***Official Iowa Makes Dick Butkus Mad Game Thread***

Despite the shaky offense (inaccurate passes & lousy run blocking) we beat a team with a winning record, on a 4-game B1G win streak. Phil Parker and the entire defense is the reason we have 8 wins so far this year. Let's be thankful for Iowa D.
 
Last edited:
mopkins said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
I've loved you since your butters avatar.
 
PCHawk said:
What the heck was wrong with his end of half coaching? You've got to have some damn good hindsight to think he screwed up there.
Click to expand...
Is this sarcastic?
  • He had three timeouts to spend, but wasn't using them while his offense was wasting time, struggling to get the correct personnel groupings on the field, and generally looking like they were running a Chinese fire drill.
  • He then used two back to back, giving Phil a chance to dial up a (gasp) safety blitz
  • He didn't punt and pin us deep, where you know Kirk would have knelt down and been content to go in 10-7
  • Better clock management would have given Lovie a good chance at 10-10
  • With the ball at midfield and twelve seconds when we should have neither, he still has a chance to keep us at 10-7. Instead he goes prevent and one pass to Tracy give us the FG chance. 13-7. It was like Lovie regifted us both missed field goals.
Do we have to go back to the Luka Garza debate now?
 
Northside Hawk said:
Is this sarcastic?
  • He had three timeouts to spend, but wasn't using them while his offense was wasting time, struggling to get the correct personnel groupings on the field, and generally looking like they were running a Chinese fire drill.
  • He then used two back to back, giving Phil a chance to dial up a (gasp) safety blitz
  • He didn't punt and pin us deep, where you know Kirk would have knelt down and been content to go in 10-7
  • Better clock management would have given Lovie a good chance at 10-10
  • With the ball at midfield and twelve seconds when we should have neither, he still has a chance to keep us at 10-7. Instead he goes prevent and one pass to Tracy give us the FG chance. 13-7. It was like Lovie regifted us both missed field goals.
Do we have to go back to the Luka Garza debate now?
Click to expand...

He didn't run out of time, he ran out of downs, so I'm not sure how his use of timeouts is relevant.

He could have used 50 timeouts in a row and that blitz would have shocked everyone in the stadium.

There was almost a zero percent t chance Iowa scores there, so punting would have been was over the top conservative. I would freak out if Kirk punts there. But I doubt even he would. He actually did the same thing against Purdue in 2012 and it randomly cost us that game too.

Again he turned it over on downs so clock management didn't hurt him at all for scoring more points.

I have no idea if he went prevent there or not, but most coaches do when you're just trying to avoid a 25 yard+ play.
 
PCHawk said:
He didn't run out of time, he ran out of downs, so I'm not sure how his use of timeouts is relevant.

He could have used 50 timeouts in a row and that blitz would have shocked everyone in the stadium.

There was almost a zero percent t chance Iowa scores there, so punting would have been was over the top conservative.

Again he turned it over on downs so clock management didn't hurt him at all for scoring more points.

I have no idea if he went prevent there or not, but most coaches do when you're just trying to avoid a 25 yard+ play.
Click to expand...
I thought he should have punted when he got to fourth down. We know what Kirk would have done.

Maybe I'm pushing hyperbole on Illinois chance of scoring but he has to prevent us from scoring. And he didn't.

Giving Iowa the ball at midfield gave us hope. Just like the end of the Nebraska game last year.
 
Northside Hawk said:
I thought he should have punted when he got to fourth down. We know what Kirk would have done.

Maybe I'm pushing hyperbole on Illinois chance of scoring but he has to prevent us from scoring. And he didn't.

Giving Iowa the ball at midfield gave us hope. Just like the end of the Nebraska game last year.
Click to expand...

He gave us the ball at mid field do to a big yardage sack. The odds of us scoring before half was next to nothing. They needed 4 yards to get into field goal range. That's it. One play for 4 yards. We needed a defensive stop AND and about 30 yards, all in about 15 seconds. It's not even close who had the advantage there. You don't give up a huge advantage out of fear of the extreme unlikelihood that your opponent could possibly score.

Let me ask you this. When they decided to go for it on 4th down, what did you think? Did you think "this is great, now we are probably going to score again"? Or did you think "crap, I wish they would punt. Now they are probably going to convert and get 3 points"? I know I was thinking the latter.

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but we needed to get a big sack, make a huge play with our offense that sucks, and make a long field goal, just to get 3 points. They needed 4 yards and a field goal. The decision to go for it was an easy one.
 
PCHawk said:
He gave us the ball at mid field do to a big yardage sack. The odds of us scoring before half was next to nothing. They needed 4 yards to get into field goal range. That's it. One play for 4 yards. We needed a defensive stop AND and about 30 yards, all in about 15 seconds. It's not even close who had the advantage there. You don't give up a huge advantage out of fear of the extreme unlikelihood that your opponent could possibly score.

Let me ask you this. When they decided to go for it on 4th down, what did you think? Did you think "this is great, now we are probably going to score again"? Or did you think "crap, I wish they would punt. Now they are probably going to convert and get 3 points"? I know I was thinking the latter.

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but we needed to get a big sack, make a huge play with our offense that sucks, and make a long field goal, just to get 3 points. They needed 4 yards and a field goal. The decision to go for it was an easy one.
Click to expand...
I was concerned about the latter myself. But when Lovie called the back to back timeouts it gave our defense a breather as well, and a chance to draw something up.

Remote as our scoring chances were, they were considerably better than our chances had Lovie punted it. We can agree to disagree here. Illinois had the ball in our territory with twelve seconds left in the half. No way should we have had a chance to score. Lovie screwed up. It was a six point swing and momentum to Iowa going into halftime. Mostly, it was refreshing, after all the times Kirk has mismanaged a two minute offense, to watch someone else do it.
 
Northside Hawk said:
I was concerned about the latter myself. But when Lovie called the back to back timeouts it gave our defense a breather as well, and a chance to draw something up.

Remote as our scoring chances were, they were considerably better than our chances had Lovie punted it. We can agree to disagree here. Illinois had the ball in our territory with twelve seconds left in the half. No way should we have had a chance to score. Lovie screwed up. It was a six point swing and momentum to Iowa going into halftime. Mostly, it was refreshing, after all the times Kirk has mismanaged a two minute offense, to watch someone else do it.
Click to expand...

You are flat out wrong with 2 things you're saying. For one, you say we had a better chance of scoring if he went for it as opposed to punting. While the statement is true, the line of thinking couldn't be worse. You don't compare the chance of us scoring if he goes for it vs the chance of us scoring if he punts. You compare the chance of us scoring if he goes for it vs the chance of them scoring if he goes for it. In that situation, they had a huge advantage. What you are suggesting is that the right move was to give up that huge advantage just to prevent a very small possibility of scoring. That is a losing decision.

The other way you are wrong is by saying it was a 6 point swing. Their offense ran out of downs. If they punt like you suggest, they get 0 points. It's one thing to make the wrong arguement that his decision to go for it was wrong because in hindsight it netted us 3 points. It's another to say it somehow prevented them from getting 3 points.
 
PCHawk said:
You are flat out wrong with 2 things you're saying. For one, you say we had a better chance of scoring if he went for it as opposed to punting. While the statement is true, the line of thinking couldn't be worse. You don't compare the chance of us scoring if he goes for it vs the chance of us scoring if he punts. You compare the chance of us scoring if he goes for it vs the chance of them scoring if he goes for it. In that situation, they had a huge advantage. What you are suggesting is that the right move was to give up that huge advantage just to prevent a very small possibility of scoring. That is a losing decision.

The other way you are wrong is by saying it was a 6 point swing. Their offense ran out of downs. If they punt like you suggest, they get 0 points. It's one thing to make the wrong arguement that his decision to go for it was wrong because in hindsight it netted us 3 points. It's another to say it somehow prevented them from getting 3 points.
Click to expand...
You've swung this from a discussion about Lovie's clock mismanagement to a lesson in statistics and probability.

You are really giving me a headache.;). For the last time, Lovie botched clock management.
 
Northside Hawk said:
You've swung this from a discussion about Lovie's clock mismanagement to a lesson in statistics and probability.

You are really giving me a headache.;). For the last time, Lovie botched clock management.
Click to expand...

How so? He ran out of downs before he ran out of time.
 
PCHawk said:
How so? He ran out of downs before he ran out of time.
Click to expand...
He found a way to allow Iowa to score three points they had no business scoring.

If it wasn't clock mismanagement, it was game mismanagement. Lovie basically let the three point shooter tie the game when he should have sent him to the line for two.
 
Last edited:
Northside Hawk said:
He found a way to allow Iowa to score three points they had no business scoring.

If it wasn't clock mismanagement, it was game mismanagement. Lovie basically let the three point shooter tie the game when he should have sent him to the line for two.
Click to expand...

It was a little bit of clock management that didn't matter because he ran out of downs and it was proper game management that didn't work out because there is almost never a coaching decision that guarantees a 100% success rate. What you're doing here is the same thing as ripping on a poker player who calls an all in with an over pair on the turn because the guy sucked out on a 2 outer on the river.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top