Playing the odds, or Why I am still bullish on KF

[BSpringsteen]

I hate to break it to all of you but coaching did not lose this game, with maybe the exception of what seemed to be a bizarre play calling scheme by one Ken O'Keefe.

Furthermore, I think KF made the right decisions at two key points.

1) 1:17 left in regulation. Iowa wasn't exactly lighting up the world on offense. Coker had fumbled and JVB was anything but accurate. Add to it that we dropped the kick off and we needed to drive 50 yards to have a realistic 47 yard FG attempt. You could go either way on this, and while I don't think it was necessarily right here, I don't think it was wrong either.

2) The 4th and 1. This I totally agree with. You don't convert and Iowa State runs three time up the middle for a chip shot 32 yard field goal. Make them score the touchdown.

What lost the game for Iowa is lack of ability and lack of execution. We got away from being Iowa, and the only reason we did is because our DL may as well not have even been on the field.

If we have a real DL, Nielson doesn't blitz on the final play of the game and is waiting to swallow up the option. We had players missing assignments, not staying home, passes going wide, low and far, and receivers dropping passes. This lost the game. Not a 4th and 1 call.

So I too am playing the odds. History has shown us that more often than not, KF's teams develop and get much better. I am playing the odds that this holds true. Because if this team develops in the next three weeks, we still are a factor in Legends.

If we don't, than as I wrote the other day, it is indeed time to panic. Because what this means is that not only is the talent level now so low that they didn't develop into a competitive team, but that the players behind them, regardless of how young are no better. As we saw last year with Morris, real good players are impact players as true freshmen.

But I am playing the odds, and still say that we go into Lincoln at 8-3.

 

[hawkfan340]

Number 1 was not the right decision. There is no realistic, logical way that it's correct. We gained nothing by sitting on it, but it cost us a chance to kick the winning FG.

Number 2 I also disagree with but it's defendable by logic.

I agree that we'll get better. KF has a proven record of taking bad teams and making them better by season end.

I think you're too optimistic about 8-3 though. 7-4 or 6-5 seem more like it.

 

[DuffMan]

Number 1 was not the right decision. There is no realistic, logical way that it's correct. We gained nothing by sitting on it, but it cost us a chance to kick the winning FG.

Number 2 I also disagree with but it's defendable by logic.

I agree that we'll get better. KF has a proven record of taking bad teams and making them better by season end.

I think you're too optimistic about 8-3 though. 7-4 or 6-5 seem more like it.

Your analysis is completely flawed. We didn't sit on it until we found ourselves looking at 2nd and 13 from inside our own 20. Again just because we ran the ball on 1st down doesn't mean we weren't trying to score. If we execute on 1st down and end up 2nd and 5, and execute on 2nd down by not drawing a penalty, then that possession looks completely different.

 

[hawkfan340]

Your analysis is completely flawed. We didn't sit on it until we found ourselves looking at 2nd and 13 from inside our own 20. Again just because we ran the ball on 1st down doesn't mean we weren't trying to score. If we execute on 1st down and end up 2nd and 5, and execute on 2nd down by not drawing a penalty, then that possession looks completely different.

Wrong. Maybe I'd believe this if we came out in a passing set and then ran it. We came out double TE (and was there also a FB?) and ran up the gut.

Basically what you're saying is that we didn't sit on it until after we sat on it for a while.

 

[storminspank]

If Iowa fails on 2nd and 13 (incomplete pass or the like) - its 3rd and long and ISU can take timeouts and get the ball back. Field position + down & distance made Ferentz's choice.

 

[DuffMan]

Wrong. Maybe I'd believe this if we came out in a passing set and then ran it. We came out double TE (and was there also a FB?) and ran up the gut.

Basically what you're saying is that we didn't sit on it until after we sat on it for a while.

No. I'm saying by taking the approach we did we give ourselves a chance to win in regulation while reducing the chance of a regulation win to next to zero.

If we pick up 5 on first, and five on second, we have the ball over the 30 with 40 seconds and a few timeouts. At that point 3 incomplete passes doesn't mean handing the ball back to ISU near midfield with time and time outs left to score.

Was it conservative? Sure it was. But it wasn't sitting on it. It was simply making sure ISU didn't get the ball in position with enough time on the clock to win against a D that probably doesn't stop them.

 

[DuffMan]

If Iowa fails on 2nd and 13 (incomplete pass or the like) - its 3rd and long and ISU can take timeouts and get the ball back. Field position + down & distance made Ferentz's choice.

Absolutely this.

If you don't think our plan changes if we return the kick across the 30 you are nuts. If you don't think our plans change if we get 6 yards on first instead of 2 followed by a dead ball penalty you are nuts.

 

[hawkfan340]

If Iowa fails on 2nd and 13 (incomplete pass or the like) - its 3rd and long and ISU can take timeouts and get the ball back. Field position + down & distance made Ferentz's choice.

How about on 1st and 10?

 

[DwayneTwill]

I agree with the Boss.

 

[SirJamaLot]

Coach Ferentz and staff have proven themselves over a decade that they are an outstanding staff, with that being said these forums are designed to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly,, nothing wrong with questioning coaches decisions, I'm pretty sure they don't check this site out for future answers, water cooler talk and a place for meltdowns and venting, losing to ISU hurts but not the end of the world, sometimes it has set up a great Big Ten season for the Hawks,

 

[hawkinn3]

Ferentz is the absolute best option to coach the hawkeyes, Ill never say otherwise. If we fired him it would cast a pale over the program for decades.

The fact is you don't have to watch much film to gameplan for the hawkeyes, every game we do the same thing.

 

[hawkfan340]

No. I'm saying by taking the approach we did we give ourselves a chance to win in regulation while reducing the chance of a regulation win to next to zero.

If we pick up 5 on first, and five on second, we have the ball over the 30 with 40 seconds and a few timeouts. At that point 3 incomplete passes doesn't mean handing the ball back to ISU near midfield with time and time outs left to score.

Was it conservative? Sure it was. But it wasn't sitting on it. It was simply making sure ISU didn't get the ball in position with enough time on the clock to win against a D that probably doesn't stop them.

Again, why not come out with passing personel and run it? 1) It is more likely to gain that 5 yards then coming out extremely heavy and 2) if it does gain the needed yardage your passing personel is already on the field and you don't need to sub.

 

[SECisCRAP]

Number 1 was not the right decision. There is no realistic, logical way that it's correct. We gained nothing by sitting on it, but it cost us a chance to kick the winning FG.

Number 2 I also disagree with but it's defendable by logic.

I agree that we'll get better. KF has a proven record of taking bad teams and making them better by season end.

I think you're too optimistic about 8-3 though. 7-4 or 6-5 seem more like it.

We did make sure we had an OT. Or we could throw the ball trying to get down the field and possibly throwing a pick and not make OT. Its a tough call any way you slice it. IMO yes, go for it. same with the 4th and 1. I wuold have give KF so much more props going for it on 4th and 1 and not getting it, vs kicking the FG. but again its purely mho.

 

[storminspank]

How about on 1st and 10?

KF / KOK wanting Coker to get a nice gain on the ground to set up the series/drive. Marcus was running better as the game went on. When this didn't happen + the penalty, the thought process flipped. Had to sit on it then.

As I said in another thread, I personally wanted to see a hitch by McNutt and let him go to town. I don't remember ISU showing press coverage on the last drive, so that should have been open (I don't know for sure)

 

[hawkfan340]

We did make sure we had an OT. Or we could throw the ball trying to get down the field and possibly throwing a pick and not make OT. Its a tough call any way you slice it. IMO yes, go for it. same with the 4th and 1. I wuold have give KF so much more props going for it on 4th and 1 and not getting it, vs kicking the FG. but again its purely mho.

The result of throwing a pick in regulation = the result of throwing a pick in OT.

Changing the situation to OT does nothing to reduce our risk of losing because of turnover. It does however give away our advantage of being able to kick the game winning FG which they could not respond to.

 

[Hawksel]

I didn't like Ferentz's decision not to go for the field goal in the fourth quarter (especially considering Meyers was 3/3 on the day with one from 50) However, the body language and organization of the players was not great on that last drive, and I really got the sense that they weren't ready for the task ahead of them. I think that probably factored into the decision to sit on it as well. Also, our punter isn't exactly an all pro, so if he shanks it after a four and out, it's one Steele Jantz scramble away from a field goal.

You could blame the coaches for not having the players ready for the drive of course. But I would agree that the biggest problem of the game is not any one decision or play, it was the fact that the defensive line was getting gashed all day and the special teams was letting ISU start near the 50 every drive. A lot of Iowa's games are going to be shoot outs this year most likely, but the defense and kick coverage absolutely must get better. Either that, or Vandenberg is going to have to put up Heisman like numbers to get to 8 or 9 wins.

 

[hawkfan340]

KF / KOK wanting Coker to get a nice gain on the ground to set up the series/drive. Marcus was running better as the game went on. When this didn't happen + the penalty, the thought process flipped. Had to sit on it then.

As I said in another thread, I personally wanted to see a hitch by McNutt and let him go to town.

Why a double TE set? (And maybe there was a FB too. I don't know for sure. Anyone?)

As I said before, you can make an argument for this if you have the passing personel out there. With the heavy set we brought on the field, all signs point to sitting on it from the get go.

 

[DuffMan]

The result of throwing a pick in regulation = the result of throwing a pick in OT.

Changing the situation to OT does nothing to reduce our risk of losing because of turnover. It does however give away our advantage of being able to kick the game winning FG which they could not respond to.

While this is correct you have to understand the situation is different. Defenses behave differently when they are inside their own 30 as opposed to have you trapped inside your 30. When you have an offense pinned deep you can take more chances and throw more things at an offense than you can when your back is against the wall. It's a completely different mentality.

 

[SECisCRAP]

The result of throwing a pick in regulation = the result of throwing a pick in OT.

Changing the situation to OT does nothing to reduce our risk of losing because of turnover. It does however give away our advantage of being able to kick the game winning FG which they could not respond to.

the difference between OT and regulation is that in regulation it would be expected to pass every down and we had more field to cover. In OT the field is shorter and we didnt have to pass every down. Im not saying your wrong because I wish we would have went for it in regulation and on the 4th and 1 in OT. I am just speaking from both sides of the arguement and I can understand why the coaching staff made the calls that they did.

 

[storminspank]

Why a double TE set? (And maybe there was a FB too. I don't know for sure. Anyone?)

As I said before, you can make an argument for this if you have the passing personel out there. With the heavy set we brought on the field, all signs point to sitting on it from the get go.

I don't remember if there was a FB or not (Iowa did not use much FB in the 2nd half).

I think the 2 TE set was there to help get a big run gain to start off the drive, but it didn't happen.

Again, just my thoughts, someone would have to ask KF to get the real answer. I can definitely see your side of the argument, though.