BigD
Well-Known Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is 100 percent correct^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brian Ferentz on Clock Management
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is 100 percent correct^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BigD
Well-Known Member
Laughing my effing ass off.
Can anyone imagine what would happen if you did this type of shit in the NFL? Oh that’s right neither pops nor son are in the NFL ..................... go figure.
I agree. But like I said, even if they run the ball there, there's still plenty of time for ISU to get a field goal.
BigD
Well-Known Member
Thanks Rob for asking the question. It’s about time an Iowa media person showed some balls by challenging the coaching staff to be accountable for such a monumental screw up.
Production manager to assembly line employee; “Sir why did you neglect to put the pistons into the engines before installing the engine into the car?” “I wanted to get out as many cars as possible, besides my line supervisor, Gary Barta, doesn’t care since we both get paid very, very well to put out as many cars as possible.” Production manager: “Well these cars aren’t going to take us very far are they?” Employee; “Why do you worry about such things? The CEO knows how we having been doing our jobs for over twenty years and he doesn’t give a crap, so why should you?”
Thanks for being that production manager Rob. We could use a few more like you.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Both have been in the NFL and both could punch their ticket back any time they want. There are clock management gaffs all over the NFL and college football, try watching some football it is prevalent. That tells me there isn't one set manual to how to manage the clock. Brian is more aggressive, there are going to be times it doesn't work. That is why I have always been ok with being more conservative, because the bottom line is you want to maximize the % of winning. Both conservative or aggressive in situation can work and both can fail, neither is full proof.
Last edited:
blubberhawk
Well-Known Member
1:30 left from the 18 with no time outs.
45 seconds left from the 18 with no time outs.
hmm.. I like our chances about 100X better with the latter scenario.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I much prefer the latter. I will say if we do run it to 45 secs. punt it and ISU drives for a game winning FG, Iowa would get just thrashed for not going for a 1st down there though.
At the end of the first half, I think some of you are not fully accounting for the context of the situation. What ISU was doing on defense was what we like to do, but, probably even better. They were stopping the run with their front 3 while dropping 8 in coverage many times. So taking a shot into the end zone is not as simple as it sounds, because it would have taken a major break down somewhere to get something over the top. If we faced a team that was manning us up on the edges, sure, but the chances we throw an interception here is much greater than us getting a touchdown.
So what the defense gave us was the underneath stuff and they let their linebackers and their star (cash, whatever you want to call Eisworth) clean everything up. And they did a fantastic job of that. So we could score, but it was going to take time and we would have to run a lot of plays and convert on third down to score a touchdown. Sound familiar?
Now with respect to the game situation, everything is normal until we complete a pass to Brandon Smith with a little more than 2:00 left, where it was iffy if he made it out of bounds or not, which was 2nd and 10 at around midfield. So let's think about that. If we don't convert that there, it is 3rd and 10 from midfield with 2:00 left. The next play we run, and then punt to try to pin them back. What would ISU's chances of scoring here? Anyones guess but they have a good chance. But we most certainly don't call a timeout there. We convert though and are at the 35 yard line. Not quite field goal range, especially in those conditions with still 2:00 on the clock. Let's say we take our shots here and they fall incomplete, or, we run and take timeouts. Do we try a 52 yard field goal and risk giving them the ball with say, 1:30 on the clock at the 35 if we miss or kick it off to them? Again, what would their chances be to score? Probably still pretty good, they still.have three timeouts. So the next play we run and they stuff it. At this point the strategy is to run the clock down to first reduce the chances that they score on us, and comfortably here would be around 30 seconds or so I would say. So we let the clock run down to about a minute at which time we get nico for 7 yards, he stays in bounds but we are at a much more comfortable 28 yard line or 45 yard field goal. But its 3rd down. We really know at this point the chances of us scoring a touchdown are slim because of the clock, but we have also eliminated ISU's offense from scoring. That leaves 2 scenarios: first is we do what we can to get into the best field goal position we can and kick, or 2, we throw into an umbrella coverage where the chances of getting it picked is probably greater than the touchdown. In a 7-3 game and at the end of the half, the smart play is the field goal.
Is that always the wise play? Of course not, but given the situation it made sense here. Change any of those variables like the defense being in man coverage, the score being 14-3 or 21-3 or worse, we get a first down with the ragaini catch, we are at home, etc. the right play may be different.
To me the only cardinal sin we committed was running out of bounds at the end of the game. Like I told my son prior to the play that we have the option to win the game with a first down or we can kick it and let our defense try to close it out, but do not in any circumstance get out of bounds or throw an incomplete pass. We all knew that I am sure.
So what the defense gave us was the underneath stuff and they let their linebackers and their star (cash, whatever you want to call Eisworth) clean everything up. And they did a fantastic job of that. So we could score, but it was going to take time and we would have to run a lot of plays and convert on third down to score a touchdown. Sound familiar?
