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

hawkfan340 said:
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.
Click to expand...

We pass out of 2TE sets quite frequently. That means just because we were in 2TE the D wouldn't be able to key on the run, either in terms of play call or personell group. In theory that could allow us to have a favorable mismatch on a running play, running the ball using a 2TE power type formation into a potential nickle or base package for ISU.
 
I am laughing at the people that think 2 minute offenses start out with a two-TE up the gut handoff. Seriously.

Of course it would be dumb to go for it on 2nd and 13. It's also dumb to think you're giving yourself a chance in a 1:17 to go situation by handing it off up the middle.
 
DuffMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I buy that our odds of turnover increased based on field position, but even if it was, this marginal increase in turnover probability in one situation to another would have to be greater than the probability that we can execute the winning drive and FG.

Let's say we kick the FG say 1 in 3 times. I just don't think it's realistic to think that our odds of turnover are increased that much by changing the situation. Even if it were, you can certainly adjust your approach to the situation to minimize this increase.
 
BryceC said:
I am laughing at the people that think 2 minute offenses start out with a two-TE up the gut handoff. Seriously.

Of course it would be dumb to go for it on 2nd and 13. It's also dumb to think you're giving yourself a chance in a 1:17 to go situation by handing it off up the middle.
Click to expand...

I'm laughing at people who don't understand that a 2 min drill with 2 timeouts and a tie ball game looks completely different from a 2 min drill when behind in the game.
 
On the one hand, I will give you this Duff: it's some that can be argued about. I don't believe it and I think it's a major, major reach, but we'll never know for sure.

On the other hand, I keep coming back to how many other clock moving plays would have been more indicative of a two minute drill than the play and set we ran.
 
Running the ball on 1st and 10 all but assures you that you have to burn a timeout right away. Let's say that Coker pops it for 8 instead of 2...do we rush up to the line and spike it? Then we're left with a 3rd and 2 that if we don't convert, we give the ball back.

How many runs greater than 10 yards did we have on Saturday?

If you ask me, if Coker didn't carry it practically the whole way himself (i.e. a gain of at least 20-30 yards) he was planning on sitting on it.
 
BSpringsteen said:
What are you, some kind of junkie?

1-800-BETS-OFF
Click to expand...

Nope. The closest thing to placing a bet on sports I have ever done is participating in NCAA Tourney pools.

However, your prediction of 8-3 going into the final game of the season is so wildly optimistic that I'd be foolish not to take your money.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Running the ball on 1st and 10 all but assures you that you have to burn a timeout right away. Let's say that Coker pops it for 8 instead of 2...do we rush up to the line and spike it? Then we're left with a 3rd and 2 that if we don't convert, we give the ball back.

How many runs greater than 10 yards did we have on Saturday?

If you ask me, if Coker didn't carry it practically the whole way himself (i.e. a gain of at least 20-30 yards) he was planning on sitting on it.
Click to expand...

If he gains 8 yards on first, then we sugar huddle and run another zone play to pick up the first down which stops the clock. Now we have the ball over the 30 with 45 seconds and two timeouts needing only another 40 yards to get into range.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Running the ball on 1st and 10 all but assures you that you have to burn a timeout right away. Let's say that Coker pops it for 8 instead of 2...do we rush up to the line and spike it? Then we're left with a 3rd and 2 that if we don't convert, we give the ball back. How many runs greater than 10 yards did we have on Saturday?If you ask me, if Coker didn't carry it practically the whole way himself (i.e. a gain of at least 20-30 yards) he was planning on sitting on it.
Click to expand...

I think this is the best take here- if Coker springs one for even 8 yards they likely have the next play called and once they are past the 30 the hurry up begins. What is frustrating about this particular situation is watching ND and Michigan combine for roughly 21 points in a similar time frame.

Personally I disagree with the playcall. I would have preferred to see a run/pass option for JVB where he has 2 reads and is told to get down if one isn't wide open. Even a draw out of our 3X1 personnel would have been preferable as ISU would likely have been playing a soft zone. Best case scenario is that the Hawks work more on a no huddle offense this season because we will be in this situation again. Outscoring the other team will have to be how we win games this season.
 
hawkfan340 said:
On the one hand, I will give you this Duff: it's some that can be argued about. I don't believe it and I think it's a major, major reach, but we'll never know for sure.

On the other hand, I keep coming back to how many other clock moving plays would have been more indicative of a two minute drill than the play and set we ran.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying everything was perfect. I'm saying I understand the thinking and the logic of why he did what he did, and that the route we took was one of several reasonable paths. Obviously it didn't work out.

I just think far to many of us incorrectly get wrapped up in absolutes and use one false premise to build an argument filled with many more.

We ran the ball means we sat on it means KF wanted to sit on it means he doesn't have guts means he doesn't trust the offense means we lost the game means he's a bad coach means we suck.
 
"I just think far to many of us incorrectly get wrapped up in absolutes and use one false premise to build an argument filled with many more"

"We ran the ball means we sat on it means KF wanted to sit on it means he doesn't have guts means he doesn't trust the offense means we lost the game means he's a bad coach means we suck." - Duff

Well played sir!!
 
Last edited:
DuffMan said:
I'm not saying everything was perfect. I'm saying I understand the thinking and the logic of why he did what he did, and that the route we took was one of several reasonable paths. Obviously it didn't work out.

I just think far to many of us incorrectly get wrapped up in absolutes and use one false premise to build an argument filled with many more.

We ran the ball means we sat on it means KF wanted to sit on it means he doesn't have guts means he doesn't trust the offense means we lost the game means he's a bad coach means we suck.
Click to expand...


Okay, how about this:


Based on the most believable premise that Kirk intended to sit on the ball by running the ball up the gut from a double TE set (a premise which is so overwhelmingly probable that all other premises, while possible, are almost laughable), then Iowa chose the wrong strategy in this scenario and thereby reduced our chances of winning this game at ISU.* Should the orginal premise somehow, against-all-odds be false then the resulting conclusion may or may not hold true.

* Please note that this singular, incorrect strategy does not mean the coaching staff sucks, or that they're morons, or that they're gutless or any other potential strawman arguments that anyone would like to tack on to this particular, limited conclusion.
 
Last edited:
hawkfan340 said:
Okay, how about this:


Based on the most believable premise that Kirk intended to sit on the ball by running the ball up the gut from a double TE set (a premise which is so overwhelmingly probable that all other premises, while possible, are almost laughable), then Iowa chose the wrong strategy in this scenario and thereby reduced our chances of winning this game at ISU.* Should the orginal premise somehow, against-all-odds be false then the resulting conclusion may or may not hold true.

* Please note that this singular, incorrect strategy does not mean the coaching staff sucks, or that they're morons, or that they're gutless or any other potential strawman arguments that anyone would like to tack on to this particular, limited conclusion.
Click to expand...

Again I don't think that's fair or represents his line of thinking.

If we gain one first down on the ground while chewing up 40 seconds then we are in a position to get in FG position while eliminating any chance for them to get the ball back with time to score (barring a turn-over). The 2TE set is one in which we pass from frequently and it's an extremely effective running formation as well.
 
hawkfan340 said:
* Please note that this singular, incorrect strategy does not mean the coaching staff sucks, or that they're morons, or that they're gutless or any other potential strawman arguments that anyone would like to tack on to this particular, limited conclusion.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, btw that was no strawman. You might not have been making that argument, but this forum is filled with folks that were.
 
DuffMan said:
Again I don't think that's fair or represents his line of thinking.

If we gain one first down on the ground while chewing up 40 seconds then we are in a position to get in FG position while eliminating any chance for them to get the ball back with time to score (barring a turn-over). The 2TE set is one in which we pass from frequently and it's an extremely effective running formation as well.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that even if you were trying to accomplish an approximate 10+ yard gain while keeping the clock moving, this is one of the last formations you should attempt to use.
 
I have watched a lot of college football over the years and I have never seen a coach/team be so woefully inept/gutless in the 2 minute offense. That is probably why we did what we did.

They didn't kneel on it but they did the closest thing to it. No other coach hands the ball to your tailback in a 2 TE set who has only averaged 4 ypc.

There was no reason to not try and get the ball to McNutt in that situation. I agree that if the first down was incomplete you come back to the run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top