I was hoping to have this posted about a week ago but life caught up with me and it's a little later than I had hoped.
Early last week the National Football League decided to fine and suspend players for what accounts to too hard of a hit. There were already rules in place for hits to the head and hitting defenseless players, but they were only penalties on the field. Now the team will be penalized and the player will be penalized as well. I was anxious to see how the games would turn out this past weekend and no problems with the new rules have been publicized. Maybe this got it through the players' head that safety is key to their well-being.
At first it may sound like the NFL is trying to keep the offensive players safe and penalizing the defensive players who are paid to make the huge hit. In reality it's not protecting just the offensive player but also the defensive player. Using incorrect tackling form could hurt the defender more than the ball carrier. You are taught at a young age to see what you are tackling, this is done by keeping your head up. I also remember being told to put your head between the body and the arm so that your head doesn't make contact with anything.
I realize that players are ultimately responsible for their play on the field. However, coaches should share in some of the blame for the unnecessary hard hits that have been instilled in the game over the last few years. I realize that these guys are professionals and they shouldn't need to be taught the basics but when they think their body is a missile maybe some revisiting of fundamentals is in order. Maybe the coaches should also be penalized, outside of a game, if their team has repeat offenses of hard tackling. If they can't get their players to understand the safety they should be punished too. In the end the coaches are responsible for the players and what the team does. It's a team game and that should not be forgotten.
Another aspect to the issue with big hits are the highlight films. You will never, ever see the replay of a text-book tackle more than once (and that's only because it's rare enough that the announcers break it down). However you will see a big hit over and over, not just during the game but on the highlight shows later in the day and it will pop-up all over the place in the weeks and months down the road. Can the media be punished? In reality they can't, but it would help if they stopped showing the replays over and over.
There will still be big hits in the NFL for as long as they allow tackling. The players need to realize there is a safe way to deliver the big hits, and they will be just as effective as before. The only difference is they won't be risking their health and the health of their opponent. It may be nice to be able to walk to your car in 2010 but in 2030 you may not be able to.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Progression vs Regression
First things first: I have decided to stop doing my post-game analysis of Hawkeye football games. To tell the truth I enjoy doing it but sometimes I don't get a chance until late in the week and by then the focus is on the upcoming opponent. I will say that I am not surprised at how Iowa's defense shut down Michigan QB/RB Denard Robinson. Sure Denard got over 100 yards rushing but his longest run was 12 yards. He was also knocked out of the game midway through the 3rd quarter (I did predict he wouldn't make it to the 4th). This game pretty much knocked him out of ABC/ESPN's Heisman contenders list (which he shouldn't have been on anyway).
As I watched the game last weekend I realized that Ricky Stanzi has been the starting QB for Iowa for 2+ seasons and he has gotten better with each season. This may seem like a simple thing but it has been the exact opposite for the last few years at Iowa. With Drew Tate and Jake Christensen it seemed as though the QBs actually regressed. Tate's best year came in his first year as a starter. The same could be said of Christensen (although his first year as a starter ended at 6-6 with no bowl game), but he lost his job to Stanzi in his 2nd year of starting. Fans were blaming the coaches for this, mainly offensive coordinator and QB coach Ken O'Keefe. Please realize that I'm not a big fan of how Coach O'Keefe has called plays in the past but his play calling has gotten a lot better since 2007. Before, his plays were too predictable and the calls wouldn't get to the huddle very quickly. Both of those have changed and the offense has improved because of it.
Back to the QB situation. In 2008 Stanzi took over after a few games and never looked back, causing Christensen to transfer to Eastern Illinois where he did start in 2009 and played fairly well. Stanzi led Iowa to a huge upset of #3 Penn St in Iowa City and seemed to have a ton of confidence in his own ability. In 2009 he got even better (outside of the interceptions) and only lost 1 game that he started (although he was injured and didn't finish). If he was going to follow the trend 2010 would be his worst.
Surprisingly enough it has been even better than 2009 was. He has thrown 1 interception, and that wasn't really his fault (the WR dropped a pass that was caught by a defender). He has made some very good decisions and has actually checked-off his primary receivers and is not staring them down either. So why can Stanzi progress while the previous two QBs regressed? It has to be the coaches right? No. Stanzi has progressed because of who he is and who he doesn't have around him. Stanzi is a film junkie. He will stay in the football complex long hours watching film so that he knows what to expect. Marc Morehouse asked him about his class load at this week's media day. Right now Stanzi is in 2 classes. That provides him with even more time to study film.
