12-09-2015, 02:09 PM
Yeah, I've noticed quite a lot of cockiness here. I hope our players are confident, but not cocky.
30+ points
12-09-2015, 02:09 PM
(12-09-2015, 01:32 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Woofing alert!! Woofing alert!!!!
Somehow I get the impression that there will be a much stronger impulse to woof at our Rose Bowl opponent than is typically the case for our other foes. There is a very discernible undercurrent of disrespect toward the Hawkeyes among some of the folks on this board, all couched in the appropriate caveats and platitudes about "staying focused". And, after all, The CardBoard is just a place to vent normal fan excitement and enthusiasm. But the parallel dynamics for the players are also in play. I think Shaw and the coaches will actually need to be very astute to pick up any signs of complacence arising from the pervasive sense that Iowa is not really all that serious a threat.
The reason some of us are confident is that there are tons of indications that Iowa, like Utah earlier in the year, has drastically outperformed their actual ability (being 5-1 in one-score games is a sign of that). For instance, if you look at the FEI ratings for us, Iowa, and the USC team we just demolished, you see:
Team, offense, defense
Stanford, 4, 60
USC, 14, 30
Iowa, 31, 24
Now, there's been a lot of talk about how USC is kind of overrated by the computers, so maybe that's not the best way to look at it. How have we performed against non-USC teams with defenses as good as Iowa's? We did pretty well against #1 Washington. Bad against #8 Northwestern, though we also did pretty badly against #122 UCF for a half, so I think that was more about us not knowing what we were doing then. We also did quite well against #31 UCLA. So we have lots of reason to believe we'll put up points against Iowa.
What about when we're on defense? The teams that have really hurt us are explosive, and FEI has an explosiveness ranking. Oregon is #5, ND is #3, Cal is #16 (they sort of hung with us for a while). Iowa is #33, near #29 USC and #35 UCLA. (As you might expect we're middling at explosiveness, but elite at methodical drives). So they're not exactly weak at generating explosive drives, but it's not a real strength of their offense. I think that plays into our hands.
Anyway, there's a reason that we're nearly touchdown favorites (the lines that have moved so far have moved toward us), we're clearly the superior team and we ought to win.
(12-09-2015, 01:32 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Woofing alert!! Woofing alert!!!!
Somehow I get the impression that there will be a much stronger impulse to woof at our Rose Bowl opponent than is typically the case for our other foes. There is a very discernible undercurrent of disrespect toward the Hawkeyes among some of the folks on this board, all couched in the appropriate caveats and platitudes about "staying focused". And, after all, The CardBoard is just a place to vent normal fan excitement and enthusiasm. But the parallel dynamics for the players are also in play. I think Shaw and the coaches will actually need to be very astute to pick up any signs of complacence arising from the pervasive sense that Iowa is not really all that serious a threat.
The reason some of us are confident is that there are tons of indications that Iowa, like Utah earlier in the year, has drastically outperformed their actual ability (being 5-1 in one-score games is a sign of that). For instance, if you look at the FEI ratings for us, Iowa, and the USC team we just demolished, you see:
Team, offense, defense
Stanford, 4, 60
USC, 14, 30
Iowa, 31, 24
Now, there's been a lot of talk about how USC is kind of overrated by the computers, so maybe that's not the best way to look at it. How have we performed against non-USC teams with defenses as good as Iowa's? We did pretty well against #1 Washington. Bad against #8 Northwestern, though we also did pretty badly against #122 UCF for a half, so I think that was more about us not knowing what we were doing then. We also did quite well against #31 UCLA. So we have lots of reason to believe we'll put up points against Iowa.
What about when we're on defense? The teams that have really hurt us are explosive, and FEI has an explosiveness ranking. Oregon is #5, ND is #3, Cal is #16 (they sort of hung with us for a while). Iowa is #33, near #29 USC and #35 UCLA. (As you might expect we're middling at explosiveness, but elite at methodical drives). So they're not exactly weak at generating explosive drives, but it's not a real strength of their offense. I think that plays into our hands.
Anyway, there's a reason that we're nearly touchdown favorites (the lines that have moved so far have moved toward us), we're clearly the superior team and we ought to win.
12-09-2015, 02:22 PM
(12-09-2015, 02:10 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I guess you missed that 60 in the Stanford defense column.
