This Week's Poll: The Most Painful KF Era Losses

[Igothawked]

Ive been physically numb twice walking out of Kinnick where I couldnt ever speak: Michigan 2005 and Wisconsin 2010

These two games did this to me as well as did ISU in 2002 and NW in 09. It also kind of gives you perspective. Imagine how the players felt after these types of games? THen they have to go back to work on Monday and prep for the next game. Kinda shows the mental toughness you have to have as a football player. Something to think about anyway.

 

[hawkfan340]

What I meant by putting the game in his hands is that he is forced to make a big play or plays to get the ball down the field whereas in OT the game is technically "in his hands" but they can call plays that take the pressure off of him including more underneath passing routes, running plays, etc. so he is not forced to throw it downfield. It is all about context. There are some situations that are better to put your freshman qb in and some that are bad. It is all about context. But maybe you don't understand context and that is why you thought I was saying the game wasn't "in his hands" in overtime.

Good call. JVB didn't need to make any big plays in OT. Especially when you consider the massive 67 rushing yards we put up that day. We were jamming it down their throats all game. Take it to OT, sit back, and watch the ground game punch it in the end zone as many times as needed. It's all about context, baby.

 

[hogeye]

Another note on Michigan 2005, that was probably the craziest I've ever seen Kinnick upon entrance. It was body to body and you could barely navigate through the crowd to the seating area.

 

[eveningnewsteam]

Sold my ticket in 05 to the Michigan game for a ridiculous price and figured Id just scalp one. There were no tickets for sale on gameday. Bought a student ticket for 10 bucks, bribed the kid selling programs for 20 bucks to use his student ID and went in. He could go in and out without a ticket so I gave him back his ID inside Kinnick. The student ticket was my last resort and it worked.

 

[Smarthawk]

Yeah...the Michigan '05 game was a Blackout game and I remember it feeling and looking like a funeral when we left Kinnick.

 

[David79]

Good call. JVB didn't need to make any big plays in OT. Especially when you consider the massive 67 rushing yards we put up that day. We were jamming it down their throats all game. Take it to OT, sit back, and watch the ground game punch it in the end zone as many times as needed. It's all about context, baby.

First, i was just trying to get you riled up and it worked. Second. I didn't say they were jamming it down their throats. Forget about context, now you are just making things up.

 

[StatelineHawk]

The Northwestern loss in 2009 was the worst for me. Lose an undefeated season and your starting quarterback. I put 2002 ISU on the list as well but that loss is only painful in hindsight. Nobody thought they'd run the table the rest of the way at the time. The other one for me was Wisconsin in 2010. I'll never forget that game.

I agree on all accounts about those 3 losses. I couldn't watch college football live the week after NW loss.
The last two losses to Minny have been more embarrassing than painful. KF and Zooker. Only Big 10 coaches to lose to Minny.

 

[StatelineHawk]

There are going to be some games that were painful for others...I tried to pick the ones that I felt were universally painful for some reason..that AZ game was the trap game of that season IMO so losing it wasn't like the biggest shocker ever...but now that I think about it, it probably deserved to be on because of how Iowa lost it, having come all the way back

Jon
You did a very good job of picking games that are universally painful to Iowa fans. Nine of those losses I lay a lot of blame on KF. I am not a KF basher but some of those losses were inexcusable.

 

[PCHawk]

How would an interception in that final minute have been worse than an interception in OT? The risks of an interception didn't change by sitting on the ball. We faced all the same downside in OT, but we reduced the upside of having the ball last with a chance to win. It was a terrible decision strategically. And I also think it gave a psychological boost to OSU and a psychological blow to our team. The other stuff you mention was also big, but it's easier to live with physical mistakes than mental ones. That's what made that one (and the Wisconsin loss) so painful.

Because Iowa started with the ball on their 33. An interception could have easily turned into points for OSU. There is a much lower risk in OT because you are starting on the opponents 25 yard line with no clock running. In this the safer approach and also the one that gave them the best chance of winning. I just wouldn't put the game in the hands of a freshman QB who had already thrown 3 ints and nearly a 4th on the road at OSU. If it would have been Stanzi playing the coaches probably would have tried move the ball through the air and get in position. Also, dropped passes and missed 22 yard FGs are mental mistakes, at least that is the way I see it. They were phsyically capable of making those plays but because of a lack of concentration they were botched.

You are right when you say an interception in regulation COULD have ended up points for OSU. The thing you are not realizing is that even though we start at at the 25 in ot, an interception still gives the ball to OSU in scoring position no matter what. If you think we have a 50 50 shot in ot (which we didnt) that means you think there was a greater then 50 percent JVB would throw an interception in regulation, our defense would let them get into field goal range, and they would make a field goal, all in under 40 seconds. It's hard to believe anyone thinks that would all happen more then half the time in that situation.

Giving the ball to JVB in regulation doesn't FORCE him to make a play, it gives him an OPPORTUNITY to make a play while giving him a possible 2nd chance if things don't work out.

If you make a mistake in ot you end up praying for a missed 40 yard field goal at best. A mistake in regulation gives the defense a chance to bail us out

 

[slickwillard]

^ correct, how can slickwillard bash on Drew Tate. He helped win a b1G championship and he had us in contention to win many more games that the coaching staff's conservative playcalling and defense lost.

Also, tate had a ton of balls dropped in 05 but especially in 06.

I think Drew Tate was very frustrated especially in 06 with the drops and the coaches conservative nature.

It was a personality thing. I wont take away from his skills.

 

[David79]

You are right when you say an interception in regulation COULD have ended up points for OSU. The thing you are not realizing is that even though we start at at the 25 in ot, an interception still gives the ball to OSU in scoring position no matter what. If you think we have a 50 50 shot in ot (which we didnt) that means you think there was a greater then 50 percent JVB would throw an interception in regulation, our defense would let them get into field goal range, and they would make a field goal, all in under 40 seconds. It's hard to believe anyone thinks that would all happen more then half the time in that situation.

Giving the ball to JVB in regulation doesn't FORCE him to make a play, it gives him an OPPORTUNITY to make a play while giving him a possible 2nd chance if things don't work out.

If you make a mistake in ot you end up praying for a missed 40 yard field goal at best. A mistake in regulation gives the defense a chance to bail us out

No, I do realize that. Ill take the chance of going to OT and scoring a TD and giving the defense a chance to hold OSU to a field goal over trying to score on the road with a minute left. Why? Because it is relatively easier given the field position Iowa was in and considering who was playing QB, and that was a pretty good defense and I would rely on them to hold OSU to three.


It doesn't really matter because they lost. Either way, they had a chance to win. If they lost going for it in regulation there would have been just as many people complaining about it.

 

[Golfer]

Please, just drop it. Iowa wasn't going to win at C-bus that day no matter what. Hayden used to win there on occasion and was generally competitive, but Kurt ain't Hayden.

Well, they did miss a facemask call in the OT. Rolled Stanzi away from the view of the ref's, which would have given us an automatic first down, instead f of the sack. That's football. I watched it later on TV and you couldn't see it. They face masked him right in front of iowa's bench though, and we all saw it.

 

[kuhntz]

I don't have a problem with taking a knee at the end of OSU game. Vandenberg had thrown 3 ints and nearly another one. What killed Iowa in that game was the dropped TD by Stross, they missed a freakin 22 yard FG, and the offense absolutely sucked in OT.

It's fine if you want to use that argument about Vandenberg's Int's and wanting to limit that risk at the end of regulation. However, that goes out the window and is irrelevant when you throw on first down in OT. If the argument is to take it out of Vandenberg's hands...take it out of his hands.

Horrible coaching decision.

Because Iowa started with the ball on their 33. An interception could have easily turned into points for OSU. There is a much lower risk in OT because you are starting on the opponents 25 yard line with no clock running. In this the safer approach and also the one that gave them the best chance of winning. I just wouldn't put the game in the hands of a freshman QB who had already thrown 3 ints and nearly a 4th on the road at OSU. If it would have been Stanzi playing the coaches probably would have tried move the ball through the air and get in position.

Also, dropped passes and missed 22 yard FGs are mental mistakes, at least that is the way I see it. They were phsyically capable of making those plays but because of a lack of concentration they were botched.

Not to jump on you specifically, but this is the biggest fallacy that was made constantly on the boards after the game. An int in OT is worse than at the end of regulation.

Let me state this clearly...It is a bigger risk to throw an INT IN OT in college football, than with 35 seconds left at your own 33.

Reasons being, if you throw an interception in the final minute, where Iowa was...OSU is likely to be in between the 40's. Not a guaranteed FG without picking up some yardage, against our D which was a great D and was playing fantastic during the comeback. If you throw an INT in OT.

The opposing team starts at YOUR 25. They can kick a FG without gaining a yard.

There is no argument for taking the game out of Vandenberg's hands to end regulation and then have him throw on first down in OT.

 

[PCHawk]

You are right when you say an interception in regulation COULD have ended up points for OSU. The thing you are not realizing is that even though we start at at the 25 in ot, an interception still gives the ball to OSU in scoring position no matter what. If you think we have a 50 50 shot in ot (which we didnt) that means you think there was a greater then 50 percent JVB would throw an interception in regulation, our defense would let them get into field goal range, and they would make a field goal, all in under 40 seconds. It's hard to believe anyone thinks that would all happen more then half the time in that situation. Giving the ball to JVB in regulation doesn't FORCE him to make a play, it gives him an OPPORTUNITY to make a play while giving him a possible 2nd chance if things don't work out. If you make a mistake in ot you end up praying for a missed 40 yard field goal at best. A mistake in regulation gives the defense a chance to bail us out

No, I do realize that. Ill take the chance of going to OT and scoring a TD and giving the defense a chance to hold OSU to a field goal over trying to score on the road with a minute left. Why? Because it is relatively easier given the field position Iowa was in and considering who was playing QB, and that was a pretty good defense and I would rely on them to hold OSU to three. It doesn't really matter because they lost. Either way, they had a chance to win. If they lost going for it in regulation there would have been just as many people complaining about it.

i would take that too if not scoring in regulation meant you lose the game. But if you don't score in regulation there is still a very good chance you get to go to overtime.

Honest question, at the 33 yard line with 40 seconds who do you think scores more if we did it 10 times, our offense or their defense?

Also the way overtime works, the 1st team to not score a touchdown usually loses. In that situation who puts it into the endzone more times if you do it 10 times, them or us?

I feel like we win in regulation 2 times to their 1 and lose in ot 6 out of 10 times. I know that everyone will have different answers to those 2 questions but I can't see how anyone could answer them honestly and have the odds say our chances were better in ot then regulation.

I think peoples problem when deciding if it was the right call or not is that they think they have a 50% chance in ot and the odds of scoring in regulation are way less then 50% so they are better off going to ot. They fail to realize that not scoring in regulation doesn't mean you lose.

 

[hawkfan340]

No, I do realize that. Ill take the chance of going to OT and scoring a TD and giving the defense a chance to hold OSU to a field goal over trying to score on the road with a minute left. Why? Because it is relatively easier given the field position Iowa was in and considering who was playing QB, and that was a pretty good defense and I would rely on them to hold OSU to three.


It doesn't really matter because they lost. Either way, they had a chance to win. If they lost going for it in regulation there would have been just as many people complaining about it.

(Sigh) There are so many things wrong here is hard to know where to begin. This is like arguing with a flat-earther or something.

I'm out.

 

[David79]

(Sigh) There are so many things wrong here is hard to know where to begin. This is like arguing with a flat-earther or something.

I'm out.

Your problem is that you think there is a right and wrong answer. There isn't.

 

[PCHawk]

(Sigh) There are so many things wrong here is hard to know where to begin. This is like arguing with a flat-earther or something. I'm out.

Your problem is that you think there is a right and wrong answer. There isn't.

statistically there is a right or wrong answer here

 

[David79]

statistically there is a right or wrong answer here

Ok, what statistics?

 

[PCHawk]

statistically there is a right or wrong answer here

Ok, what statistics?

the one that says the offense scores more often then the defense

 

[David79]

the one that says the offense scores more often then the defense

How about these statistics on JVB for his carreer.

Between own 20-39 and between the 40's he has 3 TDs 10 INTs 22 sacks

From opponents 20 yardline and overtime in he has 16 TDs and 1 INTs and 1 sack.