Brian Ferentz on Clock Management

[hawkeyes87]

Multiple NFL offense have the same offense philosophy that KF

Since KF's "offensive philosophy" is "no turnovers", wouldn't it be more accurate to say "every NFL team's offensive philosophy includes KF's philosophy"?

 

[DDThompson]

But you are bringing emotion into it.

Talking about, "faith in your team" and "defeatist attitudes." Those things certainly matter, because football is an emotional game. But the Bill Belichek's of the world try to make these decisions as analytically and devoid of emotion as possible. The only question is, "What is the projected net point differential, i.e. points we are likely to score vs. points they are likely to score, if I select option A vs. option B?"

Now I am not going to take a side as to which decision is right in this case. But I think it is pretty clear that both are justifiable.

Iowa got inside ISU's 25 yard line 5 times, and they only got 1 TD out of those. If we take away end of 1st half and chalk that failure to get into the endzone as bad time-management, that is still only 1 out of 4 RZ opportunities turned into TDs. So it is safe to say ISU was pretty stingy in keeping us out of the EZ. So say they start using their timeouts after Smith's catch for a 1st down at ISU 35 (about 2 minutes left). If they do so and fail to get a 1st down, ISU has a minute left. If they do so and turn it over, ISU has more time left. If they do so and get a 1st down, they have more time to take shots at the endzone, but as we saw throughout the rest of the game, there is no guarantee that leads to a TD. I said I wouldn't take sides, but I actually think they should have started taking TOs earlier, not because they would have absolutely scored a TD, but because a 40+ yards FG is substantially lower probability than a <40 yard FG.

And you mention we had only given up 1 big play for a TD to that point, implying, "What are the odds they would give up another one in 40 seconds before half?" Well, ISU's first drive of the 2nd half was 2 plays, 76 yards, and less than a minute. So, it is certainly not beyond the realm of reason.

So are people upset because it was the wrong decision, or because it wasn't the gutsy decision?

I think mostly the latter. Whether it was right or wrong is very debatable, and I don't think anyone has enough information that they could have said conclusively, in the moment, that taking the TOs at 2 minutes absolutely would led to a higher projected net point differential than not taking the TOs.

If people are upset because it wasn't the gutsy call, they are right. But gutsy is not always right, and sometimes emotions get in the way of good decision-making. But on the flip side, football is an emotional game, and perhaps making that call energizes the Hawks and demoralizes ISU. I tend to side more with the school of thought that things like emotion and momentum are overrated for a well-coached, focused team, but I am not so naive as to think they don't matter at all.

It was the wrong call.

Even if you don’t score a TD, a 32yd FG is a higher % scoring chance than a 45yd FG.

There is 0% chance of scoring a TD if you don’t try to score a TD.

 

[DDThompson]

Since KF's "offensive philosophy" is "no turnovers", wouldn't it be more accurate to say "every NFL team's offensive philosophy includes KF's philosophy"?

No. That’s not his offensive philosophy.

 

[blubberhawk]

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.

I had no problem with them going for the first down, just the call to the short side of the field.

 

[PCHawk]

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.

So do I. But you forgot to factor in the odds of getting the first down. If you know for sure you aren't going to get the first down, and you know the player is for sure going to go out of bounds, you obviously want the latter scenario. But you don't know those things until you run the play. Factoring odds is way easier after you have more information huh?

 

[blubberhawk]

So do I. But you forgot to factor in the odds of getting the first down. If you know for sure you aren't going to get the first down, and you know the player is for sure going to go out of bounds, you obviously want the latter scenario. But you don't know those things until you run the play. Factoring odds is way easier after you have more information huh?

But a coach should know that the odds of a play ending up out of bounds is far greater when you are rolling to the short side of the field..Oh well, all is well that ends well.

 

[HawkGold]

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.

I don't doubt the read but there was a huge amount of luck. I just don't buy the sugar coated version.

 

[PCHawk]

But a coach should know that the odds of a play ending up out of bounds is far greater when you are rolling to the short side of the field..Oh well, all is well that ends well.

I agree with that. It never should have been short of the sticks and to the short side of the field. I don't care either way about the clock management in that game and I actually like the call to throw on 3rd down, but the play call was either bad or ot was a really bad route.

 

[Northside Hawk]

I don't doubt the read but there was a huge amount of luck. I just don't buy the sugar coated version.

You could say that luck contributed to all four of our losses last year. It's just that none of those games were decided on the last play (Purdue was the closest).

 

[GesterHawk]

I love your idea of spreading out the offense when in the red zone or close to it. It opens up the field and gives the QB room to operate. I also agree that Martin is a better weapon of choice over the tight ends.