Sure, but like I said the teams that put up points against us do it with an explosive offense, which Iowa doesn't have. They'll be able to get yards, sure, but they'll end up with FGs while we get TDs.
(12-09-2015, 02:10 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I guess you missed that 60 in the Stanford defense column.
Sure, but like I said the teams that put up points against us do it with an explosive offense, which Iowa doesn't have. They'll be able to get yards, sure, but they'll end up with FGs while we get TDs.
12-09-2015, 03:34 PM
I think given the amount of time to prepare for a bowl game, using season stats might be less meaningful for bowl games that for other games. A lot of stuff completely unrelated to quality comes into play, particularly motivation. An Iowa team that hasn't been to the Rose Bowl in 25 years is going to be jacked up in a way that a Stanford team that's going there for the third time in four will not. I hope that our coaches get the team physically and mentally prepared.
A few other thoughts:
Our defense has spent all year preparing to counter spread offenses. Our thin defensive line might have trouble with a pro-style team that is similar to Stanford. Conversely, our offense has thrived by going up against teams that are poorly prepared for a pro-style offense. Could Iowa be more prepared to handle us than your average Pac-12 team?
I think we should be ok in the game, and a 5ish point favorite sounds about right. And/but, I could easily see us struggling in a way we haven't in a while.
BC
A few other thoughts:
Our defense has spent all year preparing to counter spread offenses. Our thin defensive line might have trouble with a pro-style team that is similar to Stanford. Conversely, our offense has thrived by going up against teams that are poorly prepared for a pro-style offense. Could Iowa be more prepared to handle us than your average Pac-12 team?
I think we should be ok in the game, and a 5ish point favorite sounds about right. And/but, I could easily see us struggling in a way we haven't in a while.
BC
I think given the amount of time to prepare for a bowl game, using season stats might be less meaningful for bowl games that for other games. A lot of stuff completely unrelated to quality comes into play, particularly motivation. An Iowa team that hasn't been to the Rose Bowl in 25 years is going to be jacked up in a way that a Stanford team that's going there for the third time in four will not. I hope that our coaches get the team physically and mentally prepared.
A few other thoughts:
Our defense has spent all year preparing to counter spread offenses. Our thin defensive line might have trouble with a pro-style team that is similar to Stanford. Conversely, our offense has thrived by going up against teams that are poorly prepared for a pro-style offense. Could Iowa be more prepared to handle us than your average Pac-12 team?
I think we should be ok in the game, and a 5ish point favorite sounds about right. And/but, I could easily see us struggling in a way we haven't in a while.
BC
A few other thoughts:
Our defense has spent all year preparing to counter spread offenses. Our thin defensive line might have trouble with a pro-style team that is similar to Stanford. Conversely, our offense has thrived by going up against teams that are poorly prepared for a pro-style offense. Could Iowa be more prepared to handle us than your average Pac-12 team?
I think we should be ok in the game, and a 5ish point favorite sounds about right. And/but, I could easily see us struggling in a way we haven't in a while.
BC
(12-09-2015, 02:09 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah, I've noticed quite a lot of cockiness here. I hope our players are confident, but not cocky.
Not woofing. Predicting confidently. I think our offense has proven that it can score 30+ against most teams. Eleven in a row, no less. Looking at Iowa's body of work, I don't think our streak will be broken in the Rose Bowl. That's saying nothing about our defense. I'm only talking our scoring.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(12-09-2015, 02:09 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Yeah, I've noticed quite a lot of cockiness here. I hope our players are confident, but not cocky.
Not woofing. Predicting confidently. I think our offense has proven that it can score 30+ against most teams. Eleven in a row, no less. Looking at Iowa's body of work, I don't think our streak will be broken in the Rose Bowl. That's saying nothing about our defense. I'm only talking our scoring.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
12-09-2015, 03:54 PM
(12-09-2015, 03:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think given the amount of time to prepare for a bowl game, using season stats might be less meaningful for bowl games that for other games. A lot of stuff completely unrelated to quality comes into play, particularly motivation. An Iowa team that hasn't been to the Rose Bowl in 25 years is going to be jacked up in a way that a Stanford team that's going there for the third time in four will not. I hope that our coaches get the team physically and mentally prepared.
