Maybe OT: Midway and going for the jugular

[uihawk82]

I am not going to equate an actual battle/war with football but more discussing a potential quote from Admiral Nimitz as it applies to going for more. You may have seen the movie Midway where early reports from the battle are reported to Nimitz (overall leader of Navy and central Pacific in WW 2) that report 3 of the 4 Japanese aircraft carriers have been sunk. When Nimitz is asked by underlings whether the US task forces should withdraw after inflicting tremendous damage and whether the quote is true, Nimitz in the movie responds paraphrasing "Yes the Japanese still have a dangerous fleet but I WANT that 4th carrier!!" (said with emphasis). I should let this go but I was hoping for a FG or better a TD at the end of the first half yesterday.

That is all. Discuss if you want the conservative or aggressive approach.

PS: I am waiting for the new Midway movie to come out which is supposed to portray the two Navy intelligence officers a little more directly. I read and watch a lot about the history of war to look for the blunders and crazy happenstance that affects such huge events.

 

[hawkeyes87]

Scene from Cheers, lotsa years ago:

Norm walks into the bar.

Norm: "Hey everybody!"

Everybody: "Norm!"

Woody (bartender): "What would you say to a beer, Mr. Peterson?"

Norm: "Come to papa!"

Lotsa years later, Woody will take Henry Fonda's place in the Midway remake.

 

[DDThompson]

2nd to last drive of 1st half: I can understand the conservative approach. NW wasn’t moving the ball so it’s likely to get the ball back with the same field position minus 2 minutes. That’s exactly what happened.
But I would have gone for it on 4th.

Last drive of 1st half: I think it’s inexcusable to not go for it.
BECAUSE NW could not move the ball.

 

[HawkGold]

I am not going to equate an actual battle/war with football but more discussing a potential quote from Admiral Nimitz as it applies to going for more. You may have seen the movie Midway where early reports from the battle are reported to Nimitz (overall leader of Navy and central Pacific in WW 2) that report 3 of the 4 Japanese aircraft carriers have been sunk. When Nimitz is asked by underlings whether the US task forces should withdraw after inflicting tremendous damage and whether the quote is true, Nimitz in the movie responds paraphrasing "Yes the Japanese still have a dangerous fleet but I WANT that 4th carrier!!" (said with emphasis). I should let this go but I was hoping for a FG or better a TD at the end of the first half yesterday.

That is all. Discuss if you want the conservative or aggressive approach.

PS: I am waiting for the new Midway movie to come out which is supposed to portray the two Navy intelligence officers a little more directly. I read and watch a lot about the history of war to look for the blunders and crazy happenstance that affects such huge events.

We still fumbled the Yorktown. Fumbles are not acceptable

 

[uihawk82]

2nd to last drive of 1st half: I can understand the conservative approach. NW wasn’t moving the ball so it’s likely to get the ball back with the same field position minus 2 minutes. That’s exactly what happened.
But I would have gone for it on 4th.

Last drive of 1st half: I think it’s inexcusable to not go for it.
BECAUSE NW could not move the ball.

I am coming around to this way of thinking punting with about 4+ minutes left but being more aggressive and throwing it some the last possession

 

[NCHawker]

It was, in some respects, a scrimmage yesterday. Lots of guys played. Lots of issues to work on.

 

[Motigerhawk]

I did not know they were remaking Midway. Thanks for pointing this out. The movie looks fantastic.

As for the conservative approach, we have seen it work and we have seen it bite us in the arse. It is what it is. And it will always be. At least until we get a new regime.

 

[1hawkeye1]

In Jon's "Instant Reaction" podcast he called out those of us who feel the end of the 1st half was a squandered opportunity. We just don't understand football the way the "experts" do.

I agree with punting the ball away the first time. jNW isn't going to be able to do anything with it. But when you then get it back, to just sit on it??? I'll bet jNW was thinking, it doesn't matter if we don't do anything with it. Iowa won't even try to move it. And we didn't.

Just another example of Iowa trying "not to lose."

 

[uihawk82]

Exactly and that is why Fitz and the Wildcats have beat Iowa the previous 3 years because KF doesnt try to go over the top or down the sidelines deep and back off the cats. KF plays right into Fitzies hand.

I am coming around to the idea that punting the first drive even when it was a juicy 4th and 2feet for a QB sneak was a good 50-50 time to punt I totally disagree that the second drive should be 3 basic runs into their stacked defense instead of some hard play action passing.

 

[uihawk82]

In Jon's "Instant Reaction" podcast he called out those of us who feel the end of the 1st half was a squandered opportunity. We just don't understand football the way the "experts" do.

I agree with punting the ball away the first time. jNW isn't going to be able to do anything with it. But when you then get it back, to just sit on it??? I'll bet jNW was thinking, it doesn't matter if we don't do anything with it. Iowa won't even try to move it. And we didn't.

Just another example of Iowa trying "not to lose."

Exactly and that is why Fitz and the Wildcats have beat Iowa the previous 3 years because KF doesnt try to go over the top or down the sidelines deep and back off the cats. KF plays right into Fitzies hand.

I am coming around to the idea that punting the first drive even when it was a juicy 4th and 2feet for a QB sneak was a good 50-50 time to punt I totally disagree that the second drive should be 3 basic runs into their stacked defense instead of some hard play action passing.

 

[ssckelley]

Hasn't Iowa been successful 100% of the time on the quarterback sneak? My memory sucks but I can not recall a single time the QB sneak hasn't worked. With NW unable to move the ball against our defense I would have went for it.

But at the end of the day Iowa won by 20 points so whatever.

 

[uihawk82]

Hasn't Iowa been successful 100% of the time on the quarterback sneak? My memory sucks but I can not recall a single time the QB sneak hasn't worked. With NW unable to move the ball against our defense I would have went for it.

But at the end of the day Iowa won by 20 points so whatever.

You are very close to correct but last year Wisky stoned cold stopped Nate on a QB sneak on a 4th and a long 1 yard at Wisky's 4 yard line early in the game. In that one Nate tried to go high instead of burrowing but Wisky may have caused it.

And any fourth down play can fail because of a bad snap or bobbled ball. Actually in the game saturday Dolph said there was a bobbled snap on a qb sneak in the 2nd half but Nate corraled the ball and made the sneak.

 

[ssckelley]

You are very close to correct but last year Wisky stoned cold stopped Nate on a QB sneak on a 4th and a long 1 yard at Wisky's 4 yard line early in the game. In that one Nate tried to go high instead of burrowing but Wisky may have caused it.

And any fourth down play can fail because of a bad snap or bobbled ball. Actually in the game saturday Dolph said there was a bobbled snap on a qb sneak in the 2nd half but Nate corraled the ball and made the sneak.

I meant this year.

 

[uihawk82]

I meant this year.

This year Nate and the blockers are averaging about 3 yards per qb sneak and u r correct I dont think they have failed to pick one up. Most of the last 5-6 years when the hawks would hurry to the line and qb sneak they have been really successful.