In most circumstances, I would agree with you (and I did watch the entire game - twice). But the problem arises when there isn't even the THREAT of passing. It wasn't even a gamble for ISU - they knew they could sell out on the run and they did. ISU would have had to respect at least the possibility of a pass from virtually any other team in Division 1 football - except Iowa. And therein lies the problem.
New rule in 2024 cost Iowa big time
- Thread starter Shivetts
- Start date
Yeah and our play was throw a jump ball to our freshman WR. I mean the odds were just really low we'd convert it. Even my optimistic self prior to that being done didn't like it. I'm a proponent of not chasing those points unless you have to. Kick the extra point. Their was way too much time left to be doing that I thought.
There was also a Purdue game a handful of years ago where they had way less time at the end and did something like 50 yards in 2 plays.This loss was a flashback to 2016 when IA led ND State 21 - 20 with very little time left. The Hawks had the ball and needed only 1 first down to run out the clock. But they stubbornly ran 3 straight plays up the middle into a 9 or 10 man front and then punted, counting on the D to hold on to the lead. The Bison were able to move down the field and they kicked a 37 yard FG as time expired to win 23 - 21.
(I know i am delusional about this one, since KF never changes QBs): How about putting in Sullivan for that last series, not to pass, but to use his legs? He's a much better runner than McNamara. Call a (Chuck Long v Sparty) bootleg or even a QB sweep, which the Clowns hadn't seen all day. Sure, Sully would have to stay in bounds, but, he's a smart NW guy.At the very least, as others in this thread have pleaded, please do something that forces the Clowns to take some defenders out of the box to at least give yourself a fighting chance to pick up that game clinching first down.
Also painful (to me, anyway) was the decision to let the clock run out and take a 5 yard penalty before punting to the Clowns at the end of the game. We had 3 timeouts, so why not use one of them with one second left on the play clock and save those precious yards? Why give the Clowns 5 gift yards when you know all they need is a FG to result in our grabbing defeat out of the jaws of victory? After the game KF poo pooed the importance of the penalty, but think about this: Does Soupy have his RS frosh try a 59 yarder, or would he have run another play at that point? That might have changed the outcome.
And while it didn't cost us, think about this: At the end of the first half, there were 90 seconds left, and IA had a first down deep in the red zone. Rather than milk the clock, eating up those 90 seconds over 4 plays, and leaving the Clowns little or no time to mount a drive, KF called a time out. IA ended up kicking the FG, and the Clowns had a full minute to try to score. They mounted a drive, but fortunately KF lucked out and their RF frosh missed the FG attempt. Clock management has often been an Achilles heel, and it nearly was this time as well.
Running some bootlegs with the qb can eat up more clock too. Run the same exact play they ran to beat Missouri in the bowl game with the bootleg throw to Riesner. Tell Cade if it's wide open, throw it. If it's not, pick up what you can and stay inbounds. Three of those plays probably kills close to 10 more seconds if you don't e er throw it.
I noticed the end of the half clock management too. They called a quick timeout after 1st down with plenty of time on the game clock if I remember right. They could have waited 10 to 20 more seconds or so before that timeout and they still would have have way more time than they needed. He did the same thing against Purdue in 2002. Picked up a 1st and goal with like a minute and a half left or so and still stayed in hurry up mode. Scored the go ahead td to Clark on 4th down but there was way too much time left. Purdue marched right down the field for the winning field goal to completely rob us of that incredible season, but a Purdue guy had an easy pass go right through his hands for an interception well inside field goal range. It's small shit like that that can easily end up costing you games or dream seasons.
The cyclones still had enough time to run another play if they absolutely had to pick up more yards. Also I'm pretty sure the punter didn't kick the ball as far as he possibly could since it was a 37 yard punt so the DOG penalty probably didn't change anything. If he called timeout and the punt sailed into the end zone it would have only gained us 2 yards. That seemed more like a situation where you take the penalty on purpose to give the punter more room.
As far as the 2 point conversation goes, it's far from an obvious choice. If you don't get it, the game has to play out exactly how it did for it to cost you. The odds of that are really low even tho it happened this time. The odds were just as likely that we end up losing 21-20 if we kick the PAT. Also saying it cost us the game isn't correct because best case scenario is it just cost us a 50/50 chance to win in overtime. That's not factoring in the small chance he misses the PAT and we end up with 19 points anyway.
Fryowa
Administrator
It's still a free unnecessary 5 yards. You can't judge it in hindsight, or at least not with any validity. No one knew how far the punt would go, the timeout was the painfully obvious correct choice in the situation. There's not a single feasible explanation for the delay of game penalty. Not one. It's been a topic at my office and I've wracked my brain since it happened as to what a single valid reason for the delay of game penalty would be. If they were in ISU territory I could see it trying to give the punter some breathing room. But they weren't.
2PT conversions are at best 40% propositions. The way ISU was playing at the goal line that day, it was probably 20% at best. Even assuming 40%, the expected value of that play is less than a PAT. No statistically solid reason exists for a 2PT try unless you're down 8 with one or no drives remaining in the game, or to make it a two-score game when your opponent only realistically has time for one more drive.
I'm saying I think the reason was probably to give the punter room like teams do all the time. I do agree that they were outside the range for it to be a good idea normally. But it was barely outside the range. Where they kicked from, it needed to be a 39 yard punt to get it to the 20 and a 49 to get it to the 10. In my opinion, that's probably too far to do it without any other variables to calculate like wind and punters preference.
It's not like I'm saying your overly conservative opinion on the 2 point conversation is stupid or anything. But the situation he was in was as close to 50/50 as you can get so either way is fine. I just lean on the side of being happy anytime Conservative Kirk makes an aggressive decision.
Fryowa
Administrator
When they took the penalty the ball was on the Iowa 46. That makes Rhys punting it from the 38-ish. I don't know any punters who need breathing room with over 60 yards of green space in front of them, I sure wouldn't say it was borderline. Ferentz was asked more than once why he did it and never answered. He just said it didn't matter in the end, but it could have and it was a stupid move. Refusing to give an explanation is the same thing as admitting it was a bonehead move. Not only just the distance, it could have forced another play with the little time they had to work with it and it may have been another chance for them to screw up and have to spike the ball.
Maybe he was distracted and thought they were closer. Maybe he had a brain fart. Maybe no one on the staff felt comfortable speaking up. Whatever it was it's inexplicable. That and the 2PT thing just feels like he's losing his edge. Like Ferentz or not he's always been pretty sharp as far as situational awareness goes judging by the years of pressers I've watched. I'm not saying he's lost his marbles or anything but those calls make no sense and they’re both head coach calls.
