One of the hardest loses in years was Wisconsin 2010. It was the game that many people say started the downward spiral. We lost any chance at a win when we called timeout after getting a 1st down instead of clocking it. The timeout saved 1 or 2 seconds but saved us a down that we didn't have time to use anyway. We got into field goal range but could do nothing but watch the clock run out.
Dear Kirk
- Thread starter Bigtenchamp
- Start date
One of the hardest loses in years was Wisconsin 2010. It was the game that many people say started the downward spiral. We lost any chance at a win when we called timeout after getting a 1st down instead of clocking it. The timeout saved 1 or 2 seconds but saved us a down that we didn't have time to use anyway. We got into field goal range but could do nothing but watch the clock run out.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
Gester, since you're being a twit, why don't you name just 100 of the "hundreds" of ways there were to coach the final drive.
If we had spiked the ball with 24 seconds left, we would have had an extra 4 seconds on the clock for CJ's 3rd down scramble. Go rewatch it if you can. CJ had a lane and a cutback lane on the sideline and could have gained another 5 or so yards instead of having to dive to the turf to call time out with 2 seconds. You may want to live off of 57 yard field goals, but I'd rather try a 50 yarder.
I sure hope this type of clock mismanagement doesn't bite us, this season. Sometimes everything isn't peachy because you win. I suppose the blocked punt doesn't matter because we won and it didn't wind up costing us?
Last edited:
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
It took 9 seconds to get the play in, called, run and executed. It was a 10 yard pass to the sideline with Smith already standing on the sideline, almost. It was an large quantity of time for a 10 yard pass play.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Wow dude, just wow is right. Do you even read what you post? I didn't even respond to you until you racked up all these beauties. You were not claiming it was a "strategy discussion". You were calling it terrible clock management. Maybe after you opened your eyes and read some of my post, you might have come around to realizing it was a strategy decision, but this is how you started the thread before I even called you out:
I would LOLOL the way you are trying to re write the history of this, but you would consider that bullying, and I'm not a bully.....I'm just a dude who gets tired of stupid, and I got tired of your particular stupid of calling this terrible clock management, when it won us the game
Knight78
Well-Known Member
This.
Knight78
Well-Known Member
Provided the outcome of the plays was the same, no they could not. If the first play is a "clock" they gain no yardage. 2nd and 10, with the same call as we had with 1st and 10, incomplete pass - no yardage. 3rd and 10, with the same call as we had with 2nd and 10, incomplete pass - no yardage, 4th and 10 and we're looking at a 65 yard FG attempt or going for it with at most 5 seconds left.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
What are you even talking about? You were like the 4th post in the thread.
Why don't you call the other multiple people in the thread "stupid" or "idiots"
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
pretending you started the thread to discuss the "strategy merits" of clocking the ball Vs running a play is a pretty big stretch. I'd LOL, but that seems to upset you. Just admit that you freaked out, called it terrible clock management, and that my posts and others posts disagreeing with you made you realize it should have been a strategy discussion.
The 4th and 10 would have been the CJ run. So there would have been however much time was left for that play, I'm thinking it was around 10 seconds, plus the 4 seconds or so they would have saved by clocking it on 1st down. If CJ didn't get a 1st down with his run than we obviously couldn't have run another play but the post you quoted of mine was a rebuttal to Dean arguing on if the spike would have saved us enough time to run another play. The time would have been there but if everything played the exact same, we would have been out of downs.
And a good discussion at that. I know this thread is half filled with "who cares we won" and "some people always have to find something to complain about" posts. But these types of debates are fun and the reason I come here in the first place.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I still think that clocking the ball wouldn't have saved as much time as you and others are claiming. I have re watched that drive several times, and the fastest play we ran was 6 seconds (both plays we called TO when the player was down). The other plays took 7 seconds (incomplete passes and CJ's run out of bounds). You have to run at least 1 second to clock the ball, and possibly 2 seconds. Then the next play you run would take at best 6 seconds if you look at all the other plays in the drive. That is a total of 7 or even 8 seconds taken off the clock to run 1 play when you clock the ball (plus you lose a down). Instead of doing this, Iowa didn't clock the ball and it took 9 seconds.
