Question about your rout of IU...

[BoilerFYF]

first of all, from boiler nation, thank you.

Secondly, did you feel like, without mistakes, IU could have scored 21-28 more points??

Cause apparently they think so:

https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-me-here-is-the-problem.173502/

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

first of all, from boiler nation, thank you.

Secondly, did you feel like, without mistakes, IU could have scored 21-28 more points??

Cause apparently they think so:

https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-me-here-is-the-problem.173502/

I don't know about 21-28 more points ... but the Hawks did get 2 red-zone INTs and the Hawks stymied them on a 4th down conversion near the red-zone. Thus, I could understand if Hoosier fans thought that they were close to getting around 14 to 17 more points.

Of course, the Hawks played to keep things even more in front of them in the 4th quarter to force Indiana to bleed the clock ... so if the Hawks remained more aggressive on D ... and didn't run it as much in the 4th quarter ... the Hawks could have easily scored more points too.

Also, the Hawks had some foolish mistakes too ... after all, uncharacteristically, the Hawks had around 100 yards in penalties! The Hawks had a promising drive in IU territory that got stalled by an illegal block penalty .... before the Hawks knew it ... instead of a sure-scoring drive like it appeared to be ... the Hawks were on their own side of the field facing a 1st and 40!

 

[StallmanCurse]

First of all, one guy does not equal "they." No one even quoted the guy. I get they're your rival, but it's a douchey move to try stirring shit up here.

As for your question, I agree w/Homer. I think they left 14-17 points on the field. And in regards to Iowa's offense, it was apparent we could move the ball on them at will. We stopped trying to do that with a lot of time left, so Iowa conceivably left 10-14 points off the board as well.

 

[hawx]

Any halfway decent defense would have had 2 picks off Stanley, minimum. He was tossing the ball straight up at times without a worry in the world.

 

[Crafty Beaver]

On Indiana's first drive we had a 3rd down fumble hit 2 of our guys right in the chest. Not only did we biff the recovery, but they biffed the recovery forward a yard - close enough that the spot yielded a first down for IU.

 

[nu2u]

first of all, from boiler nation, thank you.

Secondly, did you feel like, without mistakes, IU could have scored 21-28 more points??

Cause apparently they think so:

https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-me-here-is-the-problem.173502/

Just browsed that Indiana thread. Only one poster mentioned a possible 21-28 more points. The other 55 or so was a discussion about whether Tom Allen is the right coach..... several posters argued about a missed opportunity to hire PJ Fleck. The tail end was interesting as they analyzed Ferentz' career at Iowa. I think you made a mountain out of a one post mole hill.

……. in any event, as ghostofhomer mentioned, Indiana failed to score on a couple of prime opportunities... they left some points off the board, maybe 7-10. However, Iowa's pass offense was almost unstoppable and if it had turned into a late game shoot out, Iowa would have certainly matched their scores IMO (already up by 12).

 

[Suterman]

first of all, from boiler nation, thank you.

Secondly, did you feel like, without mistakes, IU could have scored 21-28 more points??

Cause apparently they think so:

https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-me-here-is-the-problem.173502/

Iowa was never in danger of losing to IU. Give them 3 more touchdowns and they still lose. They can think whatever they want.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Any halfway decent defense would have had 2 picks off Stanley, minimum. He was tossing the ball straight up at times without a worry in the world.

 

[Hawkfan5220]

It might be a bit early to judge, but I would lean more as wanting Allen as a coach for my team over Fleck, if I had to choose.

They both have a flair for the dramatic trying to hype up their team, which isn't always a bad thing, I guess I'm old and boring and like my coaches unflappable like Ferentz. Though he has moments of being fired up as well.

Fleck does have a proven track record of success from his prior team though. Toss up really.

 

[hawkfeever]

first of all, from boiler nation, thank you.

Secondly, did you feel like, without mistakes, IU could have scored 21-28 more points??

Cause apparently they think so:

https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-me-here-is-the-problem.173502/

Can't wait to stomp the Boilers !

