Brian Ferentz on Clock Management

[okeefe4prez]

So when he has a leg to stand on ( the Oliver Martin reply ), clear and concise. Snarky.

When he doesn't, "yada yada yada, Rutgers was poor on my part, yada yada yada, yada yada yada we play not to lose". Rambling.

Is there another clip coming where he's asked about the Hawks' last "drive" of the game?

O'Keefe was the master of those final drives. Run on first down, make sure they are selling out. Run the same play on second down. Same formation on third down, fake the same run again, then bam, TE seam. It works because college kids will always sell out to the run in that situation. Always.

 

[RobHowe]

So when he has a leg to stand on ( the Oliver Martin reply ), clear and concise. Snarky.

When he doesn't, "yada yada yada, Rutgers was poor on my part, yada yada yada, yada yada yada Saturday we played not to lose". Rambling.

Is there another clip coming where he's asked about the Hawks' last "drive" of the game?

It’s in the transcript.

 

[hawkeyes87]

It’s in the transcript.

Thanks.

btw, on that question he said (video) "certainly you don't want to stop the clock", but the transcript left out the "don't". I read the transcript first, thinking "certainly you want to stop the clock because...… why exactly??"

 

[NCHawker]

HIs perspective is broader than that of an OC. Did ya notice...talking about 'not playing our best football' and gave up a a big play.

 

[PCHawk]

I fully agree with him there. For the Ruters game, it's not only nice to hear him take complete ownership, but it's nice to hear him admit where his mistake was. He was thinking right with bleeding the clock. He just did it too much. Way too much.

I also agree that the ISU game wasn't a clock management issue. It was a "plays didn't work" issue. The only thing in question was letting so much clock drain before the 3rd and medium play. That's a tough situation because if you call timeout right away, then throw an incomplete pass, you essentially called a time out just to leave the other team time to score. In that situation, you have to factor the odds of getting the first down, plus the odds of scoring a touchdown after that, then compare that to the odds of them getting points if you don't covert the 3rd down play. I'm not saying it would have been wrong to call the time out right away and risk it. I'm just saying it was a close call either way so there wasn't really a wrong choice.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

I'm not even going to listen to BFz's comments. Anything other than "we f***ed up again and need to get this fixed" is B.S.

 

[oldhawk12]

He sounds more and more like his Dad every year.

I like that he admitted to the mishandling against Rutgers. The general philosophy seems to be make sure you end the half with the ball in your possession. If that means passing up TD opportunities, so be it. Been that way for 20 years.....

Former center running an offense

 

[oldhawk12]

I fully agree with him there. For the Ruters game, it's not only nice to hear him take complete ownership, but it's nice to hear him admit where his mistake was. He was thinking right with bleeding the clock. He just did it too much. Way too much.

I also agree that the ISU game wasn't a clock management issue. It was a "plays didn't work" issue. The only thing in question was letting so much clock drain before the 3rd and medium play. That's a tough situation because if you call timeout right away, then throw an incomplete pass, you essentially called a time out just to leave the other team time to score. In that situation, you have to factor the odds of getting the first down, plus the odds of scoring a touchdown after that, then compare that to the odds of them getting points if you don't covert the 3rd down play. I'm not saying it would have been wrong to call the time out right away and risk it. I'm just saying it was a close call either way so there wasn't really a wrong choice.

That’s how a losing program thinks. Not a winning and aggressive one with a stupid amount of resources

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

I fully agree with him there. For the Ruters game, it's not only nice to hear him take complete ownership, but it's nice to hear him admit where his mistake was. He was thinking right with bleeding the clock. He just did it too much. Way too much.

I also agree that the ISU game wasn't a clock management issue. It was a "plays didn't work" issue. The only thing in question was letting so much clock drain before the 3rd and medium play. That's a tough situation because if you call timeout right away, then throw an incomplete pass, you essentially called a time out just to leave the other team time to score. In that situation, you have to factor the odds of getting the first down, plus the odds of scoring a touchdown after that, then compare that to the odds of them getting points if you don't covert the 3rd down play. I'm not saying it would have been wrong to call the time out right away and risk it. I'm just saying it was a close call either way so there wasn't really a wrong choice.

Listen to what you are saying PC. You don't want to take the timeout before the third down play because if you don't make it, you could leave time on the clock for the other team. Now, I don't remember how many timeouts ISU had...but really that shouldn't matter. It's the end of the first half, not the second..you are down 4 points and you have an entire second half to get it right. It's not like we are playing Oklahoma or some quick scoring team, unless you completely have defensive busts.

The fact of the matter is that he should have faith in his team...in his offense to convert the 3rd down. And in his defense to stop the other team if we leave 40 seconds on the clock. Give your offense the opportunity to run as many plays as they can to score a touchdown. I ask people...did not leaving time on the clock even enter your reasoning at that point? I'm like Iowa's given up 7 points on a trick play because a freshman got burned...and all the sudden you think Purdys going to throw ropes all over the field to score immediately?

That would have been a huge thing to go up at halftime. Play to win. I just don't understand anyone justifying that end of half decision making. It's defeatist.

 

[smhawk]

Yeah this argument makes no sense. If ISU got the ball back with less than a minute they might have just ran the ball if the first play wasn't productive. If they're choosing avoiding the risk of giving up points over scoring 4 more points, than if you don't get it on 3rd down go for it on 4th.

 

[trj]

That’s how a losing program thinks. Not a winning and aggressive one with a stupid amount of resources

ISU better not sleep on UL-Monroe.

 

[trj]

Full disclosure, I didn’t listen to BF’s comments. In regards to clock management it feels like old KF is rearing its ugly head.

