Conservative football doesnt equal wins

I didn't say it can't win. Inferior talent can win but the majority of the time the team with the most talent wins. What do all good Iowa teams have in common? Talent. What have bad teams at Iowa had? A lack of talent. What has stayed consistent? Conservative Kirk.

Dave, don't be so disrespectful to the word conservative. Conservative and dumb don't have the same meaning. ;)

FreedComanche
 
"I disagree."

-Nick Saban.

People love to make this counter, but Iowa isn't playing with that caliber of player. And in any case, I think Alabama plays more aggressively, especially on defense, than Iowa does. More blitzing, more physical pass coverage, etc.
 
People love to make this counter, but Iowa isn't playing with that caliber of player. And in any case, I think Alabama plays more aggressively, especially on defense, than Iowa does. More blitzing, more physical pass coverage, etc.

This boy gets it. Give him a cookie.

FreedComanche
 
I said it doesnt equal wins.....not that you cant win being conservative. I think its very telling that Iowa was +12 and won 4 games. It means that holding on to the ball soo much because you are scared of the thought of a turnover doesnt work.

Wrong. It means that when you have a crap-load of 3-and-outs you don't have many turnovers.

Either way, that's last season. As in, flush it.
 
Those stats are deceiving. But it is amazing that NU (the original, not UNL) forced 29 turnovers. But irregardless, the stats are deceiving because Iowa's offense had a ton of 3 and outs or very short drives behind the leadership of Greg Davis. Heck, a 3 and out is almost as bad as a turnover and I don't want to see where Iowa ranked in those. Anyways, Iowa's offense had relatively few opportunities to turn the rock over and Iowa's defense had a LOT of plays on which to try to force turnovers. You put a standard O'Keefe offense in place and give it a +12 TO margin on the season and you've got a 7 or 8 win ballclub.

7 or 8 win? Try 9/10 or more.

For any/all his faults, KOK had some genius moments. Those denying that aren't capable of writing a post worth reading.
 
Are you saying that NW brand of football isn't conservative? Short passing game is effectively conservative.

Also - how many top ten national finishes does beaver teeth have? how many bowl wins? bcs bowl wins?

nice try hokclarinet, but you swing and miss yet again.
 
7 or 8 win? Try 9/10 or more.

For any/all his faults, KOK had some genius moments. Those denying that aren't capable of writing a post worth reading.

Stop trolling, dude. That defense last year was awful. I think 8 wins was prolly the ceiling, but then again, the schedule was pretty soft so maybe 9-10 would have been within reach.
 
Conservative football usually equals close games. Close games are more winnable than play risky football with inferior talent and getting blown out every game.
 
People love to make this counter, but Iowa isn't playing with that caliber of player. And in any case, I think Alabama plays more aggressively, especially on defense, than Iowa does. More blitzing, more physical pass coverage, etc.


I would wager that if Sabin was less conservative, his wins would be even more lopsided. Kinda like the hawks in 09.
 
Conservative football usually equals close games. Close games are more winnable than play risky football with inferior talent and getting blown out every game.

Close games are also more loseable when you are the better team. Kirk being ultra conservative didn't bother me much last year. It bothered me in 09.
 
Classic. You are using the years total, not a game by game look at TO. Crack open that fortune cookie and take a look. Yearly totals don't tell the tail. For instance Iowa was only 3-4 when they won the TO battle. Iowa was 1-1 when they tied in the TO battle, and they were 0-3 when they lost the TO battle.

It is a pretty clear winning the TO battle in games leads to wins. Iowa didn't have much of a chance at all to win a game if they lost the TO battle (0-3) They at least had a punchers chance in the games they won or tied the TO battle 4-5 (4 of the 5 losses were by 3 pts or less)

This post would make more sense if we were playing more conservative during the games we won the turnover battle and less conservative during the games we lost it. All this shows is playing conservative didn't really help win the turnover battle.
 
"Playing conservative" or playing aggressively are not directly correlated to turnovers. Poor execution of aggressive play just has different negative outcomes than poor execution of conservative play. (or poor choices within those disparate strategies) Turnovers are just a simple, obvious one that's easy to measure.

There are many potential negative outcomes from "playing conservative". Lost opportunities and lost momentum are more difficult to identify and measure...but every bit as real as a simple turn-over in possession. In some cases, they have more of a total affect on the outcome of a game than a fumble or INT.

Wayne Gretzy said it best: "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, especially when you punt from the other team's 32". (I think that was all his)

And apparently many here need some fundamental statistics and logic education. Using an outlier or extreme does not a representative example make. (ie: Alabama under Nick Saban)
 
I've decided that OOTH is the most negative poster on this board. I don't know how you can look at this roster, and not see that talent that's been brought in the past 3 seasons. Yes, the recruiting was not very good the two seasons prior to that, but we do have talent on the roster, and I think it will start to show this season. We probably won't finish better than 6-6, but the talent is there, and I definitely think we'll see a different product on the field this season. Maybe it's false hope, but I'm optimistic when I look at this roster.
 
I've decided that OOTH is the most negative poster on this board. I don't know how you can look at this roster, and not see that talent that's been brought in the past 3 seasons. Yes, the recruiting was not very good the two seasons prior to that, but we do have talent on the roster, and I think it will start to show this season. We probably won't finish better than 6-6, but the talent is there, and I definitely think we'll see a different product on the field this season. Maybe it's false hope, but I'm optimistic when I look at this roster.

I'm optimistic for a steak dinner.
 
I love steak. And medium rare....although, I'm more of an A-1 gal....but if it's good steak...you don't need sauce. You think we can get good steak in California? Florida?

In California? No way. Those cows are fed that hippie grass where they don't use unnatural methods to make the meat taste better. We need that jacked up Iowa beef that causes cancer as it slowly enters your stomach. I can do A1. Maybe some Worcestershire sauce as well? Spicy variety?
 

Latest posts

Top