Right, bowl games are different beasts and teams can certainly come out flat and get rolled because they've had enthusiasm problems. But that's not something that's happened to Stanford. If any bowl should've been a let-down game it was the chickenbowl last year, and we played great all game. We played a fantastic game against ND when there was nothing but pride on the line, and we showed no signs of being overconfident against a USC team that we had already beaten earlier in the year.
In fact, I can't think of a single game where I'd pin motivation as the reason we lost (or played it close). Can anyone? I just don't know why people are acting like we're USC or UCLA, who actually have a history of doing this.
Quote:Our defense has spent all year preparing to counter spread offenses. Our thin defensive line might have trouble with a pro-style team that is similar to Stanford. Conversely, our offense has thrived by going up against teams that are poorly prepared for a pro-style offense. Could Iowa be more prepared to handle us than your average Pac-12 team?
I think we should be ok in the game, and a 5ish point favorite sounds about right. And/but, I could easily see us struggling in a way we haven't in a while.
We literally just played a pro-style team and did fine. Plus the extended time off means we get Harris and Holder back to 100%, and who knows what other players will come into form who aren't there now. The same is probably true of Iowa (IIRC they have some key dinged up players), so this will be neutralized somewhat, but it's definitely true that our shakiest defensive performances were with Harris out and he'll definitely be back.
As for Iowa's defense, sure they play pro-style teams, but they're also much worse than Northwestern, and our offense has gotten a lot better since that game. Maybe they have some advantage at stopping power runs up the middle, but that's hardly all we can do. McCaffrey will be the most dynamic player they've faced this year, and Hogan will be the best QB. We should be able to put up points.
(12-09-2015, 03:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think given the amount of time to prepare for a bowl game, using season stats might be less meaningful for bowl games that for other games. A lot of stuff completely unrelated to quality comes into play, particularly motivation. An Iowa team that hasn't been to the Rose Bowl in 25 years is going to be jacked up in a way that a Stanford team that's going there for the third time in four will not. I hope that our coaches get the team physically and mentally prepared.
Right, bowl games are different beasts and teams can certainly come out flat and get rolled because they've had enthusiasm problems. But that's not something that's happened to Stanford. If any bowl should've been a let-down game it was the chickenbowl last year, and we played great all game. We played a fantastic game against ND when there was nothing but pride on the line, and we showed no signs of being overconfident against a USC team that we had already beaten earlier in the year.
In fact, I can't think of a single game where I'd pin motivation as the reason we lost (or played it close). Can anyone? I just don't know why people are acting like we're USC or UCLA, who actually have a history of doing this.
Quote:Our defense has spent all year preparing to counter spread offenses. Our thin defensive line might have trouble with a pro-style team that is similar to Stanford. Conversely, our offense has thrived by going up against teams that are poorly prepared for a pro-style offense. Could Iowa be more prepared to handle us than your average Pac-12 team?
I think we should be ok in the game, and a 5ish point favorite sounds about right. And/but, I could easily see us struggling in a way we haven't in a while.
We literally just played a pro-style team and did fine. Plus the extended time off means we get Harris and Holder back to 100%, and who knows what other players will come into form who aren't there now. The same is probably true of Iowa (IIRC they have some key dinged up players), so this will be neutralized somewhat, but it's definitely true that our shakiest defensive performances were with Harris out and he'll definitely be back.
As for Iowa's defense, sure they play pro-style teams, but they're also much worse than Northwestern, and our offense has gotten a lot better since that game. Maybe they have some advantage at stopping power runs up the middle, but that's hardly all we can do. McCaffrey will be the most dynamic player they've faced this year, and Hogan will be the best QB. We should be able to put up points.
12-09-2015, 05:19 PM
Two words:Â Seattle Bowl.
Of course, the two words that may be more crucial as far as motivated actors: T.yrone W.illingham.
Although I can't see it happening for the Rose Bowl, Stanford is not immune to bowl let-down.
VG
Of course, the two words that may be more crucial as far as motivated actors: T.yrone W.illingham.
Although I can't see it happening for the Rose Bowl, Stanford is not immune to bowl let-down.
VG
Two words:Â Seattle Bowl.
Of course, the two words that may be more crucial as far as motivated actors: T.yrone W.illingham.
Although I can't see it happening for the Rose Bowl, Stanford is not immune to bowl let-down.
VG
Of course, the two words that may be more crucial as far as motivated actors: T.yrone W.illingham.
Although I can't see it happening for the Rose Bowl, Stanford is not immune to bowl let-down.
