People on here don't blindly argue against any pro-Iowa point. They argue against you because your points are almost exclusively stupid, your style is douchey, and you're never funny. There's a reason people like Gonzo and Dex and it isn't because they don't argue pro-hawk points.
I know trying to point out your idiocy is a waste of time, but I might as well do it for my own sake. On they plays you point out the ball isn't released for about 3 seconds, and even more. Second, look at where the receivers line up and where they end up catching the ball. They are running actual routes with actual moves and beating actual coverage. Obviously it's not good coverage in those three cases, but to claim it is similar to Easley's TD is beyond moronic.
In comparison, upon the snap, or the time it takes Easley to run 8 yards, he runs a straight line and is 8 yards open. It is literally impossible to blow a coverage any worse considering he is not over a blitzer. To make matters worse, MSU's front 7 was completely dominating Iowa in the run game and there is zero reason for a DB to be peeking in the backfield or sucked in to play action. So no, none of the plays you point out account for anything close to the level of blown coverage as Easley's touchdown.Claiming they are the same thing is just explicitly stating that you don't know **** about football.
Lol, so there are varying levels of blown coverage now? If a blown coverage results in a TD, there is no difference.