Thoughts From a Stanford Fan

[eastbaykid]

Very good OP. Thread was tl;dr most of it but here is my 2 cents.

I saw a couple posts that mentioned teams putting 9 guys in the box to stop McCaffery. Iowa's safeties are very good at coming up in run support without having to stack the box. Stanford hasn't played a team that hits like Iowa does. I can't imagine how sore those boys were after the B1G Championship. That was a fun, old school football game. I expect the Rose Bowl to be similar but with more points scored.

I've stayed up late and watched Stanford a few times. Their offense is fun to watch. I hate watching the Big12/Pac12 because it's more like watching a track meet than a football game, but not Stanford. They line up and play big boy football. Their tight splits on short yardage plays really intrigues me. Hogan reminds me a lot of the Wisky QBs over the years (not Russell). Not flashy, can move the sticks, gets them into the right play, and let the playmakers win the game. Hopefully he can channel his old self and give Iowa the ball a couple of times. Iowa's D will win some battles and Stanford's O will get theirs.

Stanford's defense is were the Rose Bowl is won or lost. A couple of the games I watched, I thought to myself, 'Iowa could run for 350 yards on these guys.' If Iowa can pound the ball with success, Iowa wins by a couple scores. If Stanford's D can nut up and force Iowa to throw it will be a close ball game.

I disagree that Stanford hasn't seen a defense like Iowa's, just looking at statistics I think Washington and Northwestern are at least as good. But that's good for Iowa -- Northwestern stopped Stanford and Washington played pretty well and would have done better if they had any offense. Stanford did screen Washington to death, which stymied Washington's athletic and aggressive front 7.

But I am scared that Iowa will just be able to run the ball at will against Stanford. I don't know how explosive your RBs are. If Stanford can at least prevent big plays and hope for a third down stop or turnover, that will help, even if Stanford is giving up chunks of yards on the ground regularly.

I don't think the only options are Iowa's run game doing well and winning by a couple scores and a close game. There's also a chance that Stanford wins by a few scores -- otherwise the Vegas and computer-projection lines wouldn't have Stanford as a favorite. This is the best offense Iowa will have seen. How Iowa deals with that is a key question. If I had to bet, though, this game ends up something like 28-24.

I would guess that a typical Stanford team (not sure how "typical" the '15 version is) is as much like a B1G team as any in the PAC 12. Probably the only team there that puts such a premium on defense & running the ball.

The Pac-12 is somewhere between the Big 12 and Big Ten in style. There is also a lot of diversity in the Pac-12. You have teams like Oregon that run spread offenses and teams like Utah which is a lot like a Big Ten offense. Stanford is closer to Utah in style, but Stanford's offense is more of a pro-style offense (as is USC's) than a true run-first offense. This year, Stanford in particular isn't run-first. Stanford likes to use lots of formations and checks at the line. You will see everything from the wildcat to five wideouts, to 7 offensive linemen. Some Stanford fans will tell you that the offense is too complicated and David Shaw should stick to what works best, but the offense looks great when you have an experienced QB and everything is clicking.

 

[cruhawk]

I disagree that Stanford hasn't seen a defense like Iowa's, just looking at statistics I think Washington and Northwestern are at least as good. But that's good for Iowa -- Northwestern stopped Stanford and Washington played pretty well and would have done better if they had any offense. Stanford did screen Washington to death, which stymied Washington's athletic and aggressive front 7.

But I am scared that Iowa will just be able to run the ball at will against Stanford. I don't know how explosive your RBs are. If Stanford can at least prevent big plays and hope for a third down stop or turnover, that will help, even if Stanford is giving up chunks of yards on the ground regularly.

I don't think the only options are Iowa's run game doing well and winning by a couple scores and a close game. There's also a chance that Stanford wins by a few scores -- otherwise the Vegas and computer-projection lines wouldn't have Stanford as a favorite. This is the best offense Iowa will have seen. How Iowa deals with that is a key question. If I had to bet, though, this game ends up something like 28-24.



