NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
It's funny, anyone with a sense of how that game was going could have told you that the FG, stop, TD scenario was going to be next to impossible to complete.
HN TV: KF on FG Down 8, Recruiting Policy
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
It's funny, anyone with a sense of how that game was going could have told you that the FG, stop, TD scenario was going to be next to impossible to complete.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. Say Iowa scores & gets the two. UW gets the ball with probably 2-4 minutes left and there is a good chance they are looking to drive down the field and get a FG. That's because they have a coach who has the guts to go for the win with a freshman QB. Anyways, under that scenario Iowa could get a stop, interception, or fumble, and get in FG range to win the game.
CPHAWK82
Well-Known Member
Kirk's explanation on the FG is....whatever. It does basically come down to two scenarios. Personally, I would of went the other route, but neither scenario had a very high likelihood of success.
Listening to Greg's video...however was quite mind numbing. Talk about being stubborn and not adjusting to the game you're playing. Sounded like he was actually calling plays in an attempt to increase Beathard's passing stats cause he "feels bad they're not better". Then proceeds to talk about how he has no viable weapons in the passing game. It's a coach's job to win the game and use the weapons you do have and not force a game plan to match the stat sheet you'd like to see. The o line was at least matching Wisconsin's defensive front and the backs were getting 4-5 yards. That's an acceptable offense when you're only down 1 score. I know Kirk said the running game wasn't working but the backs finished with a 4.0 YPC. Not explosive but enough to get first downs. It's not like the passing game was working either. I'd of rather seen Iowa go down swinging with their running game like the Minnesota game. If the biggest weakness in personnel is the receivers, then why rely on that in the second half of a close game? Also, if Beathard is having trouble completing passes, why give it to McCarron to try and complete a pass? I don't know....maybe that's why I don't get paid to coach.
I'm still hoping for a productive bye week and a strong finish to this season. Really would like to see Iowa go run heavy with some added wrinkles and maybe even some creativity in getting some short passes completed on occasion.
Listening to Greg's video...however was quite mind numbing. Talk about being stubborn and not adjusting to the game you're playing. Sounded like he was actually calling plays in an attempt to increase Beathard's passing stats cause he "feels bad they're not better". Then proceeds to talk about how he has no viable weapons in the passing game. It's a coach's job to win the game and use the weapons you do have and not force a game plan to match the stat sheet you'd like to see. The o line was at least matching Wisconsin's defensive front and the backs were getting 4-5 yards. That's an acceptable offense when you're only down 1 score. I know Kirk said the running game wasn't working but the backs finished with a 4.0 YPC. Not explosive but enough to get first downs. It's not like the passing game was working either. I'd of rather seen Iowa go down swinging with their running game like the Minnesota game. If the biggest weakness in personnel is the receivers, then why rely on that in the second half of a close game? Also, if Beathard is having trouble completing passes, why give it to McCarron to try and complete a pass? I don't know....maybe that's why I don't get paid to coach.
I'm still hoping for a productive bye week and a strong finish to this season. Really would like to see Iowa go run heavy with some added wrinkles and maybe even some creativity in getting some short passes completed on occasion.
Are you starting to see the light Dean?
SheagleHawk
Well-Known Member
Listening to Kirk's reply regarding the 4th and 5 just reinforces he should be a position coach, or back at some school like Maine.
I'm just saying it wasn't as obvious of a choice as people are making it out to be. You're already in position to have an almost sure thing field goal. Odds off hitting that were really high. After that you need a stop in a situation where your defense is jacked up and they are more concerned with bleeding clock and not turning it over than they are about scoring. That's a good situation to be in. Then you have to score a touchdown for the win. That's something we hadn't been able to do yet. But this time we get forced to use 4 downs instead of 3 which is a huge advantage. Also we are forced to go hurry up which we were doing really good with the whole game.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I wonder what was better. I had no faith at all we could pick up a 4th and goal from the 5. Let alone score again from the 2. Let alone win in overtime with a coach that likes to settle for field goals in ot. It's not like one option gave us a good chance to win and one gave us a shitty chance. At that point in the game we were in big trouble either way.
On the flip side, anyone who watched that game knew that scoring from the 5, then from the 2, then winning in ot was going to be next to impossible too.
theboat
Well-Known Member
In a bubble they are comparable. In reality they aren't. He is asking a team that hasn't made a big play all day to need a series of them instead of 1
hawkeyes87
Well-Known Member
I know this is just a small piece of your overall scenario, but I have to ask why you make this assumption?
One of the most frustrating / troubling things about Hawkeye football these days is the lack of emotion we see every game. Firing up the troops is another basic coaching tool this staff doesn't bother using.
I thought of that. But it you want to get into that, it actually hurts your cause. If we get the 8 points, Wisconsin actually has a better chance of winning in regulation than Iowa does. Does anyone think our defense has a chance to get a stop in a tie game with 2 minutes left? We consistently show zero resistance in those situations.
Both scenarios needed a lot of big plays to win at that point. That's what happens when you're down 8 that late in the game. In a sense, doing what Kirk did was going for the win. Doing it the other way was going for the tie. I can pretty much guarantee anyway that if we tie the game there, we end up praying for a missed field goal there just like NDSU.
I see what you're saying and agree, but one stop against a top 10 team? They would have been. The thing is, if Wisconsin had the mindset to score, jacked up or not we won't stop them. We needed Wisconsin in the mindset to bleed clock to have a chance there.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
Winner winner chicken dinner.
Not really. People act like the other way was a cakewalk. We had almost no chance to win that game either way at that point.
Kicking the FG at that point was the wrong move. Even the big KF defenders on here can see that.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Well your post is not inaccurate, however I wouldn't say on the flip side. I agree Iowa's chances of converting the 1st, scoring a TD, and converting the 2, weren't that high, but that's not really the point.
The point is which scenario gave Iowa the best chance of winning the football game. You see, that is KF's job as head coach, to put us in the best position to win football games. If you can make a logical argument for why KF made the right decision I'd love to hear it.
My guess:
A) Convert 1st down, score TD, convert 2, win in OT ~ 10% likelihood of winning game
B) Make FG (whoops), get stop, score TD ~ less than 5% chance to win game
Last edited:
hawkeyes87
Well-Known Member
Maybe the wrong move.
I think it just meant we didn't have to see the 3 yard pass on 4th & 5.
At least I like how you think here. Way better than "kirk sucks so he must be wrong here".
I think your numbers are pretty decent except one thing. If we tie it up, we put Wisconsin in a position to want to score. Against an Iowa D who can't even slow NDSU down a tiny bit in that situation? Or any other offense in the Ferentz "already soft defense but sharman soft while in prevent" era. The fact that they would have marched right down the field in a tie game has to lower your 10% odds.
There is a lot to be said for putting the opposing offense in a position to want to score vs putting them in a position to feel fairly comfortable and want to bleed clock. With all that I just said, I think that closes your 10% vs 5% gap quite a bit. Which means my argument that it was a close call either way is right.
The stupid thing is, Ferentz didn't use the logic I used to make his decision. OSU in '09 proves that. He didn't factor in the odds of having to actually win the game in OT one bit there. Just the simple odds of scoring in regulation vs the odds of making it to OT if he kneels. Here he simply chose the conservative option like he always does, giving no thought in what actually gives him the best chance. I just think in this situation it didn't really matter which one he chose.
Our bend but don't break defense is designed to let a team pretty much march down the field until the get in the red zone where we tighten up because we don't have to fear the big play. It puts us in a horrible position when all the other team needs is a field goal to win. Does anyone remember '12 when Purdue went something like 30 yards in 10 seconds to get in field goal range?
You all have been watching Iowa football for the last 18 years. You know damn well if we tie that game up, the only way we get to OT is with an unforced, terrible pass, INT, or with a missed field goal as the clock hit zero. Our soft defense made softer by going prevent stands no chance in that situation.
You all have been watching Iowa football for the last 18 years. You know damn well if we tie that game up, the only way we get to OT is with an unforced, terrible pass, INT, or with a missed field goal as the clock hit zero. Our soft defense made softer by going prevent stands no chance in that situation.
