Should Daniels have gone down?

hawkinn3 said:
If you can't hold that lead you don't deserve to win. Plus, they couldn't quite run out the clock. Who would be shocked to see us miss a FG and give minny a shot to win?
Click to expand...

Yes, we could've--and should've--run out the clock. Just over two minutes to play, Minny with no timeouts, 3 plays to run with the clock never stopping, all of that easily runs out the clock. Honestly, while we shouldn't blame Daniels personally for not going down, it's an indefensible point. When you can run out the clock and win, nothing else matters, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional or arguing just for the sake of arguing.
 
Correct. But, LD did what he's taught to do.
Score.
Maybe - maybe?? The MN coach told the defense to let LD score. Hmm?
He knew the game was over..only way to have a chance to get ball back.!?
Let IA score, then they score twice.. He came close!
Ya think?
I would have! LOL.
Glad we won. Hanging on.
 
Well, KF certainly can't win on this one. He goes down, we lose, KFs fault. Minny gets the onside kick, we lose, KFs fault.

Only in FantasyLand--or HawkeyeNation.com--can a team be 10-0 and people biatch.
 
It's really not significant one way or the other....

Maybe there is a slight edge towards the idea that we would never fumble the snap... but it's also a tiny tiny % chance that Minnesota can score 2 TD's in 2 min.
 
The odds of fumbling one off 3 snaps in victory formation, then a team going 99 yards to win is way less than a team going 70 or so yards, getting an onside kick, then going 50 or so yards to win. It would have been by far better to go down at the 1 but there are very few that ever would. People don't fault LD one bit, this is just a simple discussion about what would have been better.
 
No, and hard to do when you've played your whole life to score touchdowns, and lastly I can't imagine the "Kurt plays to lose" meltdown if we would have laid down on a touchdown
 
PCHawk said:
The odds of fumbling one off 3 snaps in victory formation, then a team going 99 yards to win is way less than a team going 70 or so yards, getting an onside kick, then going 50 or so yards to win. It would have been by far better to go down at the 1 but there are very few that ever would. People don't fault LD one bit, this is just a simple discussion about what would have been better.
Click to expand...


Way less a chance? I think there is a slight advantage by Daniels going down but way less chance I just don't see. I couldn't find it but I read a couple years ago that only 10% of onside kicks are recovered in the NCAA - so recovering an onside kick AND scoring TWO touchdowns in 2 min.

I'd say were debating 1-2% difference...
 
HawkeyeMHA said:
No, and hard to do when you've played your whole life to score touchdowns, and lastly I can't imagine the "Kurt plays to lose" meltdown if we would have laid down on a touchdown
Click to expand...

That would have been an obvious player decision had he layed down
 
Bigtenchamp said:
Way less a chance? I think there is a slight advantage by Daniels going down but way less chance I just don't see. I couldn't find it but I read a couple years ago that only 10% of onside kicks are recovered in the NCAA - so recovering an onside kick AND scoring TWO touchdowns in 2 min.

I'd say were debating 1-2% difference...
Click to expand...



A couple things. First off, I'm more interested in Iowa's ability to recover onside kicks than I am the national average. Secondly, the odds of fumbling a snap and them winning is barely over 0% so even if the odds of 2 touchdowns and an onside kick is 2%, that means its about 200 times more likely.
 
He absolutely should have gone down. It's a guaranteed victory.

However, with the slim chance of Minnesota going down, getting a score, onside kick, and another score, and the style points we stood to gain from winning by a couple possessions, at the time I was okay with Daniels taking it in, and actually preferred that he did. But that changed to anger as Minnesota lined up for the onside kick.
 
Bigtenchamp said:
That's the entire point of the debate... which decision secured the win earlier.
Click to expand...

I thought the entire point of this debate was to b!tch? I don't understand how people can come onto a message board and call people out for b!tching when we're having a simple debate in what would have been better after a victory. Who here is b!tching or mad at Kirk or LD?
 
Everyone said:
He absolutely should have gone down. It's a guaranteed victory.

However, with the slim chance of Minnesota going down, getting a score, onside kick, and another score, and the style points we stood to gain from winning by a couple possessions, at the time I was okay with Daniels taking it in, and actually preferred that he did. But that changed to anger as Minnesota lined up for the onside kick.
Click to expand...

I was both happy he scored and aware it decreased our chances of victory as soon as he crossed the goal line.
 
Was anyone else nervous while in victory formation or was it just me? I've never been that nervous in that situation before. Probably because the stakes for victory have never been this high.
 
PCHawk said:
A couple things. First off, I'm more interested in Iowa's ability to recover onside kicks than I am the national average. Secondly, the odds of fumbling a snap and them winning is barely over 0% so even if the odds of 2 touchdowns and an onside kick is 2%, that means its about 200 times more likely.
Click to expand...


The mathematical logic in this post need to be seriously revisited.

If you want to somehow think that Iowa is not part of a national average...when was the last time you saw an Iowa team have an onside kick recovered against them?

However as I said ... the chances either way of Minnesota winning were miniscule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top