I'm sure that Tate and Christensen studied film but what they had around them affected them in a negative way. Tate was the step-son of a successful Texas high school football coach. His step-dad was always trying to help him out rather that letting him rely on the offensive coaches to help him with the offense.
Christensen is the son of a former NFL back-up QB, Jeff Christensen. There always seemed to be some disconnect between Jake and the coaches as Jeff seemed to be making a lot of decisions for his son. Instead of having Jake work with the team and watch film over the summer, Jeff set him up with some of his former NFL QB buddies to work on his mechanics. This took Jake away from the bonding time with teammates and affected the chemistry.
Are these concrete reasons as to why Tate and Christensen regressed? No, just my opinion. If you think about it it does make sense. Tate and Christensen had father figures who "knew" more than Iowa's coaches and they regressed. Stanzi is his own man and is listening to the coaches and he is progressing. Stanzi is coach-able, Tate and Christensen were not.
As I watched the game last weekend I realized that Ricky Stanzi has been the starting QB for Iowa for 2+ seasons and he has gotten better with each season. This may seem like a simple thing but it has been the exact opposite for the last few years at Iowa. With Drew Tate and Jake Christensen it seemed as though the QBs actually regressed. Tate's best year came in his first year as a starter. The same could be said of Christensen (although his first year as a starter ended at 6-6 with no bowl game), but he lost his job to Stanzi in his 2nd year of starting. Fans were blaming the coaches for this, mainly offensive coordinator and QB coach Ken O'Keefe. Please realize that I'm not a big fan of how Coach O'Keefe has called plays in the past but his play calling has gotten a lot better since 2007. Before, his plays were too predictable and the calls wouldn't get to the huddle very quickly. Both of those have changed and the offense has improved because of it.
Back to the QB situation. In 2008 Stanzi took over after a few games and never looked back, causing Christensen to transfer to Eastern Illinois where he did start in 2009 and played fairly well. Stanzi led Iowa to a huge upset of #3 Penn St in Iowa City and seemed to have a ton of confidence in his own ability. In 2009 he got even better (outside of the interceptions) and only lost 1 game that he started (although he was injured and didn't finish). If he was going to follow the trend 2010 would be his worst.
Surprisingly enough it has been even better than 2009 was. He has thrown 1 interception, and that wasn't really his fault (the WR dropped a pass that was caught by a defender). He has made some very good decisions and has actually checked-off his primary receivers and is not staring them down either. So why can Stanzi progress while the previous two QBs regressed? It has to be the coaches right? No. Stanzi has progressed because of who he is and who he doesn't have around him. Stanzi is a film junkie. He will stay in the football complex long hours watching film so that he knows what to expect. Marc Morehouse asked him about his class load at this week's media day. Right now Stanzi is in 2 classes. That provides him with even more time to study film.
I'm sure that Tate and Christensen studied film but what they had around them affected them in a negative way. Tate was the step-son of a successful Texas high school football coach. His step-dad was always trying to help him out rather that letting him rely on the offensive coaches to help him with the offense.
Christensen is the son of a former NFL back-up QB, Jeff Christensen. There always seemed to be some disconnect between Jake and the coaches as Jeff seemed to be making a lot of decisions for his son. Instead of having Jake work with the team and watch film over the summer, Jeff set him up with some of his former NFL QB buddies to work on his mechanics. This took Jake away from the bonding time with teammates and affected the chemistry.
Are these concrete reasons as to why Tate and Christensen regressed? No, just my opinion. If you think about it it does make sense. Tate and Christensen had father figures who "knew" more than Iowa's coaches and they regressed. Stanzi is his own man and is listening to the coaches and he is progressing. Stanzi is coach-able, Tate and Christensen were not.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Money Talks
A couple of weeks ago I was talking sports with a couple of gentlemen and the topic of MLB coverage came up. This time of year is bad for MLB coverage (mainly speaking of ESPN) since football season is in full-bloom. I attributed this to the fact that ESPN spends a lot more money on football (both college and NFL) than it does on MLB. It even spends more on NASCAR coverage than it does on MLB!
If you view any ESPN coverage MLB usually takes a backseat. Looking at ESPN's website this morning shows where their priorities are. Sure the main banner is a preview of the MLB playoffs that start today, but you will also see the scores of the pre-season NBA games. Yes, pre-season. There are also links to articles regarding some of those games, such as Lebron carrying the Miami Heat as Dewayne Wade got injured. Didn't NBA practice just start?
I realize that sports are a big business now and that communications contracts (TV and radio) are huge investments but do we really need to know the NBA pre-season outcomes? I will admit that I am not a fan of the NBA but I feel the exact same way about the NFL pre-season. It's like Allen Iverson once said "we talkin' about practice man, practice. Not a game, practice."
I have a feeling that the big headline today will be Randy Moss traded from New England to Minnesota and how that will impact the NFL. Oh, and since we have 30 seconds left, the MLB playoffs start today.
If you view any ESPN coverage MLB usually takes a backseat. Looking at ESPN's website this morning shows where their priorities are. Sure the main banner is a preview of the MLB playoffs that start today, but you will also see the scores of the pre-season NBA games. Yes, pre-season. There are also links to articles regarding some of those games, such as Lebron carrying the Miami Heat as Dewayne Wade got injured. Didn't NBA practice just start?
I realize that sports are a big business now and that communications contracts (TV and radio) are huge investments but do we really need to know the NBA pre-season outcomes? I will admit that I am not a fan of the NBA but I feel the exact same way about the NFL pre-season. It's like Allen Iverson once said "we talkin' about practice man, practice. Not a game, practice."
I have a feeling that the big headline today will be Randy Moss traded from New England to Minnesota and how that will impact the NFL. Oh, and since we have 30 seconds left, the MLB playoffs start today.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Nighttime Is The Right Time
In the history of Kinnick Stadium there have now been 5 true night games (kick off is after 6:00 pm). I have now attended 4 of them (Ohio State in 2006, Syracuse in 2007, Michigan in 2009, Penn State in 2010). Leading up to the Penn St game I started to wonder why night games seem to have a more lively crowd.
ScoutzFiction and I touched on the subject as we were exiting Interstate 80 in Iowa City. His thinking is that it goes back to the performing arts and being on a stage with spot lights on you. This may very well be part of it. In the middle centuries the performing arts were huge, almost on the same level as athletics are today. The superstars were the actors and they were always in the light (this is where the term "limelight" came from). Maybe it has evolved within us that the ultimate stage is under artificial lights. Hmmm
I did buy into that a little bit. The example I always think of goes back to the spring of 1997, my freshman year of high school. My first track meet ran into the night time. I was scheduled to run the 4x800 relay, which occurred in the daytime, and the junior varsity 4x100 relay, which occurred after the sun went down and the lights came on. I remember feeling a lot more excited for the 4x100 and not just because I spent the previous two years chasing records as a sprinter.
To me, the artificial lights made the track look different. Things stood out a little more since the light was a lot more focused. I think this is where the added excitement comes from. As I ran I remember only seeing the track in front of me, where I could see a lot more when the sun was out. I think this helps the athletes focus a little more on the field. As for the crowd the lighting helps direct the focus onto the field also.
Another thing that could factor in is the anticipation. For a night game there are 8 hours of other games before the kick. The anticipation builds while the scores start rolling in and everyone is ready to see the team take the field. 11:00 am games are nice in that there is still some day left when you get home, but the anticipation hasn't been able to build as much.
I'm sure that some high-salaried scientists could do a human study and find out exactly why the excitement is higher for night games but I'm more interested in what real fans think. So what says you?
ScoutzFiction and I touched on the subject as we were exiting Interstate 80 in Iowa City. His thinking is that it goes back to the performing arts and being on a stage with spot lights on you. This may very well be part of it. In the middle centuries the performing arts were huge, almost on the same level as athletics are today. The superstars were the actors and they were always in the light (this is where the term "limelight" came from). Maybe it has evolved within us that the ultimate stage is under artificial lights. Hmmm
I did buy into that a little bit. The example I always think of goes back to the spring of 1997, my freshman year of high school. My first track meet ran into the night time. I was scheduled to run the 4x800 relay, which occurred in the daytime, and the junior varsity 4x100 relay, which occurred after the sun went down and the lights came on. I remember feeling a lot more excited for the 4x100 and not just because I spent the previous two years chasing records as a sprinter.