All interesting stuff, and a discussion that is much more fun since we won!
I still think that clocking the ball wouldn't have saved as much time as you and others are claiming. I have re watched that drive several times, and the fastest play we ran was 6 seconds (both plays we called TO when the player was down). The other plays took 7 seconds (incomplete passes and CJ's run out of bounds). You have to run at least 1 second to clock the ball, and possibly 2 seconds. Then the next play you run would take at best 6 seconds if you look at all the other plays in the drive. That is a total of 7 or even 8 seconds taken off the clock to run 1 play when you clock the ball (plus you lose a down). Instead of doing this, Iowa didn't clock the ball and it took 9 seconds.
All interesting stuff, and a discussion that is much more fun since we won!
5-6 seconds ran off the clock from the time they spot the ball to the time they snapped it. If it takes 1-2 seconds to clock it, which i agree with, that means that not clocking it cost somewhere between 3-5 seconds. Not sure why you bring how long the 1st down play took into the discussion but if really 2as only 9 seconds from the time they started the clock to the time they stopped it after the incomplete pass, that means the actual play only took 3-4 seconds.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I say it because it is a designed play to Smith to the outside that is a quick throw. It is designed to be a very quick play, something Iowa hadn't run the whole drive before or after. I doubt very much they call a real quick play if they clock the ball.
Either way, like I said an interesting debate. I think it was obvious that Iowa has spent a considerable amount of time working/thinking about clock management and drives at the end of games and end of halves. In 3 games Iowa now has a 5 play 40 yard drive for a FG in 37 seconds vs Ill. St. at the end of the 1st half. Iowa had a 7 play 78 yard drive in 2:18 seconds vs ISU that set them up for a fake FG at the end of the 1st half. Then against Pitt they had a 7 play, 31 yard 44 second drive that led to a game winning FG.
3 games, 3 great drives that put the team in position to get critical points, I'm not sure what the point is of a thread to bash on clock management when this team is getting it done in late game/late half situations.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
And how blind allegiance to the head coach can get in the way of rational thought. For an example of this, read the last paragraph of post #194.
There will come at time. Maybe not in the ISU game or the Pitt game (hindsight is sometimes 20-40) but end of half clock management will be an issue. It will be an issue because the Iowa staff is unprepared to handle clock management at the end of halves. Bad clock management will end up losing ball games.
Maybe Iowa's persistent 'conservatism' over the years of KF's tenure was a symptom of bad clock management? That Iowa wasn't going to do something because the Iowa staff couldn't do it well?
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
As opposed to how blind hatred to the head coach can get in the way of rational thought for you? In the face of overwhelming evidence that the staff is doing a great job in end of half/end of game drives, you still want to poo poo it. Why? They are 3 for 3. Heck make it 4 for 4 if you count plunging a dagger into the heart of ISU at the end of the game instead of sitting on the ball. First by throwing the TD pass, instead of trying to milk the clock and play for a last second FG. Then they also ran the ball to score after the pick instead of sitting on it.
You have to have a lot of blind hatred to not see the differences between this year and years past so far in the way the team is coached. I could go down a list of easy to see things that are different....but it would take a rational fan to acknowledge these, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you that anything is different.
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
We can expand this even further.....
Take a look at Paul Rhoad's decision to punt on 4th and 6 inches on our side of the field.....what was the result of that for us? A touchdown. Narduzzi does the same thing.....4th and inches on our side of the field.....end result for us? Touchdown. How many times in the past 15 years has the roles there been reversed? Too many to count. It's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change and it's awesome to see the aggressiveness at the end of halves and end of games.
Honestly, the haters just need to take the blinders off and realize that we aren't playing with the same deck as we were playing with the last 15 years. The run game is different, the pass game is different, the going for it on 4th down is different, the aggressiveness at the end of halves and games is different, and honestly the clock management is different (and better).....it's been a complete overhaul in concepts and it's directly led to 2 wins in the first 3 games that we would have lost in 90% of previous years. Maybe you guys should just learn to applaud it.