He is starting to revert back to the way he used to manage games. 100% risk averse.

 

[PCHawk]

Listen to what you are saying PC. You don't want to take the timeout before the third down play because if you don't make it, you could leave time on the clock for the other team. Now, I don't remember how many timeouts ISU had...but really that shouldn't matter. It's the end of the first half, not the second..you are down 4 points and you have an entire second half to get it right. It's not like we are playing Oklahoma or some quick scoring team, unless you completely have defensive busts.

The fact of the matter is that he should have faith in his team...in his offense to convert the 3rd down. And in his defense to stop the other team if we leave 40 seconds on the clock. Give your offense the opportunity to run as many plays as they can to score a touchdown. I ask people...did not leaving time on the clock even enter your reasoning at that point? I'm like Iowa's given up 7 points on a trick play because a freshman got burned...and all the sudden you think Purdys going to throw ropes all over the field to score immediately?

That would have been a huge thing to go up at halftime. Play to win. I just don't understand anyone justifying that end of half decision making. It's defeatist.

I think if its 3rd and medium, you run enough time off the clock to make it kinda tough to score a td but not impossible. I dont remember how much time was left bit I do remember thinking it was smart to run it down some, then thinking they ran it down a little too much. I also remember one friend being pissed about it and me saying "I dont hate it, but I dont love it either". If it was my decision, I would have definitely run some time off, but not as much as they did.

On the flip side, at the end of the game they were aggressive and people still got pissed. Anyone who has ever watched an iowa prevent defense knows that whether there is 50 seconds on the clock for a last drive or a minute and a half left, they both end the same way. A field goal attempt. In my opinion, throwing a pass there and trying to get a 1st down was the right play. Calling a play to the short side of the field was terrible tho.

This decision has nothing to do with being a defeatist. It's about playing odds.

 

[revkev73]

He has the Kirk archetype. It is the longevity gene, not the excitement/go for it gene.

It is also the I am above critical questions gene. Do you know who I am?

It is the downside of having legacy coaches and the family train attached for generational longevity.

 

[revkev73]

I think if its 3rd and medium, you run enough time off the clock to make it kinda tough to score a td but not impossible. I dont remember how much time was left bit I do remember thinking it was smart to run it down some, then thinking they ran it down a little too much. I also remember one friend being pissed about it and me saying "I dont hate it, but I dont love it either". If it was my decision, I would have definitely run some time off, but not as much as they did.

On the flip side, at the end of the game they were aggressive and people still got pissed. Anyone who has ever watched an iowa prevent defense knows that whether there is 50 seconds on the clock for a last drive or a minute and a half left, they both end the same way. A field goal attempt. In my opinion, throwing a pass there and trying to get a 1st down was the right play. Calling a play to the short side of the field was terrible tho.

This decision has nothing to do with being a defeatist. It's about playing odds.

Thankfully, ISU Iowaed Iowa for the win when ISU players ran into each other.

 

[PCHawk]

Thankfully, ISU Iowaed Iowa for the win when ISU players ran into each other.

Yes they did. And I would like to make clear that I'm not saying it was a smart move. I'm just saying it wasn't stupid. It's pretty common to slow down on 3rd down of a 2 minute drill. I would bet over half of the coaches would have slowed down there. He just slowed down a little too much for the 2nd straight time. The first one was extremely dumb. The last one was a little bit short of perfect. That's all in my opinion of course.

 

[peerok]

I don't remember the details exactly, but didn't iowa almost give up a touchdown to Miss St at the end of the first half of the bowl game last year? I think we had the ball with less than a minute to go, but three incomplete passes gave the ball back to Miss St with enough time to take a few shots down field.Then they completed a long pass but it was called back because of a penalty. I wonder if that game was in the back of Kf's mind the last two weeks.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

Interesting that Brian and Company were concerned about not leaving time for the Clowns to score before half and yet they went out of their way to leave plenty of time for them at the end of the game with the short pass going out of bounce. Thankfully, things ended will for us.

 

[revkev73]

Yes they did. And I would like to make clear that I'm not saying it was a smart move. I'm just saying it wasn't stupid. It's pretty common to slow down on 3rd down of a 2 minute drill. I would bet over half of the coaches would have slowed down there. He just slowed down a little too much for the 2nd straight time. The first one was extremely dumb. The last one was a little bit short of perfect. That's all in my opinion of course.

My preference is, I like to remain aggressive, rather lose that way than waiting for that last second TD or FG to end with results that don't have a happy ending.

 

[blubberhawk]

I think if its 3rd and medium, you run enough time off the clock to make it kinda tough to score a td but not impossible. I dont remember how much time was left bit I do remember thinking it was smart to run it down some, then thinking they ran it down a little too much. I also remember one friend being pissed about it and me saying "I dont hate it, but I dont love it either". If it was my decision, I would have definitely run some time off, but not as much as they did.

On the flip side, at the end of the game they were aggressive and people still got pissed. Anyone who has ever watched an iowa prevent defense knows that whether there is 50 seconds on the clock for a last drive or a minute and a half left, they both end the same way. A field goal attempt. In my opinion, throwing a pass there and trying to get a 1st down was the right play. Calling a play to the short side of the field was terrible tho.

This decision has nothing to do with being a defeatist. It's about playing odds.

Aggressively trying to get the first down with 1:37 to go was good. Running the play to the short side of the field was stupid.
Run the roll out to the wide side of the field. If the receiver is WIDE OPEN, throw to him. If not, protect the ball, get what you can and go down...and keep the damn clock running.