To me, the artificial lights made the track look different. Things stood out a little more since the light was a lot more focused. I think this is where the added excitement comes from. As I ran I remember only seeing the track in front of me, where I could see a lot more when the sun was out. I think this helps the athletes focus a little more on the field. As for the crowd the lighting helps direct the focus onto the field also.
Another thing that could factor in is the anticipation. For a night game there are 8 hours of other games before the kick. The anticipation builds while the scores start rolling in and everyone is ready to see the team take the field. 11:00 am games are nice in that there is still some day left when you get home, but the anticipation hasn't been able to build as much.
I'm sure that some high-salaried scientists could do a human study and find out exactly why the excitement is higher for night games but I'm more interested in what real fans think. So what says you?
Monday, October 4, 2010
Earn Your Stripes
There's something about sporting events under the lights that feels different than during the daytime (full discussion will come later this week). This weekend was no different with a 7:00 pm kick off inside of Kinnick Stadium. I didn't think the atmosphere was as electric as some of the recent night games but maybe that was just me. The opponent was Penn St, who had won twice in nine games against Iowa since Kirk Ferentz took over as head coach. I had no doubt in my mind that Iowa would win this game. The betting line was set at Iowa +7.5 and I predicted the final to be 28-10 (I should have put some money down). I was a little off with the final being 24-3 Iowa.
First I must say that the black and gold "stripes" looked amazing. I'm glad that the fans responded to the call and made it work. One thing I was kind of disappointed by were the pompoms that were handed out. The gold sections got gold pompoms and the black sections had black pompoms. This made the pompoms almost invisible; what should have been done was put black in the gold sections and gold in the black sections for some contrast. Regardless Kinnick looked better than I've ever seen.
This was another game where nothing was really learned about Iowa's team, and maybe that's one reason they didn't climb higher in the polls this week. They could have kept the offensive play book open and run up the score (I don't think Penn St could stop the offense) but that didn't happen. Instead the Iowa coaches wanted Penn St, and a true freshman QB, to beat Iowa in Iowa City. Normally I'm not fond of that technique but Iowa has a good enough team that it won't happen. One thing that was learned is that James Morris can come in and play middle linebacker with the first team defense and be just as effective as anyone else. Morris looked ready to play and take over the role as a starter next year.
One thing I didn't like so much was seeing Adam Robinson in so much. Sure he only had 28 carries but he could have been spelled a little bit by one of the freshman backups. The wear and tear on the body may not be evident this week, or in two weeks at Michigan (thanks to the bye week) but it could come into play later in the year, such as against Ohio St. We need the freshmen to see some Big 10 competition so that they are ready to go if something catastrophic happens.
The last thing I learned was that the Arizona game really was a anomaly for this Iowa team. The offensive line has looked very good all year except that one game. Special teams have been decent in all but the one game. Even Joe Paterno said Iowa losing to Arizona was a fluke. I know that a loss is still a loss and that we can't go back and undo the game (this isn't Minnesota where 55-0 in 2008 never really happened) but I can say that Iowa may still be one of the best teams in the country. Even Alabama beat Penn St 24-3 (at Alabama) in week 2. Just saying....
First I must say that the black and gold "stripes" looked amazing. I'm glad that the fans responded to the call and made it work. One thing I was kind of disappointed by were the pompoms that were handed out. The gold sections got gold pompoms and the black sections had black pompoms. This made the pompoms almost invisible; what should have been done was put black in the gold sections and gold in the black sections for some contrast. Regardless Kinnick looked better than I've ever seen.
This was another game where nothing was really learned about Iowa's team, and maybe that's one reason they didn't climb higher in the polls this week. They could have kept the offensive play book open and run up the score (I don't think Penn St could stop the offense) but that didn't happen. Instead the Iowa coaches wanted Penn St, and a true freshman QB, to beat Iowa in Iowa City. Normally I'm not fond of that technique but Iowa has a good enough team that it won't happen. One thing that was learned is that James Morris can come in and play middle linebacker with the first team defense and be just as effective as anyone else. Morris looked ready to play and take over the role as a starter next year.