Regarding the comments that Brian made about not playing Martin more, I felt bad for Martin. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. The way he phrased made it sound like Martin is way down the food chain. A simple “Martin is still learning the play book and making great progress. We hope to utilize his skills as often as we can.” Brian needs to pause and think things through before just saying the first thing that comes into his head.

Come on, you know damn well.a response like that would be equally as lampooned by our fanbase for being coachspeak.
I am guessing you might even be leading that charge.

 

[kicker22]

Gold!

Not all fulls are equally fullish, obviously!

Sorry but this made me laugh.

 

[kicker22]

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.

While I do agree, I disagree that it ultimately doesn't matter. I totally get your point, but at the same time if they've addressed that clock management has been piss poor, then they need to clean it up before it does come back to bite them. There were problems with the coverage, which I'm sure were addressed. I'm sure they address problems they see with the running game or blocking schemes etc... despite the fact that it hasn't cost them a game, IMO this is no different. Failing to address mistakes don't fix mistakes. That's not a shot at our coaches or our game plan, but rather reality. It may not have cost us a game, but if it's been addressed by the staff and happened in 2 of 3 games chances are it could come back to bite us.

 

[hawkeyes87]

all four of our losses last year. It's just that none of those games were decided on the last play

??

< cough Penn St cough >

 

[Northside Hawk]

??

< cough Penn St cough >

!!

That last play loss to Penn State was <cough in 2017-two years ago cough>

 

[DDThompson]

So do I. But you forgot to factor in the odds of getting the first down. If you know for sure you aren't going to get the first down, and you know the player is for sure going to go out of bounds, you obviously want the latter scenario. But you don't know those things until you run the play. Factoring odds is way easier after you have more information huh?

Not really. You can factor these odds easily.
Which is more likely to be tackled by th out of bounds line:

If you have the ball at the left hash mark the closest out of bounds is 60’ away and the farther out of bounds is 100’ away.

 

[hawkeyes87]

!!

That last play loss to Penn State was <cough in 2017-two years ago cough>

Nah, actually I was misremembering that last year the interception from the PSU 3 (Fant not looking) was the last play.

Nevermind !

 

[oldhawk12]

Since KF's "offensive philosophy" is "no turnovers", wouldn't it be more accurate to say "every NFL team's offensive philosophy includes KF's philosophy"?

There isn’t a team at any level wants turnovers. Kirk has coached at times so conservatively that he has dumbed personnel and the offense down far enough as well as disciplining turnovers to an extreme that it has turned Iowa football at times into being unwatchable. He’s opened it up in his own way but it doesn’t come natural and isn’t like he’s some innovator or matching game, recruiting and personnel management with it. It’s just not in the cards for him. And Brian is a bull in a china shop in all facets. He’ll be more unexpected but not necessarily in a good way and has didn’t get the “aw shucks” gene from dad that might have carried him for a while as it has his father

 

[CP87]

Not really. You can factor these odds easily.
Which is more likely to be tackled by th out of bounds line:

If you have the ball at the left hash mark the closest out of bounds is 60’ away and the farther out of bounds is 100’ away.

The defense knows that, too. They very likely set the strength of the defense to the field-side in that situation.


In retrospect, it was a dumb call. Prospectively, it was a less dumb call (but still pretty dumb). It would have been brilliant if it would have worked.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

While I do agree, I disagree that it ultimately doesn't matter. I totally get your point, but at the same time if they've addressed that clock management has been piss poor, then they need to clean it up before it does come back to bite them. There were problems with the coverage, which I'm sure were addressed. I'm sure they address problems they see with the running game or blocking schemes etc... despite the fact that it hasn't cost them a game, IMO this is no different. Failing to address mistakes don't fix mistakes. That's not a shot at our coaches or our game plan, but rather reality. It may not have cost us a game, but if it's been addressed by the staff and happened in 2 of 3 games chances are it could come back to bite us.

Kirk has failed to EXECUTE clock management for decades now.

At least finally someone in the family is willing to take responsibility.

For Kirk that is.

 

[DDThompson]

The defense knows that, too. They very likely set the strength of the defense to the field-side in that situation.


In retrospect, it was a dumb call. Prospectively, it was a less dumb call (but still pretty dumb). It would have been brilliant if it would have worked.

agree.

and it's completely assanine if ISU scores instead of tackling the same-colored jersey.


My biggest gripe is the argument with KF's philosophy and BF's answers are that if they are going to play the conservative percentages to maximize win probabilities then do it.

Passing
to a TE
on the short side of the field (and we see receivers lose where they are on the field all the time)

does not increase win percentages while still being conservative. rushing up the gut. throwing to wide side are better percentages than that call.