Take a look at Paul Rhoad's decision to punt on 4th and 6 inches on our side of the field.....what was the result of that for us? A touchdown. Narduzzi does the same thing.....4th and inches on our side of the field.....end result for us? Touchdown. How many times in the past 15 years has the roles there been reversed? Too many to count. It's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change and it's awesome to see the aggressiveness at the end of halves and end of games.
Honestly, the haters just need to take the blinders off and realize that we aren't playing with the same deck as we were playing with the last 15 years. The run game is different, the pass game is different, the going for it on 4th down is different, the aggressiveness at the end of halves and games is different, and honestly the clock management is different (and better).....it's been a complete overhaul in concepts and it's directly led to 2 wins in the first 3 games that we would have lost in 90% of previous years. Maybe you guys should just learn to applaud it.
HawkInATX
Well-Known Member
I've got a really great idea.
Let's go back to the very first play of the Illinois State game and examine all of the other millions of possible choices KF could have made to show that it was clearly the wrong call. Then we'll move to the second play.... then the third....
Let's go back to the very first play of the Illinois State game and examine all of the other millions of possible choices KF could have made to show that it was clearly the wrong call. Then we'll move to the second play.... then the third....
In the moment, I though they should have clocked it. Three years ago you would never clock it in that situation, but with the emphasis on speeding up the spotting of the ball and starting the clock over the past few years, things have gotten trickier. In order to run a play in this situation instead of clocking it, you need...
If the Hawks complete the 5 yard out, I think most would agree that it is the right call. Since the pass was incomplete, we are left wondering if 2nd and 10 after clocking the ball would have a higher probability of success than 1st and 10 without clocking it. My feeling in the moment was that it would have been, simply because your options are so limited with that rushed play if you do not clock it. In retrospect, I think it is closer to a 50/50 call, but I would still lean towards clocking it.
One thing I like about not clocking it: other teams have seen Iowa run the rushed 5 yd outs in this situation, and they will sit on the route (as Pitt was doing based upon situation). That does create the opportunity for a 4-verts pattern with out-and-ups along the sideline in a similar situation. This creates the opportunity for a huge reward with minimal risk; if the receiver is not obviously wide-open, the ball is sailed out of bounds with the only penalty being an extra 3 seconds or so.
- A play cued up and ready to go (they clearly did)
- Your players close enough to their ultimate alignment at the end of the previous play that tons of moving around pre-snap is not necessary
- Everyone on the team being immediately aware (after the last play concludes) of what is coming next
If the Hawks complete the 5 yard out, I think most would agree that it is the right call. Since the pass was incomplete, we are left wondering if 2nd and 10 after clocking the ball would have a higher probability of success than 1st and 10 without clocking it. My feeling in the moment was that it would have been, simply because your options are so limited with that rushed play if you do not clock it. In retrospect, I think it is closer to a 50/50 call, but I would still lean towards clocking it.
One thing I like about not clocking it: other teams have seen Iowa run the rushed 5 yd outs in this situation, and they will sit on the route (as Pitt was doing based upon situation). That does create the opportunity for a 4-verts pattern with out-and-ups along the sideline in a similar situation. This creates the opportunity for a huge reward with minimal risk; if the receiver is not obviously wide-open, the ball is sailed out of bounds with the only penalty being an extra 3 seconds or so.
homes
Well-Known Member
Ferentz has demonstrated very questionable, alright - awful, clock management in the past, but, to give him and his staff credit, they're better this year. At least I think they have been. I was in the stands - I didn't think they were mismanaging the clock at the end - it was clear they were trying to get to the 30-35 yard line, knowing Koehn has the leg to make that kick. The completion to Smith on the sidelines, if it happens, gives them one more play to advance the ball a bit closer, but if unsuccessful, they were in his range - the Pitt defender simply made a good play to take Smith's legs out. CJ then made a nice play to get that 7-8 yards they needed, but that's what a team needs in that situation - someone to make a play - all the perfect clock management tactics doesn't matter otherwise. Sure, an additional 5 seconds or so would have given them another shot to get it closer, but it's all hypothetical that it would have happened.
Last edited:
