Playing to not Lose Vs. Playing to Win

C

cockyhawkfan

Well-Known Member
I don't want to go down the path of bashing coach Ferentz for this loss. I did that a few years ago when we lost to Pitt and I regret having done so. We're not always going to agree with how how the coaches manage OUR football team, or how they manage the game itself. It's what makes us so passionate about OUR team that we all love. And hate at times.

But here's what I will say...And this was mainly sparked by a comment Herbstreit made last night during the MU/OU game. MU had just perfectly executed the hook and lateral. At the time Missouri had the lead. Herbstreit commented that, "Missouri was playing to win". I'm not talking about come from behind miracles like we did last year at MSU, or Michigan State did to Notre Dame on the fake FG earlier this season.

I'm talking about stomping on the head of our opponents once we get the lead. Keeping our feet on the gas so to speak. Against teams like the Wisconsin's the OSU's, etc that not always realistic. But the pick by Greenwood yesterday was our chance to do exactly what I speak of. And we got conservative. It was the 3rd quarter. Coach had witnessed the entire game, what the Wisky offense was doing to our D. We needed 7 to allow ourselves some breathing room. And we got lucky that we got 3, with the way our kicking game is this year.

I'm not totally against the way we KF runs the show with his, "playing to not lose" philosophy. It has brought great fortune to OUR football program. But the margin of error with this philosophy is very small, as Michigan and Wisconsin showed us in the past couple weeks.

I'm not suggesting drastic changes to our offensive or defensive strategies mind you. A few extra blitzes per game or having the corners play more press coverage against offense's like Wisconsin or Arizona. We have these capabilities. We've seen it work when the coaches have called it. The same goes for the offense as well. We scored 30 points yesterday. And we could have scored 10-14 more without trying. Wisconsin's D was horrible. These are all suggestions of things that would require nothing more than a slight adjustment to a game plan. Unfortunately I think it's going to take a little more than that from Coach Ferentz to actually make it happen. But I'd like to see us, "play to win".
 




I have said a few times that i would like to se us distance ourselves a little more before getting to conservative. Sometimes I think we could even do both by calling conservative plays that go against what we normally do in situations. Quick hitter to the full back, toss sweep or qb draw on first down as examples.

That's not a knock on the coaching staff, just a point of frustration for me at times.
 


I love our coaching staff and have no issues with our gameplans and rather conservative style of play. But I was hoping against hope that on the first play after the Greenwood pick that we would run play action or a double move and take a shot at the end zone.

After a big momentum swing (like the interception), assuming you have good field position (and ours was great), I LOVE going right for the jugular and taking a shot at the end zone.
 


IowaBanker said:
I love our coaching staff and have no issues with our gameplans and rather conservative style of play. But I was hoping against hope that on the first play after the Greenwood pick that we would run play action or a double move and take a shot at the end zone.

After a big momentum swing (like the interception), assuming you have good field position (and ours was great), I LOVE going right for the jugular and taking a shot at the end zone.
Click to expand...

This. I'm generally okay with conservative. I don't want us running up the score as much as possible every week. But, just because I don't want us to stomp on our opponent's throat, doesn't mean I don't want us to make it clear that we could have if we wanted to.
 


It was actually the 4th quarter when Greenwood got the pick, but I'll agree that right then was not the time to get conservative. There were 8 minutes to play and the ball was at the Badger 27; you can't burn a whole lot of clock from that spot on the field.

A touchdown there would not only have given Iowa a 10 point lead, it would have dramatically altered Wisconsin's play calling on their final possession. Getting the field goal was great, but it left the door open just enough for Wisconsin to knock it down.
 


ShadasRevenge said:
It was actually the 4th quarter when Greenwood got the pick, but I'll agree that right then was not the time to get conservative. There were 8 minutes to play and the ball was at the Badger 27; you can't burn a whole lot of clock from that spot on the field.

A touchdown there would not only have given Iowa a 10 point lead, it would have dramatically altered Wisconsin's play calling on their final possession. Getting the field goal was great, but it left the door open just enough for Wisconsin to knock it down.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that a TD on a play-fake/double move to DJK (my preferred play in such a situation) would have driven the place nuts even further. In that kind of environment, I don't see Wisconsin coming back.
 


tm3308 said:
Not to mention the fact that a TD on a play-fake/double move to DJK (my preferred play in such a situation) would have driven the place nuts even further. In that kind of environment, I don't see Wisconsin coming back.
Click to expand...

I don't care how it came, Wisconsin wasn't coming back from 10 points down.
 


Yeah, I agree to all! I'm not talking about running up the scoreboard. But when you've got an opponent down, and you just shifted the momentum, you've got to have that killer instinct. I like our style of offense too. I don't want any changes. Calling something as simple as a screen pass to the running back a little more often would please me.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top