Iowa: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I think our defense as a whole played pretty darn well after the first quarter given how much they played. I think J.T. Floyd will be a major goat in the UFR.

Punching it in from the goal line is a little hard when interference is legal. It's even harder when you DO punch it in and it doesn't count somehow.

Add to your "ugly list" the following please:

1. A forced throw into heavy traffic near the end of the first half that resulted in a turnover instead of sure points. 

2. Borges's playcalling in general, not just the momentum destroying use of Devon

3. The officiating.

was all ugly man this game pissed me off... still 4 hours later

The thing is, we did punch it in once, and should have been given a 5th shot at it anyway.

Not being able to adjust to opponents' blitzes?  Again Iowa found a way to get through to Denard and for the most part he struggled under pressure.

Was the field in bad condition? No one seemed to be able to change direction like they normally do, especially Denard. It almost seemed like they were playing on ice (not THAT bad but you get my point). That seemed to make Denard's running ineffective and played perfectly into iowa's 240lb manball back.

One bright spot of our D today was getting key stops on 3rd or 4th and short.  I think we had 3 or them today

Bad:

Giving up that 4th and 7 in the 3qrt (I think?) really hurt. 

given what they were up against. They were able to make stops and left us in a position to nearly pull it out. Coker had his yards, but he was also stopped on several crucial 3rd and 4th down plays. My concerns are that the new offensive scheme is turning Denard from a dangerous running spread QB into a mediocre drop-back passer, and that the Devon interludes are only hurting, not helping. Officiating is officiating, but not scoring from the deep red zone at the half and at the end is what killed us, and has happened more times than I care to think about.

offense. The final measure of the offense is  the points, and we couldn't score. And while Martin and Van Bergen had good plays, for most of the game the DL got handled. The Nebraska loss makes this even more bitter.

24 points is not a bad performance from the defense considering our offense turns the ball over 2-3 times a game.  Today 2 more turnovers.  Iowa? none.  There's a big reason M lost.

1st half offense : Hoke /Borges tried to out MANBALL Ferentz when he's got one of the best running QB's in the country.  GAH.   Why?  Let Denard be Denard.  As Brian Cook tweeted today, "This looks like an offense designed to maximize Denard Robinson's deficiencies." 

I suspect Denard is playing hurt or we'd see more runs from him.  They used him to run more earlier in the year, and he never carries on those jet sweeps.  I wonder if they're just trying to keep him from getting hurt, or aggravate whatever injuries he has.

Borges play calling. The Devin Gardner insertions provide no benefit and break the rhythm of the offense. The lack of rolling out Denard on the last play and at least giving us the chance to win with his feet was also a huge missed opportunity. Will be fine by Tuesday but these are my biggest complaints right now.

Did Big Will play?  I don't even remember seeing him.  Seems like they'd have him playing a lot versus a MANBALL team.

Also - Where's the pressure?

We did punch it in. 

Edit: beaten to the punch. 

GOOD: Defensive line played pretty good. Nice job getting off some blocks and keeping Coker under 200 yds. He is a big back.

Offensive line. They gave Denard time to drop back and pass multiple times. Not perfect by any means, but they did well.

BAD: Lack of defensive pass rush. There was little blitzing done to keep Vandenberg off his game. He was able to read our defense well.

Offensive play calling. The DG experiment needs to stop. For all those who seriously thought he should start over Denard you have seen your answer
When the game is on the line you want the kid who can either carry you on his back or at least keep a defense honest.

UGLY: JT Floyd. If he is one of the best eleven on the field then we have some serious secondary issues. This guy, while playing better than last year, is a liability every time he goes in coverage. He cannot play man to man coverage without a 10 yard cushion and is not a solid enough tackler to play zone coverage. We may very well be in trouble. He has been exposed and give up too many big plays at important times in the game.

Debarred long ball passing. He could not complete a ball over 20 yards if his life depended on it and there were no defenders. I feel bad for the kid, he is trying like no other, but just can't get it. Limits our offense and some of the speed we have left in the receiver department.

******* just my 2 cents. Everyone sees the game differently.

and thus avoided the big hit that ended up as a 5 yard moon-ball to Vincent Smith, short of the first down, just before the FG.

Denard was just past the final defender and simply needed to pivot his hips / right leg back toward the field, but he willingly ran out-of-bounds without any resistance to avoid any chance of a hit at the boundary.

Which in turn resulted in Denard getting clobbered a few plays later and missing a series.

Coach Hoke and his staff, notably  Mattison and Borges have done a terrific job. The defense is palpably better and even in the games we lost, the defense kept the team in the game so that it was theoretically winnable right to the end. On offense the emergence of a glimmer of running game outside of Denard Robinson is a great sign.

Having said that it was puzzling to see the final set of plays. With first down and goal to go from the Iowa 3, we ran four straight pass plays with no roll out action. I understand that with no time outs, a sack or being tackled in bounds could risk running out of time, so for the 2nd and 3rd down plays it made sense to call a straight pass play.

But especially on the 4th down play when the clock is essentially turned off, why not roll out Denard Robinson to the wide side, his right side, with a run and pass option? It seems conventional and obvious, I agree, but it is rational. He is not a great passer, but he is a superb open field runner. Once he takes a strong move to the wide side, it forces the defense into a tough situation - stay with the receiver or move up to support against him. Remember it was only 3 yards and with time not a factor - we either score or game over, it seems a rational call. A throw back screen or throw back against the grain would also be possible. The TV color commentator Chris Spielman mentioned this and it seemed like a reasonable choice. With a conventional QB of average mobility, not having him try to run makes sense, but with a once in a generation broken field genius, it seems that the team wasn't really taking advantage of Robinson's strengths.

Perhaps Brian or Heiko could ask this at the press conference.

Please don't take as an attack on the staff because it has been a great season and the quality of play has been very high and the new staff clearly has been a positive factor. But in this case, it is a curious situation where maybe conventional wisdom may be correct.

proud of that effort to the end

Morgan is too small and inexperienced right now. But the D I thought played well. Demens made some great plays.

O can play a lot better, but having no identity has hurt and will continue to hurt.

I feel good about our chances in the final 3 games, can't wait. Perhaps they'll finally a little get angry on Offense, and have that burn off the away game jitters

I was at the game today and thought it was a completely conventional performance by two mid-Big 10 level teams. I agree with the previous post that stated had we been the home team we the score would have been reversed. I also agree that something intermittently weird was going on with Borges' play calling today. Fitz ran well in the 1st half but we completely lacked rhythm otherwise. Denard was a very spotty QB today despite time to throw and open receivers. By the last drive his poor judgment and inadequate down the sideline touch were totally exposed. We really should have beaten this Iowa team. It worries me that we never even had the lead despite Iowa's obvious shortcomings. We're much better on defense than last year but not so much on offense. Next week we play another sleepy dog. Better get the groove on!

For those who think the defense played well...really?  Iowa just lost to Minnesota, a game in which they only scored 21 points.  Minnesota. Let me repeat that: Minnesota held them to fewer points.

This is not a good offense, but we were giving up lots of 7 yard runs and 9 yard slants, and without getting the takeaways to paper that over, like we did earlier in the year. Again, love Mattison, Hoke and what they've done with 2010's historically bad defense, but this wasn't their best game.  We had a lot of trouble with a very average offense.   

Just going through my twitter from the game this afternoon, and you know what is ugly?? Sports "journalists" or "reporters" or whatever they want to call themselves criticizing and being outright offensive to college kids for not playing well or making "mistakes" in their blind eyes. It really is disgusting.