2 pt Conversions

[SCHawkeye2]

It seems to me that Iowa is alarmingly inept when attempting 2 pt conversions.
Almost as if they have no prepared plays for this contingency, the effort comes off as ill conceived and poorly executed.
And more often than not, unsuccessful.
Might want to 'clean up a few things' there.

 

[dagdaj]

Well. I mean.
They're not exactly lethal when they're in the red zone. So, this makes sense.

 

[guffus]

It helps if your QB can throw a pass that's not 5 feet over the WR's head

 

[Grady]

It seems to me that Iowa is alarmingly inept when attempting 2 pt conversions.
Almost as if they have no prepared plays for this contingency, the effort comes off as ill conceived and poorly executed.
And more often than not, unsuccessful.
Might want to 'clean up a few things' there.

'Alarmingly inept' is an apt description. I was telling my Indiana friend who was at the game with me that I can't remember the last time Iowa successfully converted a 2-pt conversion. And then 0-2 again last night. It feels like a LONG time, and not because they haven't tried many!
This season's team should be especially well-equipped for 2-pt plays, with a strong running QB, strong running game, now two 6'5" WRs they can put in the game at the same time, plus an All-American scat-back. If you can't figure out 3-4 consistently successful 2-pt plays from that lineup, well....you're just not trying hard enough.

 

[haydensly]

We are not built to have a high success rate on two-point conversions. Which is why I asked before we ran the first one, why are we doing this? Once we missed it the first time and with the score what it was, you are almost forced to go for it the second time. It's easy to second guess and I hate that but I really thought we should have just been taking the points. Very un-Kirk like.

 

[Grady]

We are not built to have a high success rate on two-point conversions. Which is why I asked before we ran the first one, why are we doing this? Once we missed it the first time and with the score what it was, you are almost forced to go for it the second time. It's easy to second guess and I hate that but I really thought we should have just been taking the points. Very un-Kirk like.

Last night's first attempt did remind me a bit of last year's Iowa St. game, when Iowa scored a TD to go up 19-7 vs the Clones late in the 3rd quarter. I said out loud to my friend at the time "No need to do this" when Iowa uncharacteristically went for 2 and then failed. I understood the thinking, it was "We've contained ISU's offense so well that there's not time for them to get a TD, FG, FG -- but they may get a TD, TD -- therefore we better try to get to 21. Of course, they DID get a quick TD on a bomb, then a FG, then the winning walk-off FG, winning 20-19. Going for 2 pts -- again, unsuccessfully -- cost them that game outright.

 

[ICHawk24]

It is just dumb to have such a substandard offense and to go for 2 when it is anything other than absolutely necessary.

The first time, it was chasing points and absolutely dumb. It should have been a 3 point game at the end.