HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Snicker.. his father?
Dear Kirk
- Thread starter Bigtenchamp
- Start date
DP5555
Well-Known Member
The OP is an unfortunate example of the fact people will ALWAYS find something to complain about. Way to be that guy man. Kirk has changed virtually everything. The Hawks are rallying together and fighting as a team. Yet you still find something to whine about. You're a real gem.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Spike it. Yes. It's all about odds. What are the odds of hitting a 50+ field goal compared to a 40+ field goal, for example. Or even a TD. Any chance of the spike getting intercepted? No? Does the Iowa staff not have confidence in the referees getting it right a la Wisconsin last year, for example? What, the coaching staff wouldn't have had enough time to decide and get the next play in on time? Can the Iowa staff call multiple plays at once?
These are all things the Iowa coaching staff should be practicing (until they get it right). Execution, execution, execution. Why do they wait until game day to think about them? To Ferentz through them?
I don't want a entertaining game. I want a win.
Last edited:
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
The muscian?
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
You want to play the odds? OK, what are the odds that our offense, not some NFL offense, gets more yards running two plays instead of running 3?
What good is an additional 7 seconds when we kicked a FG on 4th down?
seepig
Well-Known Member
All I can say it appears that taking Kirk off the fundraising road and placing him in the position for which he gets $4M/yr. is paying dividends. Maybe whomever gave him his travel fundraising assignment should be culpable. Dr. Gary Barta....it's been nice knowing you now hasta la vista baby.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that whole Beathard family has some football knowledge and experience.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Read the first part of #83 again.
Spiking the ball gives Pitt a little more time to substitute and maybe allow Narduzzi to set up a special blitz. A sack and we're going to overtime. Run the play right away and in the confusion maybe you catch one of the Pitt defenders being out of position.
Pretty good arguments can be made from both sides, but you cannot definitively claim bad clock management. To me, a lot of posts in this thread have the flavor of "Great we won, but I still gotta take my shot at Curt Furrence 'cause I hate him"
KF haters, don't worry, we're likely to lose one within the next few weeks. Keep your powder dry.
Pretty good arguments can be made from both sides, but you cannot definitively claim bad clock management. To me, a lot of posts in this thread have the flavor of "Great we won, but I still gotta take my shot at Curt Furrence 'cause I hate him"
KF haters, don't worry, we're likely to lose one within the next few weeks. Keep your powder dry.
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
But why go with the musician instead of the NFL GM.
Odd choice. Maybe someone should start a thread to over examine this choice.
In hindsight your choice may have worked out, but I don't agree with it.
I totally would have gone with the Grandfather NFL GM.
So that means it was the exact wrong response.
I think we need to fire Homerchampless. He has such a history of wrong responses.
This latest wrong response could have cost us the thread, though it didn't.
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
Yep, I see what you are saying, but disagree in the fact that stopping the clock and burning a down does anything for us besides taking away a down.
Your whole argument is that by stopping the clock it will automatically mean the offense will get more yards. I just don't see it that way. Running more plays, for the most part, leads to more yards.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
So now people are going to say Tate to Holloway was good clock mangement?
To me this thread (though I'm laughing that it ended up this long... because I never thought it would) is a pretty clear case study on people's perception being changed by a win or a loss.
So many times we have had bad clock management that cost us games... we all know it.
When you win anyone who questions anything is dumb... when you lose everyone who questions everything is smart.
It's just so bad.
I'm not "bashing" kirk. Asking Kirk to teach his QB's to learn how to spike the ball isn't "bashing."
Now some people just don't think clocking the ball there mattered - that's fine and I get their arguments.
I'm not the one making it into some huge personal statement.
proudhawkfan21
Well-Known Member
Listen to cjb's post game audio...unless you think he's a liar, the hawks work on this all the time in practice. They ran it the way they practice it. Comparing this to the cap one play is actually appropriate..say we go to spike it and there is a procedure penalty...clock winds when ball is ready for play and even more time runs off the clock. Be thankful in the improvements thst led to us actually having a timeout left to use to have a chance at a FG attempt.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
Who?
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
I find it incredible that so many are willing to overlook a clock management mistake simply because it didn't cost us. The same scenario did cost us against Wiscy in 2010. Don't let the fact that we won shade your eyes from the truth.
Look, Iowa has played really well these first 3 games and, as others have said, just the fact that we didn't kneel down for OT is a big improvement. However, these clock management mistakes can and will come back to haunt you. We saw it just last week with no points at the end of the half at ISU.
Look, Iowa has played really well these first 3 games and, as others have said, just the fact that we didn't kneel down for OT is a big improvement. However, these clock management mistakes can and will come back to haunt you. We saw it just last week with no points at the end of the half at ISU.
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
And I don't understand why some on this board are unwilling to understand that some people don't believe it was a mistake. They aren't overlooking it as they don't see it as a mistake.
There were hundreds of ways to coach that last drive. But there were only three outcomes: win, tie, or lose due to a catastrophic mistake.
The coaches chose how they were going to coach the last drive and the best possible outcome occurred.
I understand both sides. But really it was a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.
So you would have coached it differently. Good for you. Don't go around acting like people are happy sheep just because we won and they disagree with you. Any of the hundreds of way of coaching that drive could have ended up with any of those outcomes.
At least we didn't just take a knee. We played to win.
shonblatt
Well-Known Member
Can Kirk do better at clock management? Absolutely. We all know this.
But sometimes you do everything right and still lose.
Sometimes you do everything wrong and win anyway. The 2005 CapOneBowl is the best example of this. That was a MUCH WORSE comedy of errors that inadvertently fooled LSU into a blown coverage that allowed Holloway to get open. It was pure dumb luck.
But some teams just have that special mojo to pull out close wins. So far, this looks like maybe it could be one of them.
Should Iowa QBs know how to and be allowed to use the spike to save precious seconds? Absolutely, yes.
But that's no guarantee that we'd have wound up getting a closer FG attempt last night, or even that we'd have still won the game.
In my view, you're nitpicking. Save it for the next game when it actually costs us.
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that if that 1st down play, which was reviewed, was an actual catch we are already in fg range, with time remaining to further improve our position.
Not saying that we have improved our time mgmt entirely, but a) we have in fact improved our time mgmt, and 2) we certainly are allowed to mix it up in our "2 minute offense", so as to not be so predictable next time (purposely intended or not).
Not saying that we have improved our time mgmt entirely, but a) we have in fact improved our time mgmt, and 2) we certainly are allowed to mix it up in our "2 minute offense", so as to not be so predictable next time (purposely intended or not).
Deciding if a decision was right or wrong based on if we won the game or not is a really really dumb arguement. The decision should be made based on what gives us the best chance to win. In this situation you have to weigh how much time you're willing to lose against losing a down. If it was only 7 seconds, I think it was a 50/50 call. If a call is 50/50, it can't be classified as a bad decision. If it only cost 3-5 seconds it would have definitely been the right call. If it cost us 10 or more seconds it definitely would have been the wrong call. In my opinion, the decision was worth debating but not worth criticizing.
One last thing. Saying that we threw 2 incomplete passes and it would have been 4th down had we clocked it is using hindsight and has no place in a discussion on what gave us the best chance to win at the time.
One last thing. Saying that we threw 2 incomplete passes and it would have been 4th down had we clocked it is using hindsight and has no place in a discussion on what gave us the best chance to win at the time.
Billso
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
The clock and downs were managed CORRECTLY by the coaching staff yesterday. For a change. You can make a case for the spike option but it's a push at best, due to the tradeoff: losing a down, and giving the defense time to react. As PC says, worth debating but not criticizing.
Meyer, by contrast, blew a full 38 seconds in the closing seconds. More egregious than anything I've seen from KF - and there are plenty to choose from.
Last edited:
