The CardBoard
STAN (-6.5) - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: STAN (-6.5) (/thread-10974.html)

Pages: 1 2

STAN (-6.5) - washingtonismoney - 12-06-2015

Stanford favored by 6.5 against Iowa. Vegas dislikes Iowa even more than the computers, I guess.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - Cardinal96 - 12-06-2015

Yeah, I was surprised to see that line.  I was expecting Stanford minus 3.5 or so. 

I think we will win.  That said, if I was a betting man, I would probably take Iowa and the points.  I see this game being Stanford 24, Iowa 21 or something along those lines.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - larkinforever - 12-06-2015

(12-06-2015, 04:15 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford favored by 6.5 against Iowa. Vegas dislikes Iowa even more than the computers, I guess.

Doesn't Vegas know the Hawkeyes finished above Stanford in the final CFP rankings?  :P



Re: STAN (-6.5) - stupac2 - 12-06-2015

Interesting, my first thought was that we'd be -6, but then I downgraded that in the post to -4 because 6 just seemed too high. I guess I was conservative...

Re: STAN (-6.5) - Hurlburt88 - 12-06-2015

I think most of the country has underestimated Iowa all year.  But then again we are scoring at a great pace . . .

Re: STAN (-6.5) - CornFed - 12-06-2015

Notwithstanding all my fond feelings for the Hawkeyes, my initial reaction is that we will comfortably beat this spread.  It's all just too unfamiliar to Iowa and there is some prospect that they will be a little overwhelmed.  And, more importantly, they have never witnessed the lethal brand of whoop-a** that we can open up and with which we can smite them down like the heathens they are.***


*** With all due respect to woofing gods, who are, as we all know, the arbiters of these kinds of things.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - yvonne - 12-06-2015

Michigan State hadn't been there in a while, either. In fact, I expect them to snag a lot of tickets.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - 81alum - 12-06-2015

I haven't watched a single Iowa game.  From the stats, it looks like they have a top 15 defense, an above average running game, and an efficient but not prolific passing game.  How well does their offense match up against our defense?  How well does their defense match up against our offense?

One thing I have noticed.  Having a whole month to prepare allows the two teams to study each other to death and to develop and install specific defenses and schemes to defeat the opponent's bread and butter offense.  This is what MSU did to us.  Unlike the week-to-week games in which there is limited time to make major adjustments, we can expect Iowa to copy every scheme that has worked against us and deploy them all.  We will need new wrinkles on offense, given that they will spend a month getting read to take away our top few plays.  If I were the Iowa DC I think I would assign about three players just to shadow McCaffrey wherever he goes!  Make Stanford beat you with anyone not named McCaffrey. 

As a hopeful sign, I was overjoyed to see McCaffrey getting many of his yards on spread-out single back formations rather than power--this took advantage of his greatest asset, which is reading blocks and holes and then darting through them.  That is a sign that Shaw has been evolving the offense according to personnel and circumstance.

As a less than hopeful sign, there was MSU in the Rose Bowl, where we seemed unable to respond effectively to the loaded box run blitzes that kept coming all game, and kept trying to run our bread and butter power into the proverbial brick wall.

I think Shaw has become more flexible and creative than ever this year, and I think we will get a well thought out game plan designed to exploit whatever defensive weaknesses Iowa may have.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - Hurlburt88 - 12-06-2015

I watched Iowa several times this year, including the whole Northwestern game where they made NU look incompetent.  Very good & disciplined defense although far fewer turnovers in 2nd half of season versus first.  Strong running, and a quarterback not unlike Hogan in terms of intelligence plus ability to pass or even run if needed.  I would say not as physically gifted as Hogan, but played hurt most of year and they still won everything until yesterday.  I don't know if this Hawkeye defense is a strong as the Spartan defense 2 years ago. 

Re: STAN (-6.5) - stupac2 - 12-06-2015

There's a reason that advanced stats don't like the Hawkeyes. Their ypa on offense is under 6, defense is pretty good but it's below Washington and tied with UCLA (two defenses we certainly didn't have trouble with). Maybe Iowa comes out and plays the game of their lives while we're flat, but by the numbers we should win handily.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - washingtonismoney - 12-06-2015

Iowa's 5-1 in one-score games so far this year, against a pretty so-so schedule (Sagarin SOS of 57, versus Stanford's 14).

Of course the game presents some interesting challenges. We haven't faced many pro-style teams -- maybe SC under Helton is the closest we've got -- and it'll probably stress our undersized/-manned defensive line. I'd rather play with three DL against a spread team than against a pro-style one.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - winflop - 12-07-2015

(12-06-2015, 04:15 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford favored by 6.5 against Iowa. Vegas dislikes Iowa even more than the computers, I guess.

Not surprised to see Stanford favored but a little surprised by the size of the line and I think it will come down.

Despite not playing anyone good other than NU & MSU, Iowa is going to be a tough team.  Gave MSU all they could handle - and I expect MSU to beat Bama and have a shot a Clemson who is going to blow Oklahoma off the field.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - TriangleTree - 12-07-2015

(12-06-2015, 04:41 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13952.msg146332#msg146332 date=1449443713]
Stanford favored by 6.5 against Iowa. Vegas dislikes Iowa even more than the computers, I guess.

Doesn't Vegas know the Hawkeyes finished above Stanford in the final CFP rankings?  :P
[/quote]

That was my thought as well.
I wonder however what the line would have been against #7 Ohio State. I'm guessing Ohio State -3 or -4, if not more in their favor.
I also believe none of the playoff 4 would have been favored against Stanford by more than that, and that we would have been favored against at least 2 of them.

Very pleased with the Rose Bowl and Iowa. The blimp bird's eye shots will be a lot nicer with Iowa's yellow/black contrasting cardinal than an all cardinal/red bowl.





Re: STAN (-6.5) - OutsiderFan - 12-07-2015

This Iowa team isn't as good as the 2013 MSU team, and this Stanford team is better than the 2013 version.

MSU beat Stanford because it had elite DBs and more dynamic WR play.  Iowa has some good DBs, but not the elite WRs MSU had.  This will be the only Rose Bowl of the three Stanford has played under Shaw where it actually has an edge in skill player talent over the opponent. 

Roughly speaking, Iowa has a slight edge on defense and Stanford a bigger edge on offense.  But if Stanford's defense plays like against Under Stanford Control, this game could be a 2 TD win for Stanford.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - SeattleTree - 12-07-2015

Anyone know how the offenses that Iowa faced rank?  I know that statistically they're ranked highly, but am not sure about the offenses they've faced.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - stupac2 - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 08:50 AM)SeattleTree link Wrote:Anyone know how the offenses that Iowa faced rank?  I know that statistically they're ranked highly, but am not sure about the offenses they've faced.

Rank according to what? According to FEI, it's:

Team/Offense/Defense/ST/Field position
Stanford/4/60/5/7
Iowa/31/24/37/36

According to S&P+ it's:

Team/Offense/Defense
Stanford/7/54
Iowa/48/26

Either way we have a pretty big edge, you'd think the number 54-60 defense is going to be better at stopping the number 31-48 offense than the number 24-26 defense is at stopping the number 4-7 offense. We also have a pretty large special teams and field position advantage.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - ColoradoTree - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 08:50 AM)SeattleTree link Wrote:Anyone know how the offenses that Iowa faced rank?  I know that statistically they're ranked highly, but am not sure about the offenses they've faced.

In general, the Big Ten West was as anemic offensively as advertised this season (these are just the quick and dirty traditional stats--the advanced stats may tell a different story, but I think the point is likely going to remain the same):

Nebraska (39th in total yards, T-45th in points/game, 32nd in passing yards, 73rd in rushing yards)
Wisconsin (84th in total yards, T-79th in points/game, T-60th in passing yards, T-97th in rushing yards)
Illinois (89th in total yards, 102nd in points/game, 47th in passing yards, 115th in rushing yards)
Purdue (95th in total yards, 92nd in points/game, 53rd in passing yards, 113th in rushing yards)
Minnesota (105th in total yards, 103rd in points/game, 78th in passing yards, 101st in rushing yards)
Northwestern (116th in total yards, 112th in points/game, 121st in passing yards, 40th in rushing yards)

Their other Power 5 games (two Big Ten East crossover opponents, Pitt, and Iowa State) were somewhat better:

Indiana (18th in total yards, 23rd in points/game, 26th in passing yards, T-31st in rushing yards)
Iowa State (62nd in total yards, T-93rd in points/game, 67th in passing yards, 54th in rushing yards)
Pitt (78th in total yards, 70th in points/game, 96th in passing yards, 51st in rushing yards)
Maryland (88th in total yards, 107th in points/game, 109th in passing yards, 34th in rushing yards)

And Michigan State isn't exactly prolific, either:  43rd in total yards, T-49th in points/game, 40th in passing yards, 62nd in rushing yards. 

Fair to say that their defense hasn't really been challenged all year by an offense as multi-faceted as ours.  That said, they have a ballhawking secondary (18 picks, good for 9th in the country, with Desmond King getting 8 of them himself, good for 2nd in the country), so that secondary has feasted on the competition its faced.  It is undeniably weaker competition than we present, however. 

Re: STAN (-6.5) - stupac2 - 12-07-2015

It looks like Indiana's QB (Nate Sudfeld) was the best passer (in terms of NCAA passer rating) that Iowa faced, and he had by far his worst game against them, averaging 4.9 ypp and throwing 1 TD and 1 INT. Hogan has a pretty significantly higher efficiency rating and likely has a better supporting cast than Indiana, but that's an interesting data point.

I didn't look at the game at all, so it's possible Indiana got down early and was forced into obvious passing situations, which can really hurt a QB, but someone else will need to see if that's the case.

Re: STAN (-6.5) - ColoradoTree - 12-07-2015

I watched that Iowa-Indiana game, and it was very much a back and forth affair, at least until the 4th quarter when Iowa pulled ahead by two scores.  (I watched a lot of Iowa games this year, but that was my Dubuque native of a wife's choice, not mine.)  So, while the whole game wasn't obvious passing situations, Sudfeld was much worse in the second half than in the first.  For example, he was 10/18 for 102 yards (no scores or turnovers) in the first half, including an unsuccessful hail mary to end the half.  Not great, but not terrible either.  It was in the second half that Indiana went to the pass more, and Sudfeld was ineffective (6/19 for 78 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT).  Looking back at the play-by-play, Indiana also went in a different direction in playcalling, throwing more on first down and then running on second and 10, generally resulting in another 3rd and long.  For example, here are Indiana's drives in the second half:

Down 21-17: Incomplete; short run; 11-yard pass for first down; run for loss; incomplete; run for no gain; punt
Down 21-17: Incomplete; 5-yard run; incomplete; punt
Down 21-17: 4-yard run; 6-yard pass for first down; 5-yard run; 4-yard run; 3-yard run; incomplete (on first down); 3-yard run; 9-yard run; 4-yard run; 16-yard run; 2-yard run; 7-yard run; 15-yard run; incomplete (on first down); 2-yard run; incomplete; field goal.
Down 28-20: Incomplete; incomplete; sack; punt
Down 35-20: 3-yard run; 12-yard pass; interception

Then, down two scores, Sudfeld had a great last drive, leading a 76-yard drive for a TD in just 2:04, but Iowa recovered the onside kick and ran out the clock. 

Odd, given that I remember Indiana's run game being pretty effective, and the stats bear that out, as the team ran for 227 yards on 39 carries (5.8 yards per carry) and the lead back, Jordan Howard, got 174 on 22 carries (7.9 ypc), with a couple of long TD runs of 37 and 29.  In retrospect, you'd think Indiana would have been far better-served by continuing to pound the ball on first and 10, opening up the playbook on 2nd and short and 3rd and short.  The third drive of the second half was incredibly successful doing just that, and it stalled when they went back to throwing on first down. 

So, I'm not sure we can conclude that Sudfeld struggled in obvious passing situations because of a tough Iowa secondary.  He had a terrible second half, period.  And only on the last drive (in which he was great) would you say it was an obvious passing situation where circumstances required a lot of passing.  IIRC, he was just largely off for most of the game, there were a few bad drops to aid the cause, Iowa was pretty sound in pass coverage, and Indiana's coaching staff didn't help things by continuing to call for passes on first and 10 despite the effectiveness of the running game and a close score. 

Thus concludes the most in-depth analysis of Indiana football that has ever occurred outside the State of Indiana. 

Re: STAN (-6.5) - CornFed - 12-07-2015

That was really interesting, even if only a "once-removed" look at our Iowa adversary.  My initial reaction is that we may only pass 10 times in the Rose Bowl.