Iowa - First Impressions.
At first glance, it appears next weekend's game will be a defensive struggle similar to the one we witnessed yesterday. Iowa's defense is as stout as any in the nation and our offense appears to struggle when facing adversity on the road. Iowa's offense, however, appears to be a work in progress and this should be good news to the defense. A proven, battle-tested back hasn't emerged for the Hawkeyes and Stanzi doesn't always looks composed in the pocket. This bodes well for one of the Big Ten's weakest defensive units, especially on the road.
If our offense can put together a few nice drives and put up some points, I like our chances to keep it close and win the endurance competition. The Barwis effect was on full display yesterday as Michigan steamrolled down the field in the final minutes. Tate did appear to be completely spent but he was still strong to the very end. I think we can surprise them and maybe catch them off balance with a few big plays. It will be exciting. These are just first impressions. What do you guys expect to see?
October 4th, 2009 at 6:16 PM ^
I'm honestly not sure. If the WMU/ND Wolverines show up, we'll shock the country again, if the IU/MSU Wolverines show up, Iowa bandwagon fans get to keep chirping for another week or so. Either way, I don't see a blowout, Iowa just doesn't have the firepower, and I've been saying for weeks that I don't buy into Ferentz/Iowa.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^
Which Iowa team will show up? The PSU Hawkeyes or the NIU/ArkSt Hawkeyes?
October 4th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
My guess is it will be the UM Hawkeyes.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:17 PM ^
It'll boil down to can Michigan run the ball?....If yes, then it will be a fun night, if they get stuffed like yesterday, scoring TD's will be hard to come by.
Tate's health is also a concern. We need him. DRob just doesn't have the ability to manage a game yet.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:19 PM ^
Tate's health is a giant variable and the running game definitely needs to get established early on. Good points.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^
Receivers need to hang on/we need better pass protection, also. If we establish a two-dimensional game that Penn State never could, we can take them.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
I think this game will basically decide how the UM season goes. I think a win sets us up nicely for a 9-3 finish and a New Year's Day bowl game. A win on the road, at night, on national TV would be a huge boost to the program and the "Michigan is back" message in the national media that we heard so much of after the ND game.
That being said, I like our chances. Iowa's offense hasn't done anything all year (they needed a blocked punt for TD to pull away from PSU) and I like our offense's ability to make plays even when not at their best (SEE yesterday's comeback after looking horrible all day). The defense could look the best it has all year against Iowa's offense, and the offense should be able to score just enough to get the W. With the first-road-game-jitters behind us, I think this team could really make a statement (especially considering the media still buys Iowa as a legit team because of the PSU win).
October 4th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
First to the OP: I don't think it's fair to make the generalization, "our offense appears to struggle when facing adversity on the road." We struggled for about half the MSU game, but played well the other half, including when it mattered. It's fair to say we struggled, past tense, during the first three quarters of last game, but it was our first road game, and we may very well end up being a good road team this year. Tate willing.
Also, to Coldwater: I don't think it's fair to say that Denard doesn't have the ability to manage a game yet. We haven't asked him to, and it's tough on the kid when he knows he only has about five plays per game that he'll be in on. He's really only managed a few drives this year, and the one scoring drive gainst Indiana was handled very well. Based on practice reports and brief glimpses during his in-game stints, I think he's capable of more than we know. If (Tate forbid) Tate were to miss a game, he might really show us something knowing that he's not auditioning for the right to play the next down with every decision he makes.
Just some thoughts. Go Blue!
October 4th, 2009 at 6:29 PM ^
Making that generalization this early is probably unfair. I agree the team has the potential to be a good road team but it will always be difficult for a young team to overcome adversity on the road. Road games are always tough but when so many starters are either Frosh or Sophomores, it becomes even tougher. But I agree that it's too early for labels.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^
I don't think Iowa would vary much from the Michigan State plan of shortening the game and keeping Michigan off the field.