The Pac-12 is somewhere between the Big 12 and Big Ten in style. There is also a lot of diversity in the Pac-12. You have teams like Oregon that run spread offenses and teams like Utah which is a lot like a Big Ten offense. Stanford is closer to Utah in style, but Stanford's offense is more of a pro-style offense (as is USC's) than a true run-first offense. This year, Stanford in particular isn't run-first. Stanford likes to use lots of formations and checks at the line. You will see everything from the wildcat to five wideouts, to 7 offensive linemen. Some Stanford fans will tell you that the offense is too complicated and David Shaw should stick to what works best, but the offense looks great when you have an experienced QB and everything is clicking.

Sounds like something the Bengals do, with all the nutty formations & packages. They sometimes outsmart themselves & become less effective, as they did in a (largely) self-inflicted loss to the Texans recently. That was the game where JJ Watt infamously popped off about Andy Dalton in his post-game comments.

 

[irish4life888]

I don't think he was saying they'd be a cake walk. If he's anything like me he's saying hes annoyed by how people view Stanford. Think about this

1) there are people that think Stanford is the best team in the country.

2) Stanford lost to NW

3) Iowa crushed NW at NW

4) the same people in #1 think Iowa hasn't played anyone

It's not Stanfords fault, but it is weird

Stanfords strength of schedule is 14, Iowa's 59, just saying. Also, If you think that the Northwestern game has any influence on this bowl, you will probably be sorely disappointed. Better hope your team does not think like you.

 

[BEAVERDALEHAWK]

We destroyed NW by 30, while I hear nothing but excuses about your game there. You lost. Period.

We'll see what happens in Pasadena.

We destroyed NW by 30, while I hear nothing but excuses about your game there. You lost. Period.

We'll see what happens in Pasadena.

Why be a jerk?

 

[BEAVERDALEHAWK]

Go **** yourself. Bad post.

You are a JOKE!

 

[Land Shark7]

Go **** yourself. Bad post.

Stay classy ICHawk. I'm guessing there were too many words and not enough pictures for you.

 

[GolfHacker1]

I have not read anything about Stanford. I just can't get excited. I think that will change. Really, the game for me was in Indy. It was a de facto National Quarterfinal Game. I've turned my focus, at least at this point, to if and how we can get to Indy again next year.

The MSU game was the most disappointing loss I've ever experienced. I'm hoping to get excited about the Stanford game as I think it would be therapeutic.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

Stanfords strength of schedule is 14, Iowa's 59, just saying. Also, If you think that the Northwestern game has any influence on this bowl, you will probably be sorely disappointed. Better hope your team does not think like you.

Did you read my post? Wtf is this?

 

[InsaneHawk]

Stanfords strength of schedule is 14, Iowa's 59, just saying. Also, If you think that the Northwestern game has any influence on this bowl, you will probably be sorely disappointed. Better hope your team does not think like you.

Most Iowa fans know that the Northwestern/Stanford game is not an indication of the what the Iowa/Stanford game will be. Stanford is one heck of a team and Iowa will have their jobs cut out for them.

Now to focus on your point. I don't think that SOS rankings matter. Iowa beat some pretty good teams and won in tough environments which wouldn't reflect in a SOS. Examples - Iowa State and Indiana. To people outside of Iowa, beating ISU might seem like a joke, but this is a real in-state hated rival. I don't believe Stanford or Notre Dame have a true in-state hated rivalry game and as a result you might not understand....so let me explain. The rivalry between ISU and Iowa is on the same level as Miss State/Ole Miss, Auburn/Alabama, etc.,. To give you perspective, the Iowa State fanbase hates Iowa so much that it can be argued that many of their fans would rather see Iowa lose than their own team win and this hatred is also held by the players (also see Minnesota). It is pretty damn hard to beat a team at their place when everyone in that stadium puts everything on the outcome of that game. This year Iowa went into a newly renovated Jack Trice Stadium and beat a determined Iowa State team in front of the largest crowd ever in Jack Trice. That is a pretty damn good win that looks like a bad win from an SOS perspective. Also, the win at Indiana does not look like an impressive win, but they are arguably the best team in Indiana. If it weren't for several close loses against good opponents (Michigan, OSU, Iowa, etc.,.), Indiana would be a ranked team right now. Yet another example that is not well represented by the SOS statistics.