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Sure. Iowa could’ve won 75-28

 

[93hawkeye]

some of Stanley's passes looked very reckless to me.

 

[iahawks10]

That’s been pretty much KF defense for years. Last Saturday was no different. Stop the run. Contain the pass plays even if they’re moving the ball through the air. Wait for a mistake.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

some of Stanley's passes looked very reckless to me.

Well, that’s one way to look at it

 

[Farleyhawk]

some of Stanley's passes looked very reckless to me.

I thought some of Aaron Rodgers passes looked a bit reckless on that last drive Monday night...but his receivers made some nice plays and they won the game!

 

[Sett1997]

Whithout mistakes we would be 6-0
Would have beaten Wisconsin.
Part of the game.

 

[Sett1997]

I'm sure it's been mentioned but Stanley's deep ball accuracy seems to be impoving.

 

[iahawks10]

Fant made a nice catch on his TD because he had pretty good coverage on him. But, Stanley couldn’t have handed that ball to Fant in a better spot. One of his best passes of the year.

 

[Crafty Beaver]

Some of those throws are being made intentionally into 1on1 coverage, knowing that the receiver is going to have the best opportunity to catch the pass, as the defender had his back turned. So, while they did float a bit...not enough to overcome IU DB's being overmatched...

 

[hawx]

First drive of the game (3rd play maybe) he threw what looked to be a corner endzone fade route straight up....except we were in our own territory and he threw it 15 feet from the sideline. He was getting away with some toss ups.

 

[Johnsoda123]

First drive of the game (3rd play maybe) he threw what looked to be a corner endzone fade route straight up....except we were in our own territory and he threw it 15 feet from the sideline. He was getting away with some toss ups.

The rallying cry for along time on here was defenses are stacking the box. Iowa has to take shots downfield in one on one coverage. Give Smith a chance at a toss up

And when Iowa does that....

 

[DodgerHawki]

First drive of the game (3rd play maybe) he threw what looked to be a corner endzone fade route straight up....except we were in our own territory and he threw it 15 feet from the sideline. He was getting away with some toss ups.

What did he get away with? It was second down, and Indiana left the 5-10 corner 1 on 1 against Brandon Smith. So Stanley basically threw it to a spot and let his bigger WR go after the ball. It wasn't a perfect pass but it didn't need to be, the WR had such as huge physical advantage on the other guy. The possibility of an interception on that play was extremely low.

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

Well, that’s one way to look at it

Some of those throws are being made intentionally into 1on1 coverage, knowing that the receiver is going to have the best opportunity to catch the pass, as the defender had his back turned. So, while they did float a bit...not enough to overcome IU DB's being overmatched...

What did he get away with? It was second down, and Indiana left the 5-10 corner 1 on 1 against Brandon Smith. So Stanley basically threw it to a spot and let his bigger WR go after the ball. It wasn't a perfect pass but it didn't need to be, the WR had such as huge physical advantage on the other guy. The possibility of an interception on that play was extremely low.

One of the plays I'm guessing the poster is referencing is the pick that was called back. Stanley threw a floater to Smith on the outside. While Smith was interfered with by the corner, we were probably pretty lucky he was as the safety that came over and made the pick had a much better chance on the ball than Smith would have. Nate had a great game last week, but that was an ill-advised throw, interference on the corner or not.

 

[hawkster03]

some of Stanley's passes looked very reckless to me.

Well, we have never really been a team that throws the ball up for grabs and lets the WR make a play on it. HOWEVER, this year we have Smith who is a big receiver that can jump.

I love it. Most good teams have a WR that allows them to do this. We just haven't seen it in like 20 or so years.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

First drive of the game (3rd play maybe) he threw what looked to be a corner endzone fade route straight up....except we were in our own territory and he threw it 15 feet from the sideline. He was getting away with some toss ups.

so...was there a tailwind that took the ball downfield?

 

[hawx]

so...was there a tailwind that took the ball downfield?

My point was he made a pass that is only safe/effective if you have the corner of the endzone to protect you on two sides. I'm fine with passes that give our WRs a chance to go up and make a play but there were several passes where he literally just threw it up like he was playing 500.

Edit: just reread and got your joke lol

 

[hawx]

What did he get away with? It was second down, and Indiana left the 5-10 corner 1 on 1 against Brandon Smith. So Stanley basically threw it to a spot and let his bigger WR go after the ball. It wasn't a perfect pass but it didn't need to be, the WR had such as huge physical advantage on the other guy. The possibility of an interception on that play was extremely low.

I agree it wasn't a perfect pass. I think the amount he was lofting some of these jump balls was too much and I'm worried for when he tries to do the same thing against competent defenses.

He definitely had great passes against Indiana, I was really impressed at times. Just needs to tighten things up a bit.

 

[citizenHawk]

That's a designed pass over or behind the defender, allowing the receiver to make a play on the ball. Ideally the QB is using the sideline. It might look up for grabs, but if it's man defense, the offensive player has a huge advantage in making a positive play on the ball. I'm sure they scouted it and practiced it for Indiana. Doesn't mean they'll utilize it in other games unless they see an advantage.

 

[DodgerHawki]

One of the plays I'm guessing the poster is referencing is the pick that was called back. Stanley threw a floater to Smith on the outside. While Smith was interfered with by the corner, we were probably pretty lucky he was as the safety that came over and made the pick had a much better chance on the ball than Smith would have. Nate had a great game last week, but that was an ill-advised throw, interference on the corner or not.

No doubt. With this more aggressive tack on offense we as fans are going to have to become more used to likely more turnovers. The flip side is more scoring (potentially). Yes, it was fortunate that interference was called, but it was interference because the defensive back was put in a bad position and previously that quarter Smith had the long completion on the jump ball. Indiana had 2-3 holding/interference penalties because Iowa was putting them in a position where they had to do that.

 

[cecilB]

I don't know about 21-28 more points ... but the Hawks did get 2 red-zone INTs and the Hawks stymied them on a 4th down conversion near the red-zone. Thus, I could understand if Hoosier fans thought that they were close to getting around 14 to 17 more points.

Of course, the Hawks played to keep things even more in front of them in the 4th quarter to force Indiana to bleed the clock ... so if the Hawks remained more aggressive on D ... and didn't run it as much in the 4th quarter ... the Hawks could have easily scored more points too.

Also, the Hawks had some foolish mistakes too ... after all, uncharacteristically, the Hawks had around 100 yards in penalties! The Hawks had a promising drive in IU territory that got stalled by an illegal block penalty .... before the Hawks knew it ... instead of a sure-scoring drive like it appeared to be ... the Hawks were on their own side of the field facing a 1st and 40!

I beleive we picked up the first down in 2 plays when facing 1st and 40 - and quickly scored. That tells one all they need to know about the closeness of the game.

Iowa was coasting for the last 25 minutes of game clock.

 

[DodgerHawki]

I beleive we picked up the first down in 2 plays when facing 1st and 40 - and quickly scored. That tells one all they need to know about the closeness of the game.

Iowa was coasting for the last 25 minutes of game clock.

Yes, look at the drive chart for the game. Iowa went:

Touchdown (followed by 3 and out by Indiana)
Touchdown (followed by 3 and out by Indiana)
Interception
Touchdown
Punt
End of Half

Second half

Touchdown
Touchdown
Punt
Touchdown
Downs (when Stanley threw it on last play of game.

When Indiana's "chance" at the game came in the fourth quarter where a TD would have cut it to 12, that is pretty much dominating.

 

[drew_hawk]

Well, we have never really been a team that throws the ball up for grabs and lets the WR make a play on it. HOWEVER, this year we have Smith who is a big receiver that can jump.

I love it. Most good teams have a WR that allows them to do this. We just haven't seen it in like 20 or so years.

Ever heard of a guy named Marvin Mcnutt?