2nd Guessing of Ferentz

[Section136]

Just another side of the argument that I have not seen presented yet in regards to the coaching decisions made at the end of regulation and OT in Ames last saturday.

Through 4 quarters our defense had given up 371 yards of offense. Not a great number but better than it seemed watching the game live.

ISU scored 24 points in regulation, with 1 touchdown coming after they took over on our 12 yard line after a fumble and a FG coming from about 55 yards.

Is it that crazy for KF to think that his defense would be able to get a stop in overtime?

 

[whammer33024]

awaiting newmexhawks pleasant response

 

[silvanthalas]

Is it that crazy for KF to think that his defense would be able to get a stop in overtime?

Why did he think the defense could get a stop in OT when they couldn't when we needed them to before OT?
When did our defense get a stop when it counted last year?
Why doesn't Ferentz ever trust our offense? Why doesn't somebody ask Ferentz about this lack of trust?

Speaking of: Coker has 3 fumbles already, so why should he have been trusted to run the ball at the end of the 4th when we decided not to play to win?

 

[Section136]

Why did he think the defense could get a stop in OT when they couldn't when we needed them to before OT?
When did our defense get a stop when it counted last year?
Why doesn't Ferentz ever trust our offense? Why doesn't somebody ask Ferentz about this lack of trust?

Speaking of: Coker has 3 fumbles already, so why should he have been trusted to run the ball at the end of the 4th when we decided not to play to win?

1) Again, ISU got a TD when their drive started from our 12 and a 55 yard FG. Those are points that arent exactly pinned on our D exclusively. Tip your hat to the FG kicker. They had 2 drives all game where they drove a significant length down the field and scored a touchdown. We were playing classic bend but dont break defense all game long.

2) Last year is a completely different team. That is not a good argument.

3) I think Ferentz would just rather put the game in his defense's hands than trying to win it in a 2 minute type situation with the offense. Right or wrong, that is his philosophy and you and I both know it will not change.

With regards to Coker's fumbles- 2 were in a monsoon and KF even said in the presser that he wasnt concerned after the ISU fumble because he took a very good hit.

 

[hawkfan2679]

I think they fumbled twice inside our 15 (1 of those we fumbled right back to them). They drove all the way down the field and then fumbled on their first possession...that had NOTHING to do with our defense getting a stop. They lost out on 3-7 points there. Then they fumbled again after moving down the field on about our 15 yard line, again losing out on 3-7 points.

Here's their drives in regulation:

#1 - Drove 56 yards and fumbled on our 5
#2 - Went 9 yards in 3 plays and punted (!)
#3 - Went 0 yards in 3 plays and punted (!) - this one changed the game, IIRC, because it rolled all the way to our own 5
#4 - Drove 34 yards and fumbled on our 5
#5 - Drove 12 yards and scored a TD (this was when we fumbled right back to them)
#6 - Drove 21 yards and got a long FG
#7 - Drove 16 yards and fumbled
#8 - Drove 20 yards and missed a FG
#9 - Drove 73 yards and scored a TD
#10 - Drove 71 yards and missed a FG
#11 - Drove 59 yards and scored a TD

OT:
#1 - TD in 5 plays
#2 - TD in 7 plays

Maybe he didn't watch the 2nd half...

 

[hawkeyebob62]

1) Again, ISU got a TD when their drive started from our 12 and a 55 yard FG. Those are points that arent exactly pinned on our D exclusively. Tip your hat to the FG kicker. They had 2 drives all game where they drove a significant length down the field and scored a touchdown. We were playing classic bend but dont break defense all game long.

2) Last year is a completely different team. That is not a good argument.

3) I think Ferentz would just rather put the game in his defense's hands than trying to win it in a 2 minute type situation with the offense. Right or wrong, that is his philosophy and you and I both know it will not change.

With regards to Coker's fumbles- 2 were in a monsoon and KF even said in the presser that he wasnt concerned after the ISU fumble because he took a very good hit.

From a historical standpoint, I look at the 2009 OSU game. Despite the morons who insist we should have tried to score at end of regulation that game, KF/KOK ran plays to see what was "there". You don't send a redshirt freshman into the line of fire at THAT point in the game and say, "Throw it, and make it count". You just don't.

And in that game, we HAD to go for a TD on 4th down because a sack took us out of FG range. We sure would have loved having those 3 points, in retrospect.

As to going for it on 4th-and-1 in 3rd OT, someone accurately pointed out the 2008 MSU game, where Greene was stopped (through no fault of his own) on 4th-and-short. What was the cry from the great moronic masses then? "We should have gone for they tying FG!"

IMO, you NEVER take a risk in OT when you are tied or ahead, ONLY when behind.

Frankly, people aren't giving ISU enough credit. They came through when they had to. And they may have done us a huge favor by exposing the highest-priority weaknesses that need to be addressed leading up to conference schedule.

 

[silvanthalas]

We were playing classic bend but dont break defense all game long.

Yes, and it certainly showed by the fact that ISU punted only what, twice all game?

2) Last year is a completely different team. That is not a good argument.

Nonsense. This defense is made up of many of the same players, and it's certainly the same schemes and coaches. It is definitely part of the argument.

Not only that, but after last season, this defense should have to PROVE that they can win a game, rather than simply make the poor assumption that they will.

I wouldn't be shocked in the least if this weekend, with the game on the line, Ferentz allows this defense to lose another close game rather than allow the offense to win it. And again, Ferentz will deserve all the criticism that is being heaped upon him for it.

3) I think Ferentz would just rather put the game in his defense's hands than trying to win it in a 2 minute type situation with the offense.

And this is why, more often than not, we lose the close games. Why, outside of a couple of seasons, this team isn't winning as many games as they could be.

With regards to Coker's fumbles- 2 were in a monsoon and KF even said in the presser that he wasnt concerned after the ISU fumble because he took a very good hit.

So what? He could have taken another very good hit, and then Ferentz would have even less of a ridiculous defense for playing not to win.

 

[NickM]

I think at the point of the 3rd overtime it was fairly apparent that BOTH defenses were gassed physically and emotionally. Regarding the end of regulation I am most disappointed that after all of these years we have zero confidence (and not much more ability) to effectively run a two-minute type offense. If Ferentz didn't think we had the ability or poise to run the 2 minute drill, then taking the knee was the right call. That being said, why does he feel that way? Do they not practice it? When they do practice it is a total cluster $@@%? There's no excuse for not having the offense prepared to run a successful two-minute drill - it's a preparation issue for which history continues to show we don't prepare. Had we been down 1 at the time I would have been more surprised if we successfully ran the hurry-up than if it looked like a three-ring circus much the way it has the past several years sans 09 MSU. Of all the things the staff does well, preparing for these moments in the game isn't one of them.

 

[83Hawk]

"As to going for it on 4th-and-1 in 3rd OT, someone accurately pointed out the 2008 MSU game, where Greene was stopped (through no fault of his own) on 4th-and-short. What was the cry from the great moronic masses then? "We should have gone for they tying FG!"

No...as I recall most people supported the decision...but didn't like the play call.

 

[83Hawk]

I think at the point of the 3rd overtime it was fairly apparent that BOTH defenses were gassed physically and emotionally. Regarding the end of regulation I am most disappointed that after all of these years we have zero confidence (and not much more ability) to effectively run a two-minute type offense. If Ferentz didn't think we had the ability or poise to run the 2 minute drill, then taking the knee was the right call. That being said, why does he feel that way? Do they not practice it? When they do practice it is a total cluster $@@%? There's no excuse for not having the offense prepared to run a successful two-minute drill - it's a preparation issue for which history continues to show we don't prepare. Had we been down 1 at the time I would have been more surprised if we successfully ran the hurry-up than if it looked like a three-ring circus much the way it has the past several years sans 09 MSU. Of all the things the staff does well, preparing for these moments in the game isn't one of them.

There have been many games where Kirk could have run the "2 minute" offense at the end of the first half, yet chose to run the clock out. Practice isn't the same as a game. By not running the 2 minute at every chance, when the time comes where he HAS to run it...it doesn't work (just witness several games last season). Sure, it worked against MSU in 2008....but how many other times has Iowa gone down to win the game at the end of regulation? I suppose you can count LSU...but that was a miracle where Iowa won IN SPITE of Kirk's clock management failure.

