coin flip=offense, bad decision IMO

hawkinn3 said:
I am sure he makes mistakes quite a bit but nobody on here has enough knowledge to know why he does what he does or certainly not to say he was wrong just based on results.

I am of the belief the best way to shut up a hostile crowd is to go and score on them.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Plus Iowa has showed the last two games that they could march down the field & score on the first drive.

Remember back in 2002 when it seemed Iowa scored on the opening drive in nearly every game. Brings back memories.
 
I have always hated Kirk taking the ball instead of deferring when winning the coin toss. I like the possibility of scoring right before halftime and again to start the second half.
 
83Hawk said:
I have always hated Kirk taking the ball instead of deferring when winning the coin toss. I like the possibility of scoring right before halftime :confused: and again to start the second half.
Click to expand...

It doesn't quite work like that, though. Yes, you are assured of getting the ball first in the 2nd half, but there is no way you can be assured that you get the ball right before halftime or the last drive of the half.

There is just no way to dictate the game. Anything can happen. Sorry, but that statement just did not make sense to me.
 
It's fine to have an opinion on whether you like having the ball first or not but it makes no difference on the outcome of any game(unless you can predict a 3 and out blocked punt of course).:rolleyes:
 
MelroseHawkins said:
There is just no way to dictate the game. Anything can happen. Sorry, but that statement just did not make sense to me.
Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense? He specifically stated that he liked the possibility.

When you look at what happened Saturday night, it was virtually a nightmare scenario. We took the ball, had a 3 and out, punt blocked, they get a TD. At the end of the half, Arizona drives for a field goal, we can't do anything with the few seconds left, and then Arizona gets the ball back after the half. Thankfully, we only allowed a single first down to Arizona for that post-halftime drive.

I don't pretend to say it's right or wrong to take the ball every time to start the game. But, I do know that there are situations where I have to wonder whether we are better served in kicking it away.
 
I think that taking the ball first is smart. But in this case since we lost Im totally against it. Also Im against punting that is if we get it blocked. I was also against all passing that ended up being intercepted. Just kidding....But seriously Im against playing in any game that has ended in a loss. Now that I have let my secrets out of the bag I will sit by my phone and wait for my offer to coach the Hawks.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
It doesn't quite work like that, though. Yes, you are assured of getting the ball first in the 2nd half, but there is no way you can be assured that you get the ball right before halftime or the last drive of the half.

There is just no way to dictate the game. Anything can happen. Sorry, but that statement just did not make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said I like the *POSSIBILITY* of scoring before halftime. Never said it would definitely happen every game.
 
KF has won the toss and taken the ball 90% of the time since he has coached at Iowa. I guess you can question the strategy but its worked out pretty well over the years and KF doesnt like change
 
silvanthalas said:
What doesn't make sense? He specifically stated that he liked the possibility.
Click to expand...
silvanthalas said:
83Hawk-

Which is why I said I like the *POSSIBILITY* of scoring before halftime. Never said it would definitely happen every game.


Are you guys serious? Please, someone tell me if I'm thinking wrong. Maybe I'm not getting what you are saying or thinking clearly.

First let me preface this by saying I enjoy this debate & debating this subject & I do respectfuly honor you opinion. Seriously, maybe I am missing something.

But, there is no way to know how a 1st half is going to go. No team is assured of anything really. A team may not even get 4 possessions a half. Yes, there is a possibility that a team could get the last possession of a half, but it's also possible that the opponent could get the ball in the middle of the 2nd quarter & go on a 7 minute drive & score to end the half.

By the time the end of a whole half comes, there literally is a 50-50% chance a team could have the ball in every game. This is more chance than possibility. Coaches don't gameplan for possibilities or chance & they don't gameplan for what might happen or if they have the ball at the end of a half. So many things can happen & dictate who has the ball & how long.

I'm sorry to others for not letting this thread die, but I just don't get the logic. Again, it's a good debate. :)

KF knows he'll have the ball 100% of the time at games KO vs knowing he could have the 50% of the time right before half.

Again, KF plays the percentages & I can't argue with that
Click to expand...
 
Why should anything other than weather conditions matter in the decision to take the ball at the beginning of the game?

The excuse that our Defense is awesome, so why not have them start on the field?

This is EXACTLY why Iowa TAKES the ball at the beginning of the game. It is a FREEBIE in most cases. You get your offense on the field, a chance to score and get a head. If you don't score, your top 8 punter comes out and booms one and then your AWESOME defense comes out and stops their offense dead in their tracks.

It is an extra offensive touch. When you know your defense is great and can stop almost anyone, why wouldn't you give your offense the extra touches?

Looking at it from this perspective invalidates all reasoning that you could ever think that taking the ball at kickoff is the wrong decision. And the Arizona game is no different.

