Iowa's Final Possession

3 minutes is a life time in football. you still have the passing package in with coker, 2 splits, and a tightens. how hard is that to figure out.'
 
DuffMan said:
I'm not saying you can't make an argument that we could have run the ball there. I'm saying there is a very strong case to do what we did as well. given the distance we had to go and the time we had left I have no problems with going 5 wide .
Click to expand...

Me neither, as long as JVB makes the proper assessments/decisions/throws... Not saying it's all on him or anything.
 
If it wasn't a game where our RB wasn't having a career day, maybe going 5 wide makes sense. It doesn't make sense when play action has been working and working well.

Iowa wasn't having a problem moving the ball all game. It was having a problem once in the red zone.

To give Iowa the best shot a scoring the smart play is keep doing what has worked. How is that hard to understand?

If you don't think that formula was working think back on how many times Iowa had to punt that game...

Duff, I honestly don't know if you are serious or just adding to fictitious post count.
 
I think the decision to run the plays they did further goes to this staff's inability to handle coaching in close games late. In reality going 5-wide flies in the face of what they believe in, which is the whole "stay the course" idea.

If they had just thought about it for a second, I think they would have know to go back to a pro-style look and take their chances.

They panicked.
 
Maybe if the coaches knew the 5-wide stuff wouldn't work out due to poor execution, they would've let Coker just run it to FG range. It's obvious he was the workhorse all game, and he was gettin it done. But they needed to manage some clock.
 
these end of game scenarios are so mis-managed and always have been. Sometimes the coaches get bailed out (thanks, Drew), but more often than not, it costs IA in some way. Ultimately, this is why KF would not be a good candidate for the next level, unless he lets someone else make that call. He would get blasted by the Chicago press for things like holding on to timeouts and taking a knee and going 5 wide when you have 200+ yds running the ball the first 3 quarters and only need a field goal. Seriously, I would actually pay to watch KF try his sarcasm on the Chi-twn press.
 
I think the play calling is even more questionable when you consider Davis wasn't playing. Your options of who can make plays is even more limited. Minnesota was going to let you run in that situation, and they couldn't stop it even if they tried.

Not saying I'm not appreciative of what KF has done for this program, but some times things just run their course. I think in this day and age of college football a new voice and direction might be needed, particularly if he stays stubborn in his ways.
 
hoffahawk said:
Yeah he was only averaging 8 yards a carry. Passing out of a running formation at least keeps them honest.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.
Coker needed to be on the field, one way or the other.
I like the "thought" of us coming out guns a blazin with the 5 wideouts, mostly cause it shows we want to attack this situation, yet it didn't get the job done. Left us pretty darn vulnerable looking.
 
when we abandoned the run (which i strongly disagree with) and got out of our routine (o'keefe panicked and wet himself), i was shocked to see who we had on the field as recievers. i understand mcnutt was a marked man at this point but if the best we have to create matchup problems is a slow, more of a blocking tightend and a walk-on special teams kid that plays primarily on kickoff coverage, then the staff has not done their job recruiting and building depth. i cant kill herman and white. i am sure they are out there giving it everything they have. do we not have better options (i.e. speed, athleticism) when it comes to making plays than that?
 
It's just maddening because you know that if the situation were opposite and Iowa was on defense there, the other team would move the ball with ease down the field.

The Hawks couldn't complete one pass, and two throws that were made were only about 5 yards.
 
ICHawk24 said:
+99999999999999

The idiots who post here are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Not true in all cases.

There is nothing inconsistent with: (A) believing that the team should be more aggressive in situations in which there is little time left on the clock (whether at half-time or the end of the game); and (B) believing that the most effective strategy should be used, whether passing or (time-permitting) running.

Folks are going to argue about what is the most effective strategy to undertake in these late half/game situations. Quite frankly, the most effective strategy is going to vary from game to game.

Personally, I believe it was quite obvious that MN could not stop the run--at all--and would be even less likely to stop the run at the end of the game due to: (1) needing to defend the pass each down; and (2) the fact that Iowa's TOP had likely worn down the MN defense.

The coaches gave it their best shot, but I think a different strategy would have been more successful.
 
Showing empty backfield gave Minny the green light to blitz with absolute confidence. Which they did. Iowa has shown time and time again they cannot manage pressure from anyone but a guy with his hand in the dirt.

Kill must have looked like a kid at Christmas when he saw us come out 5 wide without a safety valve nor protector.

The better game plan usually wins. We seldom have a better game plan anymore as everyone already knows what we are going to do. It's like having your cards face-out playing poker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top