Iowa Hawkeyes Game Film Review: Ricky Stanzi vs. Indiana Hoosiers
The quarter-by-quarter score reflected how this game went for Stanzi. Iowa trailed in the fourth quarter and wasn't finishing drives, leaving a lot of plays on the field. However, Stanzi came back and marched his team downfield for a score when he had his back up against the wall.
Statistically, this was Stanzi's roughest game, but he still came out with a rating of 144.43 for the game. If it wasn't for that last drive, it would have been a much rougher day, but you have to hand it to Stanzi, after looking two or three notches off all day, he managed to finish the game strong.
Iowa struggled big time in the red zone during this game, some falls to the play call and some of it to Stanzi and the players for not getting it done. Stanzi definitely missed a TD by waiting too long for Sandeman in the red zone in the second quarter. I was mystified as again Iowa tried to attack press coverage to the short side of the field with a fade again this week.
They did this against Wisconsin, but at least against Wisconsin, it wasn't in the red zone. Again, it was DJK they went to on these plays when clearly your best jump ball receiver is McNutt. Very confusing what the idea was here, especially when Stanzi was struggling with his accuracy all day.
Stanzi was definitely off his game. He was off target on a number of completions and also just flat out missed a couple of big plays down the field. The INT he threw was a very concerning play. Even if DJK ran the wrong route, it's hard to believe Stanzi didn't realize it and adjust.
It seemed strange with the way the pass rush was coming that Iowa didn't go to a screen of any kind this game. Stanzi never really got in a rhythm out there and some screens would have gone a long ways towards settling him in.
Iowa's inability to exploit teams blitzing against their twins set is starting to become glaring on film. Almost every time against Single Back Twins, SS Donnell Jones blitzed off the edge after lining up over the inside receiver. Iowa likes to run the ball out of this formation, and Jones came free several times out of that look and broke up some plays.
If Iowa had thrown a slant or bubble screen out of that formation it would have been wide open and kept Indiana from doing this. This is something that has been happening more and more each week and I'm not sure what Iowa is waiting for here, but they need to roll out a package to counter this.
+1 Nice ball to Sandeman on the shallow cross. Perfectly timed and thrown ball against the man coverage. D2 Play 3
-1 Very strange looking play here that ends up an INT. No idea who he even was throwing this to because he had two guys wide open elsewhere on this play. He stared down who I took to be Reisner on a short flat route here and DJK ran a skinny post. Stanzi threw this ball like DJK was running a 10-yard stop route. I’ll assume this was a blown route, but this was still a very poor decision to throw this ball.
The read at the snap was Cover 1 or Cover 3 as the SS Jones had walked into the box, and if DJK was running an option route vs. Cover 3, he likely would have been running the skinny post or a post stop/zone sit route. Not sure what the deal was here but Stanzi threw this ball despite DJK clearly being out of the area. D2 Play 4
-1 Fade thrown five yards out of bounds again. Very poor play-call and decision to throw this ball by Stanzi. There is absolutely no room to throw a lofted fade against press coverage to the short side of the field. This was doomed from the start. D3 Play 8
-1 Very poor pocket presence here as he steps up right into a sack. He had room to work with to his left and an open receiver in the flat to his left. Not a very heady play here. D4 Play 4
+1 Nice job reading the coverage and he hits a wide open Davis who had been released by the CB but wasn’t picked up. Nice ball here as well. D4 Play 5
-1 Waited way too long to deliver this pass at the goal-line and ends up throwing a pass behind a wide open Sandeman. The read at the snap was the defender over Sandeman had an inside shade, and Sandeman would come open very quickly. Stanzi for some reason still took the full roll out and made the window very small for this throw. D4 Play 11
-1 Severely under throws McNutt who was wide open downfield here and only a amazing adjustment and catch makes this a completion. A decent throw and McNutt would have had a chance to turn this play up the sideline and into an even bigger play. D6 Play 4
-1 Poor pocket presence here as he has his eyes downfield and had an open man in Davis on the dig route and for whatever reason didn’t throw it. If he’s not going to throw that route he needed to check it down to Coker in the flat who was totally uncovered. Not a very good decision by Stanzi here to pull it down and he ends up running right into another sack. D6 Play 5
+1 Nice job of dropping the ball over the LB’s and in front of the safeties here as he finds McNutt wide open down the middle. D7 Play 1
-1 Delay of game in the red zone. You could probably put this one on the coaching staff as well but Stanzi needs to be more aware of this.
+1 Nice job avoiding the free blitzer here and throwing a catchable ball to Herman in the flat. D8 Play 3
-1 Very poor throw on the corner route to McNutt. He had the read at the snap that it was Cover 2 and the corner route to the wide side of the field would be there. Just flat out doesn’t deliver a catchable ball here. Very poor effort here. D9 Play 6
+1 Wide open seam route on Cover 2 here. Great ball and timing on the throw to DJK. D10 Play 1
+1 Great throw down the center of the field to a wide open McNutt on the post. The safety bit up on the TE over the middle and left McNutt on an island and Stanzi made it hurt. D10 Play 3
|Short||5/7 53y 1INT ||3/3 27y||9/12 70y||17/22 150y 1INT
|Medium||0/0 0y||0/0 0y||3/7 59y||3/7 59y|
|Deep||0/0 0y||2/3 80y TD||0/1 0y||2/4 80y 1TD|
|Sub-total||5/7 53y 1INT ||5/6 107y TD||12/20 130y|
22/33 290y 1TD 1INT
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?