So,
Does everyone agree that Iowa has a spectacular defense? Yes.
Does everyone agree that Iowa could score on Arizona fairly easily? Yes, and they did.
Does everyone agree that you don't count on your punt getting blocked? Yes.

It would be a worse decision to not get your offense on the field right away. Let the defense take care of their offense later. Get your points and get them early.
 
HawkIU said:
Why should anything other than weather conditions matter in the decision to take the ball at the beginning of the game?

The excuse that our Defense is awesome, so why not have them start on the field?

This is EXACTLY why Iowa TAKES the ball at the beginning of the game. It is a FREEBIE in most cases. You get your offense on the field, a chance to score and get a head. If you don't score, your top 8 punter comes out and booms one and then your AWESOME defense comes out and stops their offense dead in their tracks.

It is an extra offensive touch. When you know your defense is great and can stop almost anyone, why wouldn't you give your offense the extra touches?

Looking at it from this perspective invalidates all reasoning that you could ever think that taking the ball at kickoff is the wrong decision. And the Arizona game is no different.

So,
Does everyone agree that Iowa has a spectacular defense? Yes.
Does everyone agree that Iowa could score on Arizona fairly easily? Yes, and they did.
Does everyone agree that you don't count on your punt getting blocked? Yes.

It would be a worse decision to not get your offense on the field right away. Let the defense take care of their offense later. Get your points and get them early.
Click to expand...

Damn good points. Can't argue with you there. Deferring with adverse weather conditions I can see, especially with a very strong wind.
 
Melrose, appreciate your thoughts...I will admit I did not know that ferentz pretty much always takes the ball...I thought he used to defer quite a bit. I would be interested to see the won/loss record starting with the ball vs. starting on defense. Overall it might not make a bit of difference with a large sample size. But situationally, in a one game scenario I think these things can make huge differences. I like the debate also, thank you all for contributing
 
HawkIU said:
Why should anything other than weather conditions matter in the decision to take the ball at the beginning of the game?

The excuse that our Defense is awesome, so why not have them start on the field?

This is EXACTLY why Iowa TAKES the ball at the beginning of the game. It is a FREEBIE in most cases. You get your offense on the field, a chance to score and get a head. If you don't score, your top 8 punter comes out and booms one and then your AWESOME defense comes out and stops their offense dead in their tracks.

It is an extra offensive touch. When you know your defense is great and can stop almost anyone, why wouldn't you give your offense the extra touches?

Looking at it from this perspective invalidates all reasoning that you could ever think that taking the ball at kickoff is the wrong decision. And the Arizona game is no different.

So,
Does everyone agree that Iowa has a spectacular defense? Yes.
Does everyone agree that Iowa could score on Arizona fairly easily? Yes, and they did.
Does everyone agree that you don't count on your punt getting blocked? Yes.

It would be a worse decision to not get your offense on the field right away. Let the defense take care of their offense later. Get your points and get them early.
Click to expand...
 
"it is a freebie in most cases" as in against iowa state or eastern illinois? This offense is relatively inexperienced this year against good teams.
 
I feel we win the toss we go with our strengh...... put the d on the field, give them a 3 and out and we get the ball then and on the second half kickoff! I understand what KF wants to do take the ball and score and make your oppenent catch up, but lets be realistic with our coordinators do you want Norm or KOK to start off and control the game???!!!! BE Realistic cmon!!!! how many years have we been watching these guys?
 
crews74 said:
so in your opinion if we had started the game on defense rather than offense, results would have been the same
Click to expand...

who knows...its the freaking coin flip man. In that type of game, scoring on the first drive is hard to do regardless if it was us or Arizona.
 
83Hawk said:
I have always hated Kirk taking the ball instead of deferring when winning the coin toss. I like the possibility of scoring right before halftime and again to start the second half.
Click to expand...

Real football isn't like NCAA and Madden.
 
crews74 said:
"it is a freebie in most cases" as in against iowa state or eastern illinois? This offense is relatively inexperienced this year against good teams.
Click to expand...

I am still confused at how not everyone understands my first reply.

Is their any difference offensively in having the ball 1st or 2nd? If Iowa got punted to, got the ball on the 20, do you think the outcome of the series would have changed?

I'm not saying it works everytime, obviously it doesn't, but the point is your offense gets a "freebie series in most cases" because our defense can come out and stop anyone.

BTW, Arizona's offense is no cupcake.. Why do you think the matchup of (Our Offense) vs (Their Defense) is crazy worse than (Our Devense) vs (Their Offense)?

We scored 21 points on their defense(ALL TDs) on their defense, they scored 13 points (1 TD, 2 FGs) on our defense. That doesn't sound to bad.

Our offense was not over matched by enough for there to be that much concern in the coin flip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top