Iowa Stats
|
I was going thru my betting site and I was looking at the match up between Iowa and Wis this weekend and I was a little shocked to see Iowa a 6 pt favorite over a team that just obliterated #1 OSU. This caught my eye looking thru the stats of Iowa. For those of you still worried abou this offense against good Big Ten defenses look at he how other teams have fared against Iowa and then look at our stats. The other thing that is interesting is the defensive statistics don't look so bad.
IOWA - Season Results |
|||||||||||||
| Team Stats | Opp Stats | ||||||||||||
| Date | Opponent | Score | SU | Line | ATS | Tot. | O/U | Rushing | Passing | TO | Rushing | Passing | TO |
| 9/4/2010 | E ILLINOIS | 37-7 | W | - | - | 39-179 | 21-26-256 | 2 | 24-65 | 13-20-92 | 0 | ||
| 9/11/2010 | IOWA ST | 35-7 | W | -13 | W | 45.5 | U | 50-275 | 11-20-204 | 0 | 25-78 | 20-44-197 | 3 |
| 9/18/2010 | @ ARIZONA | 27-34 | L | 2.5 | L | 45 | O | 26-29 | 18-33-278 | 1 | 30-63 | 28-39-303 | 3 |
| 9/25/2010 | BALL ST | 45-0 | W | -28 | W | 45.5 | U | 44-256 | 21-29-306 | 1 | 31-56 | 8-19-56 | 2 |
| 10/2/2010 | PENN ST | 24-3 | W | -7.5 | W | 40 | U | 36-122 | 16-22-227 | 1 | 23-54 | 22-42-247 | 1 |
| 10/16/2010 | @ MICHIGAN | 38-28 | W | -3.5 | W | 53.5 | O | 36-135 | 17-24-248 | 0 | 42-187 | 30-44-335 | 4 |
October 20th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
One has to wonder just how the game would have played out had our turnovers been less and if Iowa had one to us, like they did in nearly every other game.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
That near Kovacs pick! That would have been just what the doctor ordered. That or just take back the Smith fumble. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Dear Michigan football team,
Please take care of the ball.
Con gusto,
WillyWill9
October 20th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
Also, they fumbled a snap, only to have it negated by a false-start penalty. (We did stop them on the following play, but they were able to punt it away instead of giving us the ball on their 30.)
October 20th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
Somehow there is something psychological going on. Getting screwed over by the other team's false start must do something to us. RichRod needs to have us practice this "false start" play so we can overcome it better in the game.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
have been a Stanzi-six. That would have changed the momentum of the game.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
aka Ricky-Six
October 20th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
The D statistics wont look bad because of the short fields they received and the touchdown from special teams (more than likely would have resulted in points and more yardage). Other things that it doesnt show 1. KOVACS CATCH THE DAMN BALL! 2. Avery's swing and a miss.
Gotta come up with those big plays if we want to win. At least we know it can happen
October 20th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
I still maintain the 3rd and 9 conversion before that was really the "DANGIT!" moment. The Avery wiff was just confirming the comeback party was over.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
I still contend we're only a couple plays away from competing and beating the upper crust of the league. Maybe we're still a bit too young on O, and a combo of youth/not talented enough yet on D.
But both losses, especially last week, can be ground down to like 3-4 plays that we just didnt execute a proper tackle on or turned it over, unforced, on O.
It's coming. I know its not coming fast enough for a lot of folks, but I dont know what to tell them anymore. When you are young and rebuilding the growing process can be grueling.
I like this team, direction its going and the future.
Go Blue. Beat Penn State.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^
Speak the truth brother......
October 20th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
4 turnovers, 1 blocked FG, 2 kick offs out of bounce, penalties, 0 opponents turnovers, injured starting Center, injured starting QB and Michigan is still 1 missed tackle from getting the ball back to tie. How many teams in the Country could have been in that position to still tie the game?
Let's face it, this team may have felt the pressure to perform. Youth is part of it. But, realistically, they are living up to pre-season expectations (8-4, 7-5).
I'm with you, we are on our way.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
gets a bit older with a bit more talent... we'll be in position to start creating turnovers and then my folks... we'd be on to something.
Right now the defense isn't good enough to be in the right place to create turnovers or actually catch the ones handed to them... but like you said.. it won't be long.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
i believe we are getting better, but this continual 3 or 4 play theme will not work with the masses who believe 2009=2010 because they will (rightfully) point out that we 3 plays from winning 8 games last year- we lost to MSU in OT, to iowa by 2, and illinois was lost when roundtree was caught at the one. that is how close we were last year. people can make the argument that we were farther behind at msu and iowa this year.
don't get me wrong i still think we will win 7 or 8, just sayin' haaters will hate and not all of their arguments are unfounded.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
its "haters gonna hate"
just sayin.
October 20th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
and you would be correct. i am a bad (too quick for my own good) typist- missed a whole word in the prior sentence, but i think the point comes across.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
I see your point, but the problem is that you can't take away the 3-4 plays every game that would have changed the result. If we are to go down that road, we could take out 3 or 4 mistakes made by ND or Indiana (or even Umass), and we could have easily lost to those three inferior teams. In fact, you could look at the MSU game or the Iowa game and remove the few mistakes that each of those teams made, and the resulting score would have been even more lopsided.
The point is that it cuts both ways, and you can't just remove our mistakes in a vacuum.
That said, I agree with you on liking this team. I love the way that they have come together, and I just think that there is a huge "likeability" factor to these guys. I hope that the pull it out over the nexty 3 games and come into the Wisco / OSU games with some good momentum at their backs.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
You're sort of making their point for them but you're missing a critical piece.
Truth: get rid of the few mistakes Iowa or MSU made and we're never in either of those games.
however, good teams (see: iowa/msu/osu) can overcome small mistakes and still win. Every mistake we make is magnified because neither the offense nor the defense is in the talent/experience position to overcome our numerous obstacles. We're not saying eliminate all 3-4 errors and we win that's impossible because no one plays mistake free football. The difference is cutting those errors to 1-2 per game and having the talent/experience to mitigate those by executing the rest of the time.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
i didn't realize that we did that much damage though. fricken turnovers shot us in the foot!
October 20th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
We gained more yards on Iowa than any team since USC in the 2003 Orange Bowl.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
Do you have a breakdown as to how many of those yards came with Tate in the game and how many came with Denard? It was just my perception, but the team appeared to move the ball much better when Tate was in.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
Not taking into account the extra penalty yards in the first half, it looks like with Denard the offense had about 220 total yards, and about 300 with Tate.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
Denard at QB = 239 yards
Tate at QB = 283 yards
Grand Total = 522 yards
October 20th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
239 of Tate's 283 yards were from his passing.
96 of Denard's yards were from his passing and 105 were his rushing. Tate had 1 rushing touchdown and 1 passing touchdown and 2 picks. Denard had 1 passing touchdown and 1 pick. I would say that Tate was the better passer but as for who was moving the offense better, I'd almost say it was a wash.
And keep in mind that Tate's touchdowns came in the 4th quarter when Iowa had a pretty large lead.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
That is all
October 20th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
just didn't look SO terrible, outside a few utterly miserable lapses. I wonder if we might just get a game or two yet this season where they really hold up their end. Would be enchanting.
October 20th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
We also didn't have David Molk for essentially the whole game, and we didn't have Mike Martin for most of it. The only reason I'm not seeing the game as a moral victory is because last year was so similar in the false sense of hope that it provided.