VG
12-09-2015, 05:47 PM
(12-09-2015, 05:19 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Two words:Â Seattle Bowl.
Of course, the two words that may be more crucial as far as motivated actors: T.yrone W.illingham.
Although I can't see it happening for the Rose Bowl, Stanford is not immune to bowl let-down.
VG
I really, really though I added "in the Harbaugh/Shaw era", since that's the relevant factor here, but I guess I didn't. Anyway, thinking back to our various losses in the past few years, I can't think of any where motivation seems important.
(12-09-2015, 05:19 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Two words:Â Seattle Bowl.
Of course, the two words that may be more crucial as far as motivated actors: T.yrone W.illingham.
Although I can't see it happening for the Rose Bowl, Stanford is not immune to bowl let-down.
VG
I really, really though I added "in the Harbaugh/Shaw era", since that's the relevant factor here, but I guess I didn't. Anyway, thinking back to our various losses in the past few years, I can't think of any where motivation seems important.
12-09-2015, 06:10 PM
Stupac--
You're right, I don't think motivation has been a factor since the dark days of last decade.Â
But the Seattle Bowl will always rankle - first the selection process, then the sequence that led to the sobriquet His Royal Ungratefulness.
VG
You're right, I don't think motivation has been a factor since the dark days of last decade.Â
But the Seattle Bowl will always rankle - first the selection process, then the sequence that led to the sobriquet His Royal Ungratefulness.
VG
Stupac--
You're right, I don't think motivation has been a factor since the dark days of last decade.Â
But the Seattle Bowl will always rankle - first the selection process, then the sequence that led to the sobriquet His Royal Ungratefulness.
VG
You're right, I don't think motivation has been a factor since the dark days of last decade.Â
But the Seattle Bowl will always rankle - first the selection process, then the sequence that led to the sobriquet His Royal Ungratefulness.
VG
12-10-2015, 01:58 PM
(12-09-2015, 03:54 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:We literally just played a pro-style team and did fine.
Playing with their 4th string center (which definitely seemed impactful as it seemed like we got more pressure than we have all year)
12-10-2015, 02:21 PM
(12-10-2015, 01:58 PM)g1313 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13908.msg147113#msg147113 date=1449701644]
We literally just played a pro-style team and did fine.
Playing with their 4th string center (which definitely seemed impactful as it seemed like we got more pressure than we have all year)
[/quote]
Sure but that matters more on pass plays. Plus I think it's safe to say that USC's running backs are better than Iowa's.
(12-10-2015, 01:58 PM)g1313 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13908.msg147113#msg147113 date=1449701644]
We literally just played a pro-style team and did fine.
Playing with their 4th string center (which definitely seemed impactful as it seemed like we got more pressure than we have all year)
[/quote]
Sure but that matters more on pass plays. Plus I think it's safe to say that USC's running backs are better than Iowa's.
12-10-2015, 03:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2015, 03:40 PM by ColoradoTree.)
And if anyone is concerned about the woofing on this board, let me be clear that from my conversations with Iowa fans, they are extremely cocky about this matchup. These are otherwise smart college football people who simply cannot understand how Stanford will beat them. I've gotten legitimately upset after these conversations, because it feels like I'm taking crazy pills. The discussions have generally gone like this:
1. Stanford's offense is basically just Christian McCaffrey, and since Iowa's run defense is so good, Stanford won't be able to move the ball. (Mentioning Kevin Hogan, our TEs, Cajuste, Rector/Irwin et al., and McCaffrey out of the backfield doesn't move them off this position. Um, OK.)
2. Stanford won't be able to stop Iowa's run game, regardless of whether Jordan Canzeri can play or not. (I concede that they'll get some yards on the ground against us. But that doesn't equate to touchdowns.)
3. C.J. Beathard will play on Sundays and will probably be a first-round pick when he goes, so even if Stanford has some success stopping the run, Beathard will just beat them over the top. (They didn't explain why he hasn't done that this year, yet. Meanwhile, Kevin Hogan put the team on his back and beat the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends. His legs won us the Wazzu game. When the game was close vs. SC the first time around, he took over. Hogan is 5th in the country in passer rating, and 5th in Total QBR. Beathard is 47th and 25th, respectively.)Â
4. (In response to my statement that Iowa hasn't played a team as explosive as Stanford all year, or a player as dynamic as McCaffrey) Indiana! Indiana's running back is more dangerous than McCaffrey, and their offense is really good. (I then beat my head against the table. Sure, Indiana was decent this year and that RB will play on Sundays, but FFS, people.)