Now with respect to the game situation, everything is normal until we complete a pass to Brandon Smith with a little more than 2:00 left, where it was iffy if he made it out of bounds or not, which was 2nd and 10 at around midfield. So let's think about that. If we don't convert that there, it is 3rd and 10 from midfield with 2:00 left. The next play we run, and then punt to try to pin them back. What would ISU's chances of scoring here? Anyones guess but they have a good chance. But we most certainly don't call a timeout there. We convert though and are at the 35 yard line. Not quite field goal range, especially in those conditions with still 2:00 on the clock. Let's say we take our shots here and they fall incomplete, or, we run and take timeouts. Do we try a 52 yard field goal and risk giving them the ball with say, 1:30 on the clock at the 35 if we miss or kick it off to them? Again, what would their chances be to score? Probably still pretty good, they still.have three timeouts. So the next play we run and they stuff it. At this point the strategy is to run the clock down to first reduce the chances that they score on us, and comfortably here would be around 30 seconds or so I would say. So we let the clock run down to about a minute at which time we get nico for 7 yards, he stays in bounds but we are at a much more comfortable 28 yard line or 45 yard field goal. But its 3rd down. We really know at this point the chances of us scoring a touchdown are slim because of the clock, but we have also eliminated ISU's offense from scoring. That leaves 2 scenarios: first is we do what we can to get into the best field goal position we can and kick, or 2, we throw into an umbrella coverage where the chances of getting it picked is probably greater than the touchdown. In a 7-3 game and at the end of the half, the smart play is the field goal.
Is that always the wise play? Of course not, but given the situation it made sense here. Change any of those variables like the defense being in man coverage, the score being 14-3 or 21-3 or worse, we get a first down with the ragaini catch, we are at home, etc. the right play may be different.
To me the only cardinal sin we committed was running out of bounds at the end of the game. Like I told my son prior to the play that we have the option to win the game with a first down or we can kick it and let our defense try to close it out, but do not in any circumstance get out of bounds or throw an incomplete pass. We all knew that I am sure.
BigD
Well-Known Member
It’s just funny how coaches can be good at some aspects of the game and then turn around and show they can mess up some of the simplest things.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Did we really go for it or was it the only option left.
BigD
Well-Known Member
A couple of thoughts here. If they are only rushing THREE guys with 2:00 minutes left and we have FIVE offensive linemen then we could have easily rammed it down their throats by just running the ball. Stopping the clock with every first down. Eventually they would be forced to try to stop the run and go back to a standard defense. That’s when the play action would be fatal to them. They think it’s a run again and BOOM!!!!!! Surprise it’s a pass!!! That’s what the play action is designed to do.
The way people think is funny. Why do people think the opponent HAS TO SCORE right before the half when you have two whole quarters left in the game. If a team can score that quickly the why in the hell aren’t they doing it the whole game. Also, using the same methodology, if they can score a TD or field goal with that little of time left on the clock then why didn’t Brian/Kirk not go all out a try to get a first down on their second to last offensive possession???
Your trying to have it both ways here. We can’t score too quickly or turn it over too quickly because they can easily drive down the field and score before the clock expires in the first half. If that is true then no way in hell should we be playing such a conservative offense by knowingly running into eight in the box at the end of the game. SINCE we know how easily they can score on us at the end of the first half they will easily do it at the end of the second half.
No matter how you cut it this was a major coaching mistake. A mistake that I would have known better not to do when I was in the fifth grade and not getting four million dollars a year. In some ways ole Kirk and son are smart like a fox and then they turn around and can be as dumb as a rock.
D
DDThompson
Guest
1) BF, “You wish you could come away with 6 points at the end of every half but that’s just not reality.”
Yes BUT, it can not be the reality at the end of any half if you don’t even try to get 6.
2) BF, “you want to do two things. One, get a score. Two, make sure you have the last possession.”
Yes BUT, you did a nice job with 5 minutes left deep in your territory to get it to their side of the field with 2 minutes and within FG range with just under a minute left.
The reasons you gave above don’t dictate going to a prevent offense. You have a senior QB that does not throw picks and RBs that do not cough up the ball.
Therefore, simple math dictates that 6 > 3
Even in football.
Yes BUT, it can not be the reality at the end of any half if you don’t even try to get 6.
2) BF, “you want to do two things. One, get a score. Two, make sure you have the last possession.”
Yes BUT, you did a nice job with 5 minutes left deep in your territory to get it to their side of the field with 2 minutes and within FG range with just under a minute left.
The reasons you gave above don’t dictate going to a prevent offense. You have a senior QB that does not throw picks and RBs that do not cough up the ball.
Therefore, simple math dictates that 6 > 3
Even in football.
A couple of thoughts here. If they are only rushing THREE guys with 2:00 minutes left and we have FIVE offensive linemen then we could have easily rammed it down their throats by just running the ball. Stopping the clock with every first down. Eventually they would be forced to try to stop the run and go back to a standard defense. That’s when the play action would be fatal to them. They think it’s a run again and BOOM!!!!!! Surprise it’s a pass!!! That’s what the play action is designed to do.