One thing I didn't like so much was seeing Adam Robinson in so much. Sure he only had 28 carries but he could have been spelled a little bit by one of the freshman backups. The wear and tear on the body may not be evident this week, or in two weeks at Michigan (thanks to the bye week) but it could come into play later in the year, such as against Ohio St. We need the freshmen to see some Big 10 competition so that they are ready to go if something catastrophic happens.
The last thing I learned was that the Arizona game really was a anomaly for this Iowa team. The offensive line has looked very good all year except that one game. Special teams have been decent in all but the one game. Even Joe Paterno said Iowa losing to Arizona was a fluke. I know that a loss is still a loss and that we can't go back and undo the game (this isn't Minnesota where 55-0 in 2008 never really happened) but I can say that Iowa may still be one of the best teams in the country. Even Alabama beat Penn St 24-3 (at Alabama) in week 2. Just saying....
Friday, October 1, 2010
Friday Night Prediction
Yes Iowa played Ball St last weekend. As for my recap: Iowa played Ball St. Nothing big other than a good showing by Iowa in a 45-0 win.
This week opens Big Ten play with Iowa hosting Penn St under the lights at Kinnick Stadium. This will be the 4th true night game that I've been to at Kinnick and each time has been amazing. The game itself should be close as Iowa and Penn St always have good battles. Penn St has a true freshman quarterback for the first time since Joe Paterno took over as head coach. Sure they have gone into Alabama, which I'm sure is hostile, but this is Big Ten play under the lights at the very close confines of Kinnick Stadium. The crowd is almost right on the playing field and the noise level on the field is second to none (yes I know how it is since I sit in the 3rd row). If I don't have a voice on Sunday it will be a good thing.
I don't see Iowa struggling too much in this game. Penn St isn't what it was the past two seasons. They still have some of the same players but they have also lost a lot of talent to graduation. On the flip-side Iowa seems to have as much, if not more, talent than last year's team.
This is also the first ever "spirit night" to help celebrate Homecoming Week. Fans sitting in even numbered sections are to wear gold and fans in the odd sections, and students, will be in black. Word on Twitter is that pompoms of the section's color will be on every seat to help with the effect. Boise St pulled it off last week so I know Iowa should have no problem with it. I even went out and bought a gold hoodie today so that I'll be safe.
Night games also means lots of tailgating. I hope everyone is safe and smart with their tailgating and no one gets hurt, either before, during, and after the game. My cousin works in the University of Iowa Hospital ER and said that it was really busy after the Michigan game (also a night game) last year. Hopefully this doesn't happen again. Yes I will partake in a few beers but I won't be going overboard on my drinking, I hope others do the same.
Final prediction: Iowa 28 Penn St 10
Go Hawks!
This week opens Big Ten play with Iowa hosting Penn St under the lights at Kinnick Stadium. This will be the 4th true night game that I've been to at Kinnick and each time has been amazing. The game itself should be close as Iowa and Penn St always have good battles. Penn St has a true freshman quarterback for the first time since Joe Paterno took over as head coach. Sure they have gone into Alabama, which I'm sure is hostile, but this is Big Ten play under the lights at the very close confines of Kinnick Stadium. The crowd is almost right on the playing field and the noise level on the field is second to none (yes I know how it is since I sit in the 3rd row). If I don't have a voice on Sunday it will be a good thing.
I don't see Iowa struggling too much in this game. Penn St isn't what it was the past two seasons. They still have some of the same players but they have also lost a lot of talent to graduation. On the flip-side Iowa seems to have as much, if not more, talent than last year's team.
This is also the first ever "spirit night" to help celebrate Homecoming Week. Fans sitting in even numbered sections are to wear gold and fans in the odd sections, and students, will be in black. Word on Twitter is that pompoms of the section's color will be on every seat to help with the effect. Boise St pulled it off last week so I know Iowa should have no problem with it. I even went out and bought a gold hoodie today so that I'll be safe.
Night games also means lots of tailgating. I hope everyone is safe and smart with their tailgating and no one gets hurt, either before, during, and after the game. My cousin works in the University of Iowa Hospital ER and said that it was really busy after the Michigan game (also a night game) last year. Hopefully this doesn't happen again. Yes I will partake in a few beers but I won't be going overboard on my drinking, I hope others do the same.
Final prediction: Iowa 28 Penn St 10
Go Hawks!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)