To counter that, I'd expect Michigan, if they win the toss, to take the ball instead of deferring, in order to try and set the tone early.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
I think we'll see a ton of pro-style dump passes/screens/short routes over the middle. Personally, I'm a fan of the "Fuck it, let's bring the damn house every other play" defensive strategy that someone suggested last night.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
Somehow I think a lot of members of the iowa offense are going to have career days against this Michigan defense.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
I don't believe any Spartan had a career day. How do you figure Iowa's are going to?
October 4th, 2009 at 8:12 PM ^
Ferentz > Dantonio.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:39 PM ^
i'm not sure that's a given on offense.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:29 AM ^
My Mom > Dantonio
October 5th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
On defense, yes. On offense? I haven't seen any indication of that yet. Ferentz is a better coach, I agree, but he's got to work with the talent he has.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:04 PM ^
I know Tate's health has already been mentioned, but I wonder if he's got the flu or something, because he didn't have all that much playing time yesterday until the very end, so it was odd seeing him exhausted like that. Hopefully he feels better.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:09 PM ^
is that good.
Yeah they had a nice win against PSU, but besides that they have done nothing to impressme. I don't buy into teams that squeak past Northern Iowa and Arkansas State.
I do think they have a legit D, but their offense does not scare me at all.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:40 PM ^
I don't think Penn State is that good either. If you think about that they have a win against a Penn State team that's not that good and squeaker wins against Northern Iowa and Arkansas State. I really like our chances, I think Tate rises to the occasion and puts up a really nice win at night on the road at Kinnick stadium.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:22 PM ^
I think it might depend more upon which Iowa team shows up for the game than which M team shows up. If we get the team that played Northern Iowa or Arizona, we can, and probably should, win. If we get the team that beat Penn State, it's going to be a struggle.
I will say this: if both teams play their best possible game, Iowa unfortunatly wins.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:15 PM ^
I'm not sold on Penn State being a top 20 team yet. Michigan has now played a couple games that have been very frustrating to watch defensively and offensively most of the time. I think they clean things up a bit and play a good game next week - definite opportunity to get a good win....
October 4th, 2009 at 7:30 PM ^
Call me crazy but I think we take this one. I think them getting beat was a humbling experience. Now they face a team they’re suppose to lose to. I think shock the world Saturday. Just a hunch.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:50 PM ^
First, all this "shock the country/world" talk is hyperbole. Squeaking past ND was hardly a shock to the world or country. Sure our 4 wins re-directed some minds about Michigan, awakened some somnolent fans, got the media on board. But a better season was expected. A win at Iowa will further bolster perceptions of a reemergence. But let's not get too carried away.
Second, like Coldwater said, if we don't get a running game established by our offensive line we will be in for a long day. Getting Brown and Minor some holes is key. Having Tate scrambling and making decisions on the fly every play will not win us a game; perhaps some points, but not a full game against a tough opponent. And third, and this goes without saying at this point, wide-receiver coverage.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
in case you have not seen the hawkeyes, especially that D.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
I stated before the season that Michigan would win two of three against ND, MSU and Iowa. I would be surprised and worried if we saw the same lack of offense two weeks in a row. A lot of things went wrong against MSU. Losses are humbling, especially when it's your first in 5 games and it's against one of your rivals. But it was a valuable road game experience in a hostile environment. This week the guys will be learning about what went wrong and working out problems.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:20 PM ^
I think we'll have a better game plan for Iowa on offense and I expect to see a lot of the same defensive game plan with some ripples from this week.
Reason we played such soft zone in the first half was imo, to funnel msu into the running game which i think we actually stepped up in vs the backs (obviously the qb scrambles being the exception. Reason QB scramble was there was our extra help on the TEs which only worked part of the time. Still, the dinky stuff for the most part wasnt there and neither were the big ones over the top. I give credit to cousins though, he hurt us in the zones with the TEs and WRs in the intermediate stuff and with his legs against our man stuff. STILL, i expect and would like to see us use the same game plan against Iowa and I think it should work. Just some more awareness from the LBs around QB scrambles would be great- not saying you need to spy, but you cant leave him 20 yards either.
On offense, I don't expect to have more success running than we did this past week. Iowa on the road at night will be tough. Would like to see more draws and middle action though and less of the long developing sweeps (do they ever work?). And I would like to see us slide protection on the oline similar to what the Pats do. Seemed to do well yesterday, maybe a little better than the breakdown/rollouts. oh, and no more dropped passes/fumbles- is that a game plan?
We've been good thus far, but must restress ball security on special teams this week. any big momentum changers in a road night game could spell doom. fortunately, i think iowa offense is anemic enough that we should be in this game in the fourth quarter.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^
Looks like the first lines are out...Iowa favored by 7. This seems like a reasonable number, given all the variables...Iowa pulling a few squeakers but beating PSU, us not showing up for 56 minutes then giving Sparty a run for their money, and of course, the first road game jitters hopefully all out of our system.
Depending on any potential injuries, and the weather report, I don't see this number shifting a whole lot.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:27 PM ^
michigan can run and our defence can get some 3-outs fumbles or turnovers then we can get a win... if forcier gets 2 or more turnovers and our rushing game gets stuffed then we'll loose...
depending on what team shows up.... its a 50/50 chance
October 4th, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^
their backs are what we don't need
quick and shifty. Wegher is the real deal, and Robinson starts ahead of him.
but our chance is in the first half, except for the Arkansas state game, Stanzi has had terrible starts, but great finishes. No where near as good as Tate's, but he has been way better in the second half.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:43 PM ^
Jamie Morris made the point this morning, that Penn State imploded against Iowa. if we win the turnover battle, play smart, Jamie suggested we will be in position to win, I agree with Mr. Morris.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:46 PM ^
I think that we can all safely say that we have no flippin clue what will happen next Saturday. All we can do is pray that the football Gods are on our side. Hopefully we make less mistakes and catch more breaks than the other side. GO Blue and Football God bless
October 4th, 2009 at 10:00 PM ^
My impression of Iowa is that they are a team that feeds off of momentum and hasn't been as impressive as a number 12 ranking warrants. Iowa has had two really close games against Northern Iowa and Arkansas State. Every team with the exception of Iowa State was in the game all the way through. At first what I thought was Iowa just sleeping on the competition is really quite honestly just a lack of offensive production. Iowa is only averaging 24.8ppg on the season. QB Ricky Stanzi has been shaky at times but seems to generally play within himself with solid poise. This is another team that likes to pound the rock and control the time of possession. Assuming our offense decides to show up before the middle of the fourth quarter we stand a pretty good chance of staying in this game. And as we all know with this years Wolverine team flips some kind of switch in the fourth quarter. I look for positives each week. Last week I thought we would be able to run the football pretty well against an interesting MSU D-Line. I don't know if it was MSU's D or our Offense sucking (probably a combo of both). Looking ahead to this week I honestly think our best chance at pulling one out of Kinnick is not turning the ball over, and not making any bone head plays. Iowa's offense is not good enough to blow us out of this one. So I think as long as we play like we're capable and we don't beat ourselves then we will be in it in the fourth, in which time we'll hand the rock over to the FORCE!!!!!!!!!
October 4th, 2009 at 10:28 PM ^
I had a bad dream about Iowa's D last night. . .
Kinnick is an ugly stadium, a BUG stadium.
Kinnick is an ugly stadium, a BUG stadium.October 4th, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^
The first road game outta the way and expectations tempered will bode well for this young squad...I would love a victory.
God this team can be exciting, even in a loss...WOW.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
Their defensive ends are speed rushers who go all the way around the tackles to get to the QB. This should match up well for us because of our "fast" tackles and Tate's pocket presence and ability to step up in the pocket.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:22 AM ^
Do you mean the Barwis effect of our offensive linemen being impotent for all but the last few minutes against the MSU DL? Of our tacklers frequently being shed by ball carriers?
What Barwis is doing is fine, but the guy isn't a magician who can turn crap into gold. Teams all over the country mount late-game comebacks on a routine basis, including the Carr teams on a number of notable occasions, and none of them have Mike Barwis on the staff.
It's ironic that the guy who's most responsible for our late-game heroics is one of the skinnier guys on the team, a pure freshman with relatively little Barwis time under his belt.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:28 AM ^
Oh sorry, that's Idaho.