning that the O obviously struggled the most. However, the D and ST still have a lot of room for improvement too. My point was simply that mistakes were made by all.

Also, if we're being "objective" ... then given what we've seen from the O (and Nate Stanley, in particular) ... we know that he can be an amazingly exemplary QB too. The "objective" analysis would NOT be to throw him under the bus ... but rather to highlight that Ferentz has been encouraging him to loosen up for a very good reason. Obviously, when he's "having issues" ... he gets amped up too much about it ... and it negatively impacts his game.

An "objective" analysis would also point out that PSU was doing a good job of putting Stanley under duress too ... and part of that is a credit to PSU ... and part of that is on Iowa's pass-pro.

Lastly, as others have noted ... an "objective" analysis also points how the offensive plan actually seemed pretty decent. The plan adapted to try to work Stanley out of its funk ... and the play-calling led to some plays that offered the Hawks some huge opportunities. Unfortunately, poor execution led to misses on NEARLY ALL of those opportunities ... and the Hawks lost as a result.

If the offense would have played at an average level, we win. It's on the O. Bottom line - Nate Stanley threw touchdown after touchdown and looked great against the likes of lowly Minnesota and Indiana. That's great, except they are NOT GOOD TEAMS. Stanley has not stepped up when he needs to step up and should be on a very short leash. Are we trying to win or trying to play the QB that has been on the team the longest?

 

[anon_gjzkhykcp9iuj]

The defense had as many TDs as the offense. Actually, the offensive TD was scored by a defensive player too, so D players had all the TDs. The defense is going to give up a play here and there, just the averages. The O was less than pathetic.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

I’m turning the page. Can’t get sucked into these anymore. Lol

 

[HawkInArk]

I’m turning the page. Can’t get sucked into these anymore. Lol

Lol. Don't blame you. I'm trying to do the same.