5. The game will probably be close, but Iowa has the potential to blow Stanford out. (This is when my eyes pop out of my head and I wonder why they have it exactly backward--this game probably will be close, but Stanford has the potential to blow Iowa out.)Â
I might just need to stop talking to Iowa-based family, friends, and clients for the next month. Not sure how much more of this I can take.Â
May the woofing gods cast their eyes on the Hawkeye State. For they will find much woofing to punish.Â
1. Stanford's offense is basically just Christian McCaffrey, and since Iowa's run defense is so good, Stanford won't be able to move the ball. (Mentioning Kevin Hogan, our TEs, Cajuste, Rector/Irwin et al., and McCaffrey out of the backfield doesn't move them off this position. Um, OK.)
2. Stanford won't be able to stop Iowa's run game, regardless of whether Jordan Canzeri can play or not. (I concede that they'll get some yards on the ground against us. But that doesn't equate to touchdowns.)
3. C.J. Beathard will play on Sundays and will probably be a first-round pick when he goes, so even if Stanford has some success stopping the run, Beathard will just beat them over the top. (They didn't explain why he hasn't done that this year, yet. Meanwhile, Kevin Hogan put the team on his back and beat the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends. His legs won us the Wazzu game. When the game was close vs. SC the first time around, he took over. Hogan is 5th in the country in passer rating, and 5th in Total QBR. Beathard is 47th and 25th, respectively.)Â
4. (In response to my statement that Iowa hasn't played a team as explosive as Stanford all year, or a player as dynamic as McCaffrey) Indiana! Indiana's running back is more dangerous than McCaffrey, and their offense is really good. (I then beat my head against the table. Sure, Indiana was decent this year and that RB will play on Sundays, but FFS, people.)
5. The game will probably be close, but Iowa has the potential to blow Stanford out. (This is when my eyes pop out of my head and I wonder why they have it exactly backward--this game probably will be close, but Stanford has the potential to blow Iowa out.)Â
I might just need to stop talking to Iowa-based family, friends, and clients for the next month. Not sure how much more of this I can take.Â
May the woofing gods cast their eyes on the Hawkeye State. For they will find much woofing to punish.Â
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2015, 03:40 PM by ColoradoTree.)
And if anyone is concerned about the woofing on this board, let me be clear that from my conversations with Iowa fans, they are extremely cocky about this matchup. These are otherwise smart college football people who simply cannot understand how Stanford will beat them. I've gotten legitimately upset after these conversations, because it feels like I'm taking crazy pills. The discussions have generally gone like this:
1. Stanford's offense is basically just Christian McCaffrey, and since Iowa's run defense is so good, Stanford won't be able to move the ball. (Mentioning Kevin Hogan, our TEs, Cajuste, Rector/Irwin et al., and McCaffrey out of the backfield doesn't move them off this position. Um, OK.)
2. Stanford won't be able to stop Iowa's run game, regardless of whether Jordan Canzeri can play or not. (I concede that they'll get some yards on the ground against us. But that doesn't equate to touchdowns.)
3. C.J. Beathard will play on Sundays and will probably be a first-round pick when he goes, so even if Stanford has some success stopping the run, Beathard will just beat them over the top. (They didn't explain why he hasn't done that this year, yet. Meanwhile, Kevin Hogan put the team on his back and beat the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends. His legs won us the Wazzu game. When the game was close vs. SC the first time around, he took over. Hogan is 5th in the country in passer rating, and 5th in Total QBR. Beathard is 47th and 25th, respectively.)Â
4. (In response to my statement that Iowa hasn't played a team as explosive as Stanford all year, or a player as dynamic as McCaffrey) Indiana! Indiana's running back is more dangerous than McCaffrey, and their offense is really good. (I then beat my head against the table. Sure, Indiana was decent this year and that RB will play on Sundays, but FFS, people.)