Also, can we please stop pointing to Iowa being worse statistically than Northwestern defensively? First of all, Iowa didn't seem to have much of a problem with that defense. The toughest defenses by far that Iowa played were Wisconsin and MSU. Secondly, although statistically Northwestern is better, I guarantee you that if they played Indiana (see Michigan's total defense ranking after Indiana) and Minnesota at the end of the year (rather than the beginning of the year) they would not be ranked where they are now and would likely not be in the top 25 total defenses.

At the end of the day, this game will be won on the field. I like Iowa's chances, as I'm sure most Stanford fans and the national pundits, whom adore Stanford, will like Stanford's chances. Hopefully the Iowa fans will make this a home game and I hope that the Iowa team takes all of the disrespect that is constantly flung on them and turns it into motivation. If they do, it could get scary.

 

[Hawks_Rock_12]

Should be interesting to see how our Hawks stack up against the Pac-12 Champs. We need this one badly. 13-1 is a great season ! 12-2 is only a good season if we loose the two games that mattered the most. Remember we are trying to win Championships. 1) National Champs 2) Conference Champs 3) Division Champs 4) Bowl game win

 

[whatsup13579er]

I disagree that Stanford hasn't seen a defense like Iowa's, just looking at statistics I think Washington and Northwestern are at least as good. But that's good for Iowa -- Northwestern stopped Stanford and Washington played pretty well and would have done better if they had any offense. Stanford did screen Washington to death, which stymied Washington's athletic and aggressive front 7.

I don't doubt that Stanford has played some solid defenses. I am saying Stanford hasn't seen a defense that flies around and hits you like Iowa's defense does. You can't tell that by looking at statistics. I've watched jNW a few times and their defense doesn't fly around like Iowa's. Iowa doesn't do a whole lot when it comes to blitzes and different packages, but what they do is play their base defense very, very well.

 

[Birky]

Should be interesting to see how our Hawks stack up against the Pac-12 Champs. We need this one badly. 13-1 is a great season ! 12-2 is only a good season if we loose the two games that mattered the most. Remember we are trying to win Championships. 1) National Champs 2) Conference Champs 3) Division Champs 4) Bowl game win

Going 12-2 is a great season. It is a fantastic season. If it's not, then Iowa has probably only had about 5 great seasons in their history. 13-1 would be a phenomenal season, but if you don't think 12-2 is a great season...

 

[Hawks_Rock_12]

Going 12-2 is a great season. It is a fantastic season. If it's not, then Iowa has probably only had about 5 great seasons in their history. 13-1 would be a phenomenal season, but if you don't think 12-2 is a great season...

Oh I think 12-2 is great if it includes anyone of the following 1) National championship 2) Conference Championship 3) Rose Bowl win. 12-2 with only a Division Title is a good season. You have to win the games that matter. Period ! Like it or not the Rose Bowl will define our season. The Buffalo Bills went to four straight Super Bowls are they considered a great organization ? No ! They lost all four games.

 

[EndzoneSeat]

Darn it, you are right!

Not sure if it's been said, but the Stanford band will be there.

 

[Quintana]

Not sure if it's been said, but the Stanford band will be there.

sanmateo is like:

 

[eastbaykid]

Congratulations again to the Hawkeyes on a great season. I hope those of you who went to Pasadena had a good time at the best bowl experience there is. From what I've heard, Iowa fans were very friendly and gracious, which wasn't our experience with the Spartans two years ago.

While I thought Stanford would win, I was concerned about the game and was surprised by the outcome. I'm not trying to rub anything in, but I was surprised that Iowa played so much base defense against McCaffrey and didn't try to stack the box, especially since you had King in the secondary. Lots of other teams tried to play base defense against McCaffrey and usually got gashed, requiring halftime adjustments. The teams that slowed down McCaffrey, like Notre Dame and Oregon, stacked the box and made Hogan complete throws downfield (which he did pretty well, but I would still rather take my chances with Hogan having a bad game). Stanford had some early adjustments to beat this, like splitting McCaffrey out wide, but it didn't seem that Iowa was even trying to key on McCaffrey. Maybe it was just too much faith in the base defense. The same thing happened to UCLA, USC, and others.

I was more surprised by the other side of the ball. Stanford's offense is really good and no one has really slowed it down since Stanford figured out its offensive identity and got the new starters worked in -- about week 3. But Stanford's defense has been vulnerable all season. We haven't really been able to get much of a pass rush all season, but had 7 sacks this game. Maybe that's partially explained by the extra rest before the bowl game and getting Stanford's starting corners healthy, but the pass rush was the biggest change from previous Stanford games. Interestingly, I read that Beatherd was 14-18 with 190-some yards with no pressure but much worse with pressure.

We've had questions about the late TD throw on both Iowa and Stanford boards. From what I read, Hogan audibled into a pass after Iowa kept blitzing its corners on that late drive. I can't blame him too much after Iowa tried the onside kick and was calling timeouts. I'm not sure why Stanford had its offensive starters in, however. Maybe to get McCaffrey the 100 yards receiving. Stanford's 2nd/3rd team defense was in for much of the second half.

Anyway, good luck next season. With the Pac-12-Big 12 bowl matchups, maybe we will see Iowa again soon. Thanks for chatting on this board.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

Pretty much agree with everything you said, east bay. Great post. I think Iowa fans, too, are wondering why our defense took that approach to McCaffrey when you were able to summarize what has worked against him and what has not worked in just a paragraph. I think we were equally surprised at our offensive ineptitude. I figured McCaffrey would get his yards and Stanford would put up 30-40 points, but I also thought we'd be able to score with them. Not even close. Unfortunately, a lack of pass protection and coaching imagination caught up to us in this one. But a great effort from the Cardinal, and props to them.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Congratulations again to the Hawkeyes on a great season. I hope those of you who went to Pasadena had a good time at the best bowl experience there is. From what I've heard, Iowa fans were very friendly and gracious, which wasn't our experience with the Spartans two years ago.

While I thought Stanford would win, I was concerned about the game and was surprised by the outcome. I'm not trying to rub anything in, but I was surprised that Iowa played so much base defense against McCaffrey and didn't try to stack the box, especially since you had King in the secondary. Lots of other teams tried to play base defense against McCaffrey and usually got gashed, requiring halftime adjustments. The teams that slowed down McCaffrey, like Notre Dame and Oregon, stacked the box and made Hogan complete throws downfield (which he did pretty well, but I would still rather take my chances with Hogan having a bad game). Stanford had some early adjustments to beat this, like splitting McCaffrey out wide, but it didn't seem that Iowa was even trying to key on McCaffrey. Maybe it was just too much faith in the base defense. The same thing happened to UCLA, USC, and others.

I was more surprised by the other side of the ball. Stanford's offense is really good and no one has really slowed it down since Stanford figured out its offensive identity and got the new starters worked in -- about week 3. But Stanford's defense has been vulnerable all season. We haven't really been able to get much of a pass rush all season, but had 7 sacks this game. Maybe that's partially explained by the extra rest before the bowl game and getting Stanford's starting corners healthy, but the pass rush was the biggest change from previous Stanford games. Interestingly, I read that Beatherd was 14-18 with 190-some yards with no pressure but much worse with pressure.

We've had questions about the late TD throw on both Iowa and Stanford boards. From what I read, Hogan audibled into a pass after Iowa kept blitzing its corners on that late drive. I can't blame him too much after Iowa tried the onside kick and was calling timeouts. I'm not sure why Stanford had its offensive starters in, however. Maybe to get McCaffrey the 100 yards receiving. Stanford's 2nd/3rd team defense was in for much of the second half.

Anyway, good luck next season. With the Pac-12-Big 12 bowl matchups, maybe we will see Iowa again soon. Thanks for chatting on this board.

Thanks for the comments. Appreciated.

Just one question. You guys don't actually support/enable/or even tolerate the stuff your band does or did, in particular, for the Rose Bowl, do you?

 

[eastbaykid]

Thanks for the comments. Appreciated.

Just one question. You guys don't actually support/enable/or even tolerate the stuff your band does or did, in particular, for the Rose Bowl, do you?

I like the band. But a lot of Stanford fans don't. The band is an extracurricular club. They are not part of the music department or a formal organization of the university. Still, because they have been in trouble in the past, their shows now need to be approved by the university (and by Iowa and the Rose Bowl, in this case).

I didn't think that the Rose Bowl halftime show was offensive. I posted the script in the other thread. It does suggest that Iowans are farmers, I guess, but as someone who comes from many generations of midwestern farmers that doesn't offend me. The halftime show wasn't that funny, but I didn't think it was offensive. The band has crossed a line in the past IMO, like when they made a joke about the Irish potato famine (That was part of a halftime show against Notre Dame called "These Irish, Why Must They Fight."). http://news.stanford.edu/news/1997/october15/irish.html On the other hand, I thought the Governor of Oregon overreacted by banning the band -- from the entire state! -- for a halftime show that made fun of Oregon's spotted owl controversy.

Stanford's band can be juvenile and sophomoric. They have a wide range of musician quality, because they take anyone who wants to join (Stanford is a small school and couldn't fill the ranks of a traditional marching band). They can cross a line and be needlessly mean (although they have pretty much been defanged these days with having to get scripts approved and being placed on probation). But I like their irreverence and enthusiasm. They are a welcome alternative to the button-up pseudo-militarism of many marching bands -- which they mock with their scatter formations and disheveled uniforms.

Bottom line/TLDR: I like the Stanford band. They are college kids having harmless fun. They also add an exuberance and enthusiasm to college sports -- which, hopefully, should be about college kids -- and it's a fun addition of color and tradition when they are part of the Rose Parade or March Madness.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I like the band. But a lot of Stanford fans don't. The band is an extracurricular club. They are not part of the music department or a formal organization of the university. Still, because they have been in trouble in the past, their shows now need to be approved by the university (and by Iowa and the Rose Bowl, in this case).

I didn't think that the Rose Bowl halftime show was offensive. I posted the script in the other thread. It does suggest that Iowans are farmers, I guess, but as someone who comes from many generations of midwestern farmers that doesn't offend me. The halftime show wasn't that funny, but I didn't think it was offensive. The band has crossed a line in the past IMO, like when they made a joke about the Irish potato famine (That was part of a halftime show against Notre Dame called "These Irish, Why Must They Fight."). http://news.stanford.edu/news/1997/october15/irish.html On the other hand, I thought the Governor of Oregon overreacted by banning the band -- from the entire state! -- for a halftime show that made fun of Oregon's spotted owl controversy.

Stanford's band can be juvenile and sophomoric. They have a wide range of musician quality, because they take anyone who wants to join (Stanford is a small school and couldn't fill the ranks of a traditional marching band). They can cross a line and be needlessly mean (although they have pretty much been defanged these days with having to get scripts approved and being placed on probation). But I like their irreverence and enthusiasm. They are a welcome alternative to the button-up pseudo-militarism of many marching bands -- which they mock with their scatter formations and disheveled uniforms.

Bottom line/TLDR: I like the Stanford band. They are college kids having harmless fun. They also add an exuberance and enthusiasm to college sports -- which, hopefully, should be about college kids -- and it's a fun addition of color and tradition when they are part of the Rose Parade or March Madness.

