Maybe this was discussed already, but I just was able to bring myself to get online again today. Was I the only one screaming at the TV last week to let them score quickly in that final drive? We were gassed and had 3rd string linebackers in there, it was obvious we had no ability stop them towards the end of the game so it was just a waste of time to slow them down and waste clock. Turns out that another minute on the clock and we probably would have scored, we just ran out of time.
Let them score
- Thread starter Hawkeye34
- Start date
rdawsoniii
Well-Known Member
No you are not the only one. I was doing it in the stands. The guy next to me thought I was crazy.
I agree...another minute and I think we win..or at least get the FG try. Our offense was moving the ball all day.
I agree...another minute and I think we win..or at least get the FG try. Our offense was moving the ball all day.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
After the fake punt we shouldve just let them score right away?
Ok guys...
Ok guys...
Hawkfan3318
Well-Known Member
So what were you guys thinking? Our defense should have let them run for a 20 yard score?
Get real. I understand that our defense did not play well, but to expect them to just give up the lead is stupid. At the time, I was confident that our D could make a stop. It's easy for many to question now, seeing we lost, but had we made a stop everyone would be on this board talking about how great the defense is.
Get real. I understand that our defense did not play well, but to expect them to just give up the lead is stupid. At the time, I was confident that our D could make a stop. It's easy for many to question now, seeing we lost, but had we made a stop everyone would be on this board talking about how great the defense is.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
No....read my post...I said after they picked up yet another 1st down after the fake punt, and were on about our 30.
They already had two 80-yard drives for scores...did you or anybody else really think we'd get "the stop"? I didn't.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
So just give up a 30 yard run for the lead? Amazing strategy there
If Clayborn makes the sack on Tolzein instead of just missing him this isnt even talked about.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
I do remember one of the announcers on tv saying (not exactly this verbatim) "You know this might sound a little crazy if your a Hawkeye fan, but I would let them score here. It would give your offense more time to go down the field to win the game"
I agree if they score a little earlier then there's the extra time we need to get down and score. I'm not saying when they're at the 30 just let them run it in but once they were inside the 5 or 10 it was pretty much inevitable and they we're happy to let that clock run and run.
It may not be good for the stats but it might have been the difference between an L and W. Either way whats done is done, the coaching staff decided they could stop them on the goal and they couldn't come up with the stop. As busabus said one big play by the D and it could have changed everything.
It may not be good for the stats but it might have been the difference between an L and W. Either way whats done is done, the coaching staff decided they could stop them on the goal and they couldn't come up with the stop. As busabus said one big play by the D and it could have changed everything.
hawkfaninTX
Well-Known Member
never, syracuse "the stand" comes to mind, you always fight for the win --they could always fumble (anyone else notice they took out fumble-prone clay at the end of that drive?)
oh and for all the coach/stanzi haters: even if meyers got his chance to kick a FG, he would have missed.
oh and for all the coach/stanzi haters: even if meyers got his chance to kick a FG, he would have missed.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
Once again....you have to take the entire game into context.
We hadn't stopped them all day, sans one drive. ONE.
Time was frittering away. Wisky was going to pound the ball into the endzone...pretty obvious to most everybody.
Clayborn didn't get the sack and Wisky scores with 1:06 left. Iowa pi$$es the clock management down its leg...again.
So, yup...give it up, save the clock, go down and score and win.
It would have worked.
tomhawk80907
Well-Known Member
Like him or not McMillen made the right call. The timeouts should have been used during wisky's last drive.......it would have saved the maximum amount of time and yes we would have gotten the ball back with no time outs i realize but we would have probably had upwards of two minutes left.
Hell, if that TD hadn't been called by the booth kf would have just watched the clock dribble down to nothing and gone into the locker room with three timeouts in his account......what a waste.
Hell, if that TD hadn't been called by the booth kf would have just watched the clock dribble down to nothing and gone into the locker room with three timeouts in his account......what a waste.
AIRHAWK
Well-Known Member
Tricky proposition. We were up 6. FG didn't beat us so we had to hold them for 4 downs, not just 3. I know it is only one down but it is huge. IIRC, they had to get to about the 4 for a first down , and they did. First and goal from about the 4 and about 2+ minutes left. They had about 2 minutes, 4 downs to go 4 yards to win the game. Everyone in america knw they were going to get the TD...just when.Let em in right there, go down by 1. 2 minutes to get in FG range. Only way to play it
I follow your thought, but I was crying for time-outs. . . . . With a 6 point lead, NEVER LET them score.
Instead, I thought we should have used a time-out or two when they got inside the 20. If we make a stop, super! If not, maybe have about two minutes left when we get the ball.
All evidence to the contrary, our hurry-up Clock Management could have saved more seconds in between plays than theirs was attempting.
. . . Per the Syracuse "stand", remember, we had a touchdown lead then. Can take some chances.
Instead, I thought we should have used a time-out or two when they got inside the 20. If we make a stop, super! If not, maybe have about two minutes left when we get the ball.
All evidence to the contrary, our hurry-up Clock Management could have saved more seconds in between plays than theirs was attempting.
. . . Per the Syracuse "stand", remember, we had a touchdown lead then. Can take some chances.
Nice to know I wasn't the only screaming at my tv to just let them score. Since we weren't going to use the TO's, might as well let them in and save the time.
To Seth's point, we'd only stopped them once. No reason to think we were just going to stop them on that drive either. May as well let them have it and get the ball back.
They weren't exactly stopping on us on O. No reason to think we couldn't have moved it down the field with less stress having 2 minutes compared to 1 and change.
To Seth's point, we'd only stopped them once. No reason to think we were just going to stop them on that drive either. May as well let them have it and get the ball back.
They weren't exactly stopping on us on O. No reason to think we couldn't have moved it down the field with less stress having 2 minutes compared to 1 and change.
whammer33024
Well-Known Member
hey hawkfaninTX, do you know when i'm going to die and how? since apparently you can see the future i'd like to know those things. k thanks
HawkeyeTech
Well-Known Member
If you watched the Florida State/NC State game last night, you saw a perfect example of why you don't just let the other team score with time dwindling.