5. The game will probably be close, but Iowa has the potential to blow Stanford out. (This is when my eyes pop out of my head and I wonder why they have it exactly backward--this game probably will be close, but Stanford has the potential to blow Iowa out.)Â
I might just need to stop talking to Iowa-based family, friends, and clients for the next month. Not sure how much more of this I can take.Â
May the woofing gods cast their eyes on the Hawkeye State. For they will find much woofing to punish.Â
1. Stanford's offense is basically just Christian McCaffrey, and since Iowa's run defense is so good, Stanford won't be able to move the ball. (Mentioning Kevin Hogan, our TEs, Cajuste, Rector/Irwin et al., and McCaffrey out of the backfield doesn't move them off this position. Um, OK.)
2. Stanford won't be able to stop Iowa's run game, regardless of whether Jordan Canzeri can play or not. (I concede that they'll get some yards on the ground against us. But that doesn't equate to touchdowns.)
3. C.J. Beathard will play on Sundays and will probably be a first-round pick when he goes, so even if Stanford has some success stopping the run, Beathard will just beat them over the top. (They didn't explain why he hasn't done that this year, yet. Meanwhile, Kevin Hogan put the team on his back and beat the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends. His legs won us the Wazzu game. When the game was close vs. SC the first time around, he took over. Hogan is 5th in the country in passer rating, and 5th in Total QBR. Beathard is 47th and 25th, respectively.)Â
4. (In response to my statement that Iowa hasn't played a team as explosive as Stanford all year, or a player as dynamic as McCaffrey) Indiana! Indiana's running back is more dangerous than McCaffrey, and their offense is really good. (I then beat my head against the table. Sure, Indiana was decent this year and that RB will play on Sundays, but FFS, people.)
5. The game will probably be close, but Iowa has the potential to blow Stanford out. (This is when my eyes pop out of my head and I wonder why they have it exactly backward--this game probably will be close, but Stanford has the potential to blow Iowa out.)Â
I might just need to stop talking to Iowa-based family, friends, and clients for the next month. Not sure how much more of this I can take.Â
May the woofing gods cast their eyes on the Hawkeye State. For they will find much woofing to punish.Â
12-10-2015, 04:09 PM
Awwwww! Isn't that cute? They have certainly embraced their Hawkeyes. I have to say, my Iowa friends are uniformly modest in their aspirations for their team. Some might give the impression they are trying to sandbag me, but I've known them too long.
I don't know, CT, how old your friends are, but I have observed that the tendency to woof decreases inversely to the age of the individual. Not a perfect correlation, but an observable trend in my experience.Â
I was never much for yapping my jaws, even when I was younger. My childhood heroes were Chip Hilton (was it Lurck who recognized this reference?) and Bart Starr. It is why I love Kevin Hogan and Christian McCaffery and nearly all the Stanford players. Muhammed Ali changed all that, and in the case of The Greatest, it was pretty fun. No so, if you're just talking with friends and family and they go into hammer mode. ;)
Society has just evolved and trash talk and various forms of braggadocio are much more acceptable in all areas of our world these days. But another part of it is that my older friends remember some past Rose Bowl experiences that, even without woofing, provided substantial grounds for embarrassment for Iowa fans.
I don't know, CT, how old your friends are, but I have observed that the tendency to woof decreases inversely to the age of the individual. Not a perfect correlation, but an observable trend in my experience.Â
I was never much for yapping my jaws, even when I was younger. My childhood heroes were Chip Hilton (was it Lurck who recognized this reference?) and Bart Starr. It is why I love Kevin Hogan and Christian McCaffery and nearly all the Stanford players. Muhammed Ali changed all that, and in the case of The Greatest, it was pretty fun. No so, if you're just talking with friends and family and they go into hammer mode. ;)
Society has just evolved and trash talk and various forms of braggadocio are much more acceptable in all areas of our world these days. But another part of it is that my older friends remember some past Rose Bowl experiences that, even without woofing, provided substantial grounds for embarrassment for Iowa fans.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
Awwwww! Isn't that cute? They have certainly embraced their Hawkeyes. I have to say, my Iowa friends are uniformly modest in their aspirations for their team. Some might give the impression they are trying to sandbag me, but I've known them too long.
I don't know, CT, how old your friends are, but I have observed that the tendency to woof decreases inversely to the age of the individual. Not a perfect correlation, but an observable trend in my experience.Â
I was never much for yapping my jaws, even when I was younger. My childhood heroes were Chip Hilton (was it Lurck who recognized this reference?) and Bart Starr. It is why I love Kevin Hogan and Christian McCaffery and nearly all the Stanford players. Muhammed Ali changed all that, and in the case of The Greatest, it was pretty fun. No so, if you're just talking with friends and family and they go into hammer mode. ;)
Society has just evolved and trash talk and various forms of braggadocio are much more acceptable in all areas of our world these days. But another part of it is that my older friends remember some past Rose Bowl experiences that, even without woofing, provided substantial grounds for embarrassment for Iowa fans.