The way people think is funny. Why do people think the opponent HAS TO SCORE right before the half when you have two whole quarters left in the game. If a team can score that quickly the why in the hell aren’t they doing it the whole game. Also, using the same methodology, if they can score a TD or field goal with that little of time left on the clock then why didn’t Brian/Kirk not go all out a try to get a first down on their second to last offensive possession???
Your trying to have it both ways here. We can’t score too quickly or turn it over too quickly because they can easily drive down the field and score before the clock expires in the first half. If that is true then no way in hell should we be playing such a conservative offense by knowingly running into eight in the box at the end of the game. SINCE we know how easily they can score on us at the end of the first half they will easily do it at the end of the second half.
No matter how you cut it this was a major coaching mistake. A mistake that I would have known better not to do when I was in the fifth grade and not getting four million dollars a year. In some ways ole Kirk and son are smart like a fox and then they turn around and can be as dumb as a rock.
Which part are you saying is a major mistake exactly? I will agree that running out of bounds, or even calling a play that could result in a player running out of bounds was a major major mistake. It may really be the players fault, but they should never been in that position. But the rest of it, I don't think it was a mistake. First of all, just because they have a three man front doesn't mean it is so easy to just ram it down their throat and get the first down. Its not that simple. Second, I never said that it was a given that ISU was going to score so easily. They would have been facing the same thing that we were facing, a prevent type of defense with a lot of guys in coverage and a stout defensive line. Maybe they would have tried to score at the end of the half, maybe not, but it probably was dependent on time more than anything. Third, I was really trying to describe the situation and context at each critical point on that last of the half drive and what we were facing. Everything is a gamble, however, there are very few situations where there is nothing to lose and everything to win. More common are situations that is everything to lose and nothing to win, and obviously it is smart to stay away from those. The remainder are in between, and at that juncture the risks outweighed the rewards.
Now, personally, I would like to have seen when we got to the 35 with 2:00 left for us to have spread them out with a 10 personnel formation because it would have spread those linebackers out. I like it a lot better than the 11 personnel because I think our 4th receiver (Martin) is a hell of a lot better and more of a weapon than any tight end we have. We could have still ran and thrown like we did, just out of a different set. But even with a different formation, the methodolgy and situation were still the same.
hawkeyes87
Well-Known Member
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
The clock management has been piss poor. The coaches have all but agreed with that. Iowa is 3-0. Ultimately, it doesn't matter and it's hard to argue that their clock management didn't get the job done when you're sitting 3-0. I'll save the outrage and superlative coaching critiquing for when it matters too.
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
A Championship team with confidence in it's abilities calls a timeout with 1:04 left in the first half BEFORE the 3rd and 4 play. I guarantee you Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and most teams in the top ten...are trying to score 6 points in plus territory with 1 minute left.
They aren't concerned with giving the ball back to the other team on their own 25 yard line with 40 seconds left. It's the first half...they aren't losing the game right there if somehow the team gets into field goal position at the end of the half. It's a losers argument that Brian Ferentz is making and shows no confidence in his offense for one, nor his defense two.
ISU had scored 7 points to that point in the game on a trick play...why would you think they were going to go down and score quickly. At that point...our defense would have been keeping everything in front of us.
They aren't concerned with giving the ball back to the other team on their own 25 yard line with 40 seconds left. It's the first half...they aren't losing the game right there if somehow the team gets into field goal position at the end of the half. It's a losers argument that Brian Ferentz is making and shows no confidence in his offense for one, nor his defense two.
ISU had scored 7 points to that point in the game on a trick play...why would you think they were going to go down and score quickly. At that point...our defense would have been keeping everything in front of us.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Again, BF has been taking notes from Belichick, who learned it from the master, Bill Parcells. The Bill brothers would try to end the half with possession as much as possible.
I'm not saying it's right, or that it always works, but that's where he's learning it from. It was enough to steal a game they could easily have lost.
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
Let me ask you, would you have been upset with Brian Ferentz if he had called the timeout prior to the 3rd and 4...then we don't get the first down and we kick the field goal. At that point, with 40 seconds left...ISU gets the ball back at the 25 since they were fair catching kickoffs. If they go down and get a field goal to go up 10-6, would you be disappointed in Brian for calling the timeout? No...you wouldn't...he was trying to score. You'd be pissed at Phil's defense for not stopping them with 40 seconds left.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
They almost scored on another trick play. They were going to try another option pass and the man Colbert was supposed to be covering had streaked past him and I don't think he had a safety behind him.
Fortunately we got pressure on the passer and forced him to eat the ball. And just as fortunately our pass defense finally came up big in the fourth quarter, holding one drive to a field goal, then getting the big stop.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Dolphin talks about the play years later on one of those Big Ten Network "best of the decade" shows. During the live play Dolph famously screams, "the clocks running and Tate doesn't know that. The games going to end on this play!"
Tate knew exactly what was going on. LSU had the wrong personnel on the field, the critical defender thought he had safety help behind him, and he let Holloway go.
Tate could have thrown a pass to Hinkel or Chandler around the 30-35 yard line and gotten the clock stopped. But he adjusted on the fly when he saw what the busted coverage in the defense had given him.