 

[silvanthalas]

No...as I recall most people supported the decision...but didn't like the play call.

And even then the play call was just fine. It was a missed block that was the problem.

Practice isn't the same as a game. By not running the 2 minute at every chance, when the time comes where he HAS to run it...it doesn't work

And that is something that I don't think anybody mentioned at the end of the Tennessee Tech game: instead of getting our backups snaps, we more or less just try and ran out the clock on that final possession.

Would it look like running up the score? So what if it did? Those snaps are invaluable to our backups. More so for Iowa when you have all this discussion of attrition and so on.

 

[NewMexHawk]

I am not going to respond...why bother, the staff won't change anything, let alone take a risk. We are Iowa and Iowa plays one way and one way only...there is NO deviation. Iowa fans need to understand and hope that Iowa is ahead by at least 10 points going into the 4th quarter; if not, this staff has no idea how to win the ball game and will lose three out of four close games, regardless of the talent on the other team.

I will watch Iowa games like i have listened and watched for more than 50 years. I now just take the attitude that if we are in a close game, the Iowa staff will have no idea how to win the game more times than not and Iowa will again lose games they should not. If it is 4th down and one on our own 5 yard and we can go for a TD to win the game or kick a fieldgoal to tie the game our staff will kick the fieldgoal because to do otherwise would be risky and this staff is not about risk taking. Those two words are not even in their vocabulary or the team's anymore. Iowa HAS to take the safe route in every game...to do so otherwise would not be Iowa. Remember Iowa has no sizzle and this staff has to prove it to the country. Let the other team take chances and win the game...Iowa will play it safe. Like I said before, this staff won't even walk home in the dark alone...too risky.

 

[Section136]

Yes, and it certainly showed by the fact that ISU punted only what, twice all game?



Nonsense. This defense is made up of many of the same players, and it's certainly the same schemes and coaches. It is definitely part of the argument.

Not only that, but after last season, this defense should have to PROVE that they can win a game, rather than simply make the poor assumption that they will.

I wouldn't be shocked in the least if this weekend, with the game on the line, Ferentz allows this defense to lose another close game rather than allow the offense to win it. And again, Ferentz will deserve all the criticism that is being heaped upon him for it.



And this is why, more often than not, we lose the close games. Why, outside of a couple of seasons, this team isn't winning as many games as they could be.



So what? He could have taken another very good hit, and then Ferentz would have even less of a ridiculous defense for playing not to win.

So what they only punted twice? Minus a gift wrapped TD and a once in a career FG they scored 14 points in regulation. Bend but dont break.


This is hardly the same defense as last year. Daniels and Binns split time last year. Morris wasnt a starter until PSU and Nielsen was done after the MSU game. Hyde is in a different position. Prater is the only guy that is in the same position as last year and started the entire year on this defense.


Like I said, Ferentz more than likely wont change his end of game strategy when we are tied. He is conservative and will play for OT.

I think Ferentz will take his chances with Marcus Coker toting the rock. He breaks a run for 12 yards on the first play and we move forward with a 2 minute offense and win it with a FG most people on here are praising Ferentz for the call.

It didnt work out, get over it. Its the easiest decision in the world to make after it is done and you see the end result.

 

[NickM]

There have been many games where Kirk could have run the "2 minute" offense at the end of the first half, yet chose to run the clock out. Practice isn't the same as a game. By not running the 2 minute at every chance, when the time comes where he HAS to run it...it doesn't work (just witness several games last season). Sure, it worked against MSU in 2008....but how many other times has Iowa gone down to win the game at the end of regulation? I suppose you can count LSU...but that was a miracle where Iowa won IN SPITE of Kirk's clock management failure.

Totally agree - the offense needs to run the 2 minute offense in a game situation, even if it's while up 28 on Ball State in the 3rd. They need to practice it in a game and there are a lot of examples where we could have gotten that practice towards the end of the first half of games, particularly against lesser opponents where the game was not in doubt.

 

[silvanthalas]

It didnt work out, get over it. Its the easiest decision in the world to make after it is done and you see the end result.

Yes, once again, fall back on the 'ol hindsight to excuse your failure to recognize a real problem.

I highly recommend reading that article that was posted about Ferentz and the percentages. Maybe you too will be illuminated by the fact that you don't need hindsight to know that Ferentz's philosophies are a joke and will continue to cost Iowa winnable games moving forward.

Here's a hint of it:
"This is what happened Saturday, where Ferentz, in quite possibly his dumbest decision in a game of dumb decisions, built a 10-point lead early in the second quarter -- let me repeat that: THE SECOND QUARTER -- and tried to run out 45 minutes of clock with Marcus Coker. Only when ISU scored on back-to-back drives, tying the game at the half and bringing a muted Ames crowd back into the mix, did he give up his delusional strategy."

Yes, the problem IS Kirk Ferentz.

 

[NickM]

"As to going for it on 4th-and-1 in 3rd OT, someone accurately pointed out the 2008 MSU game, where Greene was stopped (through no fault of his own) on 4th-and-short. What was the cry from the great moronic masses then? "We should have gone for they tying FG!"

No...as I recall most people supported the decision...but didn't like the play call.

And I recall people were more miffed as to why we went shotgun on 3rd and 1 prior to the 4th down play. Double whammy since we never, ever, ever, ever run out of shotgun we completely took our strength out of the entire play.

 

[rdemp4hawks]

I love all these "arm chair qb's". saying we should have gone for It on 4th and 1 or Leta see that 2 minute offense. its a tied ball game. You don't do anything stupid to hurt your team. would I have liked to see a 2 minute offense at the end of regulation. sure why not but that would not have been a very smart move. if you have to rely on your offense to win all your games. your in serious trouble. its not a lack of confidence in your offense. any good and smart coach would put the game on your defenses back. defenses just have a different mentality. I am just tired of hearing all this complaining from has beens or never was people. the games 5 days behind us and We just got beat by a better prepared team. we flat out got out played. plain and simple.

 

[kicker22]

In my opinion the only drive that really mattered should have been the last one. We let them drive the field when the game was on the line and that should have influenced our decision, in a hostile environment, to take a shot at it in regulation. Most likely, if we take a shot and fail we still get another shot in OT. IMO we turned two possessions to possibly win the game into a one possession game. I may be wrong, but I'd generally play the game of numbers saying two opportunities is better than one.

 

[Section136]

Yes, once again, fall back on the 'ol hindsight to excuse your failure to recognize a real problem.

I highly recommend reading that article that was posted about Ferentz and the percentages. Maybe you too will be illuminated by the fact that you don't need hindsight to know that Ferentz's philosophies are a joke and will continue to cost Iowa winnable games moving forward.

So back in 2002-2004 when the defense was stopping people at the end of games it was great decision making to play conservative. But now that the defense is not stopping the other team with as much success at the end of games, Ferentz should just change his entire coaching philosophy.

I get it now.

 

[kicker22]

I love all these "arm chair qb's". saying we should have gone for It on 4th and 1 or Leta see that 2 minute offense. its a tied ball game. You don't do anything stupid to hurt your team. would I have liked to see a 2 minute offense at the end of regulation. sure why not but that would not have been a very smart move. if you have to rely on your offense to win all your games. your in serious trouble. its not a lack of confidence in your offense. any good and smart coach would put the game on your defenses back. defenses just have a different mentality. I am just tired of hearing all this complaining from has beens or never was people. the games 5 days behind us and We just got beat by a better prepared team. we flat out got out played. plain and simple.

Just a word of advice, but to take cheap shots at those people that took issue with the way the game turned out, does the exact same thing that your complaining about by taking the all high and might approach. There's no way for you to prove that your logic is right nor is it possible for anyone to prove that they're right and your wrong. Your fighting the same argument with this post. Plain and simple. That said I'm a firm believer that a loss is a loss whether in OT or regulation, so regardless of what decisions were made, whether good or bad, it wasn't a decision that won a game and got things done. I was mad about the decision to send it in to over time, but my opinion means just as much as yours, which honestly is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. So responding with a post like this (this post or yours) has no relevancy. The past is the past and opinions of what should or shouldn't have been done are nothing more than opinions and rants that basically are meaningless.