This this and this. The score aggravated everything, that is all.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Congratulations again to the Hawkeyes on a great season. I hope those of you who went to Pasadena had a good time at the best bowl experience there is. From what I've heard, Iowa fans were very friendly and gracious, which wasn't our experience with the Spartans two years ago.

While I thought Stanford would win, I was concerned about the game and was surprised by the outcome. I'm not trying to rub anything in, but I was surprised that Iowa played so much base defense against McCaffrey and didn't try to stack the box, especially since you had King in the secondary. Lots of other teams tried to play base defense against McCaffrey and usually got gashed, requiring halftime adjustments. The teams that slowed down McCaffrey, like Notre Dame and Oregon, stacked the box and made Hogan complete throws downfield (which he did pretty well, but I would still rather take my chances with Hogan having a bad game). Stanford had some early adjustments to beat this, like splitting McCaffrey out wide, but it didn't seem that Iowa was even trying to key on McCaffrey. Maybe it was just too much faith in the base defense. The same thing happened to UCLA, USC, and others.

I was more surprised by the other side of the ball. Stanford's offense is really good and no one has really slowed it down since Stanford figured out its offensive identity and got the new starters worked in -- about week 3. But Stanford's defense has been vulnerable all season. We haven't really been able to get much of a pass rush all season, but had 7 sacks this game. Maybe that's partially explained by the extra rest before the bowl game and getting Stanford's starting corners healthy, but the pass rush was the biggest change from previous Stanford games. Interestingly, I read that Beatherd was 14-18 with 190-some yards with no pressure but much worse with pressure.

We've had questions about the late TD throw on both Iowa and Stanford boards. From what I read, Hogan audibled into a pass after Iowa kept blitzing its corners on that late drive. I can't blame him too much after Iowa tried the onside kick and was calling timeouts. I'm not sure why Stanford had its offensive starters in, however. Maybe to get McCaffrey the 100 yards receiving. Stanford's 2nd/3rd team defense was in for much of the second half.

Anyway, good luck next season. With the Pac-12-Big 12 bowl matchups, maybe we will see Iowa again soon. Thanks for chatting on this board.

As the coaches and players seem to have admitted, McCaffery was simply that much better than expected. He was "covered" and had men on him and it simply didn't matter, they weren't prepared for HIM. They were prepared for the idea and strategy of him, but obviously weren't prepared for that, much faster, shifter, and better vision than anything we could obviously put on the practice squad.

I don't know hot explain the offensive line. They've had liabilities all damn season, but run blocking had been mauling for most of it, until the last two games. Part of that is definitely opponents, but who knows the rest. You can't win a shootout with 9 sacks against you. They had to establish the run, no matter how many boxes on here wanted Iowa to become a Big12 offense down a few scores, running was the gameplan and, in hindsight, the only way to neutralize McCaffery and win.

Congrats to Stanford, they hit hard and did it fast, unfortunately for both sides it was over really early.

I had a fantastic time overall.

 

[treeboy1]

We destroyed NW by 30, while I hear nothing but excuses about your game there. You lost. Period.

We'll see what happens in Pasadena.

I've been to every Iowa game this year and have watched 5 of Stanford's games. Frankly, I think this is a very bad match up for Stanford. Hate to say this but I think we put up 45 against this team in a 21 point victory.

No question Iowa has not seen a running back like McCaffrey this year, but there is also no question that Stanford has not seen a defense that hits like Iowa's or an offensive line that mauls like Iowa's.

If you three savants could give me your predictions for the CFP Final, so that I know what to bet against, that would be much appreciated.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

If you three savants could give me your predictions for the CFP Final, so that I know what to bet against, that would be much appreciated.

That was brilliant. Sheer brilliance. Bravo. You really showed those farmers, didn't you?

 

[Nipigu]

That was brilliant. Sheer brilliance. Bravo. You really showed those farmers, didn't you?

They earned it. And it was witty.