I don't know, CT, how old your friends are, but I have observed that the tendency to woof decreases inversely to the age of the individual. Not a perfect correlation, but an observable trend in my experience.Â
I was never much for yapping my jaws, even when I was younger. My childhood heroes were Chip Hilton (was it Lurck who recognized this reference?) and Bart Starr. It is why I love Kevin Hogan and Christian McCaffery and nearly all the Stanford players. Muhammed Ali changed all that, and in the case of The Greatest, it was pretty fun. No so, if you're just talking with friends and family and they go into hammer mode. ;)
Society has just evolved and trash talk and various forms of braggadocio are much more acceptable in all areas of our world these days. But another part of it is that my older friends remember some past Rose Bowl experiences that, even without woofing, provided substantial grounds for embarrassment for Iowa fans.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(12-10-2015, 03:28 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:And if anyone is concerned about the woofing on this board, let me be clear that from my conversations with Iowa fans, they are extremely cocky about this matchup.Â
That sounds pretty much like a recap of the conversations I have seen on Iowa bulletin boards. Though, on at least one of those they add a belief that Stanford fans are extremely arrogant because one poster here noted that the players seemed disappointed that their opponent would not be Ohio State.
Didn't seem to recognize the irony.
They do have the fact that they destroyed Northwestern which beat us. But, that seems to be easily Iowa's best performance and our worst. I suppose we could be kidding ourselves on one or the other of those points - but that really looks true to me.
[I think the only other cadidate for our worst performance for us was the first half versus UCF, or maybe first half vs WSU - but those were only halves.
For Iowa's best, I don't see any other choices except maybe their loss to MSU. ]
(12-10-2015, 03:28 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:And if anyone is concerned about the woofing on this board, let me be clear that from my conversations with Iowa fans, they are extremely cocky about this matchup.Â
That sounds pretty much like a recap of the conversations I have seen on Iowa bulletin boards. Though, on at least one of those they add a belief that Stanford fans are extremely arrogant because one poster here noted that the players seemed disappointed that their opponent would not be Ohio State.
Didn't seem to recognize the irony.
They do have the fact that they destroyed Northwestern which beat us. But, that seems to be easily Iowa's best performance and our worst. I suppose we could be kidding ourselves on one or the other of those points - but that really looks true to me.
[I think the only other cadidate for our worst performance for us was the first half versus UCF, or maybe first half vs WSU - but those were only halves.
For Iowa's best, I don't see any other choices except maybe their loss to MSU. ]
12-11-2015, 09:34 AM
Anyone who thinks that the Northwestern game is the same offense Stanford is currently fielding clearly did not watch both that game and the Pac-12 CG.
12-11-2015, 09:36 AM
(12-10-2015, 04:09 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I don't know, CT, how old your friends are, but I have observed that the tendency to woof decreases inversely to the age of the individual. Not a perfect correlation, but an observable trend in my experience.Â
I'm in my mid-30's, and with the exception of a couple clients (one in his early 40's, one in his mid-50's), that's the same age as the Iowa fans I've been talking to. It may just be an isolated incident, but it's actually my clients rather than my friends that have been woofing the hardest.Â
My wife has been engaging in some mild trash talk, but in more of a generalized "Iowa is awesome" manner, since she doesn't follow the team too closely, despite loving her Hawkeyes. That stuff is all well and good; it's the trash talking disguised as "analysis" that pushes my buttons.Â
And CornFed, I'm with you on fan trash talking. I don't mind it when Richard Sherman does it and then backs it up, but I don't know that I've ever said to an opposing fan, "We're gonna kick your *$$!" Probably because I'm a worrier and I've never even thought that. Basically, I approach every Stanford game in a near panic and I prepare for the worst, so it baffles me how fans could be so confident in their team winning that they simply can't comprehend how their team could lose. I mean, before the UCLA game, I had completely talked myself into Perkins running all over our thin DL and Rosen getting his revenge on the school that didn't offer him. Yet we did just fine. I was almost beside myself the week before the title game versus SC because I was convinced that this was finally the time when all of that talent would click into place and they'd look like the best team in the country. Yet we did just fine, despite me being a nervous wreck until very late in the fourth quarter. Still, the approach remains the same. I analyze the other team, imagine how they'd beat us, and then worry, while rooting like heck for our boys.Â
(12-10-2015, 04:09 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I don't know, CT, how old your friends are, but I have observed that the tendency to woof decreases inversely to the age of the individual. Not a perfect correlation, but an observable trend in my experience.Â
I'm in my mid-30's, and with the exception of a couple clients (one in his early 40's, one in his mid-50's), that's the same age as the Iowa fans I've been talking to. It may just be an isolated incident, but it's actually my clients rather than my friends that have been woofing the hardest.Â
My wife has been engaging in some mild trash talk, but in more of a generalized "Iowa is awesome" manner, since she doesn't follow the team too closely, despite loving her Hawkeyes. That stuff is all well and good; it's the trash talking disguised as "analysis" that pushes my buttons.Â
And CornFed, I'm with you on fan trash talking. I don't mind it when Richard Sherman does it and then backs it up, but I don't know that I've ever said to an opposing fan, "We're gonna kick your *$$!" Probably because I'm a worrier and I've never even thought that. Basically, I approach every Stanford game in a near panic and I prepare for the worst, so it baffles me how fans could be so confident in their team winning that they simply can't comprehend how their team could lose. I mean, before the UCLA game, I had completely talked myself into Perkins running all over our thin DL and Rosen getting his revenge on the school that didn't offer him. Yet we did just fine. I was almost beside myself the week before the title game versus SC because I was convinced that this was finally the time when all of that talent would click into place and they'd look like the best team in the country. Yet we did just fine, despite me being a nervous wreck until very late in the fourth quarter. Still, the approach remains the same. I analyze the other team, imagine how they'd beat us, and then worry, while rooting like heck for our boys.Â
12-11-2015, 09:39 AM
(12-11-2015, 09:34 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Anyone who thinks that the Northwestern game is the same offense Stanford is currently fielding clearly did not watch both that game and the Pac-12 CG.
And that's exactly the point. These Iowa fans watched neither the Pac-12 championship game (their attention was otherwise occupied) nor our game versus Northwestern. But that's certainly not stopping them.Â
(12-11-2015, 08:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:They do have the fact that they destroyed Northwestern which beat us. But, that seems to be easily Iowa's best performance and our worst.
And having watched both our game vs. Northwestern and Iowa's game vs. Northwestern, I think it's fair to say that the game against Iowa was Northwestern's worst performance of the year. (Michigan beat them, too, but I suspect Michigan would have beaten Iowa if they'd played.)Â
(12-11-2015, 09:34 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Anyone who thinks that the Northwestern game is the same offense Stanford is currently fielding clearly did not watch both that game and the Pac-12 CG.
And that's exactly the point. These Iowa fans watched neither the Pac-12 championship game (their attention was otherwise occupied) nor our game versus Northwestern. But that's certainly not stopping them.Â
(12-11-2015, 08:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:They do have the fact that they destroyed Northwestern which beat us. But, that seems to be easily Iowa's best performance and our worst.
And having watched both our game vs. Northwestern and Iowa's game vs. Northwestern, I think it's fair to say that the game against Iowa was Northwestern's worst performance of the year. (Michigan beat them, too, but I suspect Michigan would have beaten Iowa if they'd played.)Â
12-11-2015, 10:17 AM
(12-11-2015, 09:36 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=13908.msg147350#msg147350 date=1449788974]
"so it baffles me how fans could be so confident in their team winning that they simply can't comprehend how their team could lose."
There are a lot of people in the world whose egos are just waaaay overdeveloped. Their willingness to be introspective is, not just stunted but, twisted to rationalize reality to the perspectives they desire. Donald Trump comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwGZDfu-PZI
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(12-11-2015, 09:36 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=13908.msg147350#msg147350 date=1449788974]
"so it baffles me how fans could be so confident in their team winning that they simply can't comprehend how their team could lose."
There are a lot of people in the world whose egos are just waaaay overdeveloped. Their willingness to be introspective is, not just stunted but, twisted to rationalize reality to the perspectives they desire. Donald Trump comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwGZDfu-PZI
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »