Iowa vs OSU 2009 on BTN

[CPHAWK82]

Kirk not going for a score at the end of regulation against ISU is much more puzzling. Vandenberg was obviously prepared to run a no huddle situation.

 

[Section136]

Kirk not going for a score at the end of regulation against ISU is much more puzzling. Vandenberg was obviously prepared to run a no huddle situation.

Meh, @ISU was only his 3rd career start. If KF felt comfortable with Vandy leading a 2 min drill to win the game, he would have done it.

And the ISU game this year has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

 

[CPHAWK82]

Meh, @ISU was only his 3rd career start. If KF felt comfortable with Vandy leading a 2 min drill to win the game, he would have done it.

And the ISU game this year has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

I just wonder if it's something Kirk will ever feel comfortable doing or maybe it just goes against the percentages most times. I only bring up the ISU situation cause the end situation was similar to the game discussed in this thread.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Some good points. I never said Vandy was going to become error free if the game went to OT. My thinking is that KF wanted to get to OT and get everything slowed down for him. Asking a RS Freshman to lead a 2 minute drill at the horseshoe with a trip to the Rose Bowl on the line in his 1st career start is asking a ton.

Get to OT and he could just play a normal game, and not have to worry about getting the clock stopped, throwing close to the sidelines so the receiver could get out of bounds or running a no huddle attack. He could just do what he had been doing all game.

Granted our offensive series could not have gone much worse than it did in OT but I still think it was the right call.

That's a good point. A hurry-up offense is different than running things at a normal pace.

One other thing I was thinking of, is that starting on your 33, you need maybe 35-40 yards to get yourself in realistic FG range. But in OT, you still need to go 25 yards for a TD. Truth be told, a FG in OT typically just means that you are just going to have to play another OT - barring a forced turnover or your opponent blowing a FG. So you are almost certainly going to need a TD in OT to win the game. In regulation, the FG was all we needed. And multiple overtimes give a young QB more chances to make a big mistake. That's if the other team doesn't just score a TD and trump your FG like ISU did to us this year.

There are definitely no guarantees of success no matter which call you make in that situation, but I guess under the circumstances, I just feel there are more ways you can lose if you play for OT than if you try for the win in regulation. Or at a minimum, the consequences of a sack or turnover in OT are greatly magnified as opposed to regulation.

If we go for it in the 4th, and the possession was the same as it was in OT (disastrous), we still had the option of punting.

One thing is for sure, no matter what, if your call backfires, people will second guess you until the end of time. If it works, you look like a genius.

 

[DodgerHawki]

Rewatching the game and the context leading up to the end..

I couldn't disagree more - playing for OT under the circumstances was anything but a "no brainer".

JVB doesn't suddenly become error-proof just because the game is in OT.. He is the same player as he was in regulation and is prone to the same mistakes. There is no guarantee that he wouldn't throw a pick in overtime. And as we all know, turning the ball over in OT pretty much guarantees that you lose. That is not necessarily the case if JVB throws a pick in regulation.. It just depends where you are on the field.

Even though JVB didn't turn the ball over, OT was such a disaster that we couldn't even kick a FG. Then OSU gets the ball on their possession, already in FG range. Kick. Game over.

The Hawks had ALL of the momentum at the end of the 4th quarter, we have the ball with a chance to win, with OSU getting no guarantee of another possession. So the game would have come down to 1 possession - which was ours.

But we gave that up that advantage by allowing OSU to regain its composure for OT, and playing by a set of rules that gives each team an equal chance to win the game.

That's my 2 cents. Not sure if I will ever agree with not attempting to ride our momentum to victory when we had the chance.

it's more puzzing than ever why KF didn't really try to score. Iowa scores to tie it at 24 with 2:47 left. At that point Iowa is just thinking can't let them score. OSU gets one first down, then runs 2 plays to set up 3rd and 5 at the OSU 34 yard line. OSU calls timeout to stop the clock with 1:09 left. Pryor throws a swing pass to Herron that Spievey stops for a 3-yard loss. It's now 4th and 8 from the 34. Iowa calls timeout with 59 seconds left. At this point it certainly looks like KF wants to try and score. OSU punts a kind of shanked job, goes 36 yards and out of bounds at the Iowa 33. Iowa ball with 52 seconds left.

Iowa sends Robinson into the line, he gets nothing, and that's it. I suppose if Robinson had gained 7-8 yards Iowa would have put forth more effort in scoring, but I wonder what happened between the time Iowa took a timeout on defense and the first play on offense? Perhaps KF thought we had a punt block that could work, or they thought they had a good chance at a punt return. I guess we will never know.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Re: Rewatching the game and the context leading up to the end..

Iowa sends Robinson into the line, he gets nothing, and that's it. I suppose if Robinson had gained 7-8 yards Iowa would have put forth more effort in scoring, but I wonder what happened between the time Iowa took a timeout on defense and the first play on offense? Perhaps KF thought we had a punt block that could work, or they thought they had a good chance at a punt return. I guess we will never know.

I think that could be the case. But I don't really understand that.. running the ball KILLS the clock in that situation, and greatly reduces your chances of getting down field in time to score. If you're going to try and score, then why not pass on first down? If it's incomplete, or you take a sack, then you can hand off and kill the clock and play for OT (the way I see it).

 

[ICHawk24]

Kirk indicated after the ISU game that they were hoping Coker could rip off a decent run, then they'd go no-huddle. I imagine they had the same idea about ARob/OSU.

 

[JHHawk]

One thing that I am struck by in that game...Vandy throws a 95mph fastball and Ricky probably throws an 89mph fastball. All those drops...I think it was partially due to the difference in the kind of throw the receivers were getting. Tony had two go off his hands,one resulting in an interception. Both of Stross's drops were on fastballs. I just think receivers had not really made the adjustment yet to a different spin and speed on the balls. Too bad,because it could have made a diffence in the game.

Also, I think Iowa burned a timeout uneccessarily early in the 4th,which left them with only two. If they had three timeouts, I think they might go for it with 52 seconds to go.

 

[MisterLucky]

As the saying goes, "No guts, no glory." If I was a Buckeye fan at that game, I would have breathed a sigh of relief when I saw Iowa decide to sit on the ball in that situation.