Upon Further Review: Iowa was not Uber-Conservative

D

DDThompson

Guest
The wailing and gnashing of teeth over Iowa's second half offensive performance has died down considerably. Could be because the kids went back to playing NCAA on the PS3 and running up scores against PSU at the JV level or that the liquid courage along with the equivalent liquid stupidity has worn off.

But rather than feelings judging KOK's uber-ness, here are the facts. (I counted QB scrambles and sacks as pass selection so numbers will not line up with the official boxscore)

1st half play selection
down . rush . pass . ratio
1st . . . 11 . . .7 . . 61:39
2nd . . . 8 . . . 5 . . 61:39
3rd . . . .0 . . .4 . . 0:100
54:46 rush-pass ratio

2nd half play selection
down . rush . pass . ratio
1st . . . 7 . . . .3 . . 70:30
2nd . . . 5 . . . 3 . . .62:38
3rd . . . 0 . . . .4 . . 0:100
58:42 rush-pass ratio

Total Game play selection
down . rush . pass . ratio
1st . . . 18. . . 10 . .64:36
2nd . . .13 . . . 8 . . 62:38
3rd . . . .2 . . . 8 . . 20:80
55:45 rush-pass ratio

The following is a possession chart that includes starting field position (SFP), opening play selection (OPS), rush attempts/yard, pass attempts/yards, total plays/yards, plays of 10+yards, and plays of 0 and negative yards.

1st half POSSESSION AND DRIVES
SFP . . OPS . . R/yds . .P/yds . Tot/yds . +10 . 0/- . notes
I-20 . . R+6 . . 5/30 . . 4/52 . . . 9/82 . . . .3 . . .1 . . . FG

I-24 . . R=0 . . 2/15 . . 1/0 . . . . 3/15 . . . .1 . . 2 . . . .int

I-49 . . P+9 . . 3/13 . . 4/38 . . . 7/51 . . . .1 . . .1 . . . TD

I-42 . . R-1 . . 1/-1 . . . 2/8 . . . .3/7 . . . . 0 . . .2 . . . 3&out

I-17 . . P+9 . . 3/3 . . . 2/9 . . . .5/12 . . . .0 . . .3

I-32 . . P+18 . 6/32 . . .2/36 . . . 8/68 . . . 3 . . .1 . . . .TD

2nd half POSSESSION AND DRIVES
SFP . . OPS . . R/yds . .P/yds . Tot/yds . +10 . 0/- . . notes
I-01 . . R=0 . . 4/13 . . 2/20 . . . 6/33 . . . . 2 . . . 3

I-20 . . R-4. . .2/-4 . . 1/0 . . . . 3/-4 . . . . 0 . . . 3 . . . 3&out

I-05 . . R+4 . . 2/7 . . . 4/61 . . . 6/68 . . . .2 . . . 2

I-15 . . R+2 . . 1/2 . . . 2/6 . . . . 3/8 . . . . 0 . . . 0 . . . . 3&out

I-22 . . R+9 . . 5/14 . . .0/0 . . . .5/14 . . . .0 . . . 2

Average yardage per play:
1st half = 6.7
2nd half = 5.0

Fact #1
Average field position:
1st half = Iowa 30
2nd half = Iowa 13

Fact #2
Score to start the 3rd quarter:
Iowa 17
Penn State 3

Fact #3
Iowa had better success rushing the ball on the opening play of each drive in the second half than in the first half. But that success should be in "quotes" because it wasn't much.

3 rushes in first half netted 5 yards (2 plays of 0 or negative yards) for a 1.7 avg
vs.
all 5 rushes opening the possessions in 2nd half netting 11 yards (2 plays of 0 or negative yards) for a 2.2 avg.

Fact #4
Iowa had 8 of the 35 total plays in the first half go for 10+ yards -- a 23% clip. 5 of the 24 plays in the second half went for 10+yards -- a 21% clip.

Fact #5
14 of Iowa's 33 rushing plays went for 0 or negative yards for a 42% rate of futility. (7 of 19 in the first half and 7 of 14 in the second half).

35% of Iowa's total plays went for 0 or negative yards.
28% of Iowa's total plays went for 9 yards or more.

Fact #6
Iowa's yards-per-play in the second half was 5.0 (when Iowa was allegedly uber-conservative) while Penn State's was 4.0 (excluding the last garbage yard drive)

Fact #7
The first three-peat of play selections were pass attempts at the end of the second possession (INT) and the next two plays of the third possesion.

Iowa's first three-peat of rushes came in the 4th possession of the first half that started at their own 17yd line.

After starting their last possession of the first half with two 18yd passes, the Hawks rushed the ball six consecutive times for 32 yards and a TD.



My takes from the facts:

Take #1
Iowa's 55:45 ratio of rush-pass is not uber-conservative.

Heck, when I play franchise mode as the Hawks on NCAAFOOTBALL (and simulate the games), I set the rush-pass ratio where I have the best success -- at 60:40.

Take #2
Three things led to Iowa's less than imaginative play-calling in the second half. Same as the rules for real estate: location, location, location. Look at the second-half starting field positions and tell me that play calling will not become "less imaginative".

Take #2 Corollary
Iowa had a two score lead.

And Iowa had Iowa's defense.

Everyone watching knew that if Iowa had a 17 point lead that Penn State was not going to score 18 points against Iowa's defense. Bob Davie all but said that if Iowa scored it's second touchdown the game was over. He couldn't say it because he didn't want viewers changing channels but he drew a mental visual of Iowa putting the Cats on the kabob.

Only Iowa's offense or special teams could help PSU. They didn't. And in spite of the calls of uber-conservative play-calling in the second half, Iowa had a passing play of 20 in the drive from their 1 and an 18- and 43-yd passes in the drive that started from their 5.

Take #2 Corollary addendum.
I understand some of the angst, however.

The last Penn State drive of the first half the went 76 yards in 7 plays. They should have had a shot for a TD attempt. Should have. And I'll be the bad guy for saying it but Joe Paterno cost them that attempt. He was not in position that an ol' coach should be in to get the ref's attention and call time out. Since he can't run down the field, then the communication lines between Joe Pa and his assistant coaches have got to improve for proper clock managment.

The score could have been 17-7. It wasn't.

And then PSU took the opening drive 77 yards on 13 plays to be stopped at the two-inch line.

The score could have been 17-14. It wasn't, of course. It was still 17-3.

But I understand the angst that some Hawk fans have about Iowa taking the air out of the ball because of what could have been.

Take #3
Which leads me to the fallacy that Iowa went uber-conservative to take the air out of the ball. Not true. In order to do that, a team needs to move the ball on the ground and eat up clock.

Iowa didn't.

"Drives" of 6-3-6-3-5 plays aren't really drives. That's not even ball control. Iowa didn't eat up the clock in the second half. Check the first two quarters of the Iowa vs. ISU game. Those were drives.

This was all about field position and PSU kept putting Iowa deep in their own territory with an assist from Iowa's defense on one possession.

Take #4
Having 42% of one's rushing plays go for 0 or negative yards is not good. And that seems to be more about execution than play-calling. That has to improve. Although play-calling on obvious rushing downs isn't going to help execution.

Take #5
2 of 10 on 3rd conversion isn't good either. But Alabama was only 3 of 10. So maybe the guys in the white jerseys play a little bit of defense. Iowa's and Bama's stats vs. PSU's defense are quite similar.

* * * * * * *

Upon further review: the judgment from the blogosphere that KOK is an uber-conservative idiot has been reversed.

Kirk and O'Keefe have demonstrated that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The last three years are proof of that.

Just ask the Nittany Lions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After watching replays, I reversed my position and found that our lack of success had more to do with lack of execution than anything else. Though to be fair to a few of those 3rd down passes, we were in 3rd and really long a couple times. But if we could have just executed in the run game, we would have been moving the ball just fine.
 
I wasn't one has been fretting about the play calling. I did, however, post during the second half that I thought PSU would have to score for Iowa's coaches to start really trying to move the ball.

Now, as far as your charts go, you should also consider when Iowa threw the ball. In the first half run and pass were mixed up a little more. In the second half it got into a more predictable run, run, pass sequence. That being said, the Hawks were chewing up 5 minute chunks of time doing this.
 
Good lord. Those are excellent points but I just wanted to ask... Do you have a lot of time on your hands? :)
 
I think there are other variables missing and that is:
(1) how many times in the first half did Penn St bring 8 or more into the box vs the second half.
(2) What was the percentage of pass when Penn St brought 8 or more into the box in the first half vs the second half.

I think this will show Iowa went to a more conservative play call because they didn't check to certain pass plays that worked in the first half.
 
WOW! Iowa had a lead and didn't want/need to show everything offensively. It's a long season and they don't want the rest of the Big 10 seeing their entire playbook.

Did you really compare them to you playing franchise mode on NCAA Football? You do have a lot of time!
 
CAARHawk said:
Now, as far as your charts go, you should also consider when Iowa threw the ball. In the first half run and pass were mixed up a little more. In the second half it got into a more predictable run, run, pass sequence.
Click to expand...
I thought that, too, during the game. But the play selection of the second half breaks down this way.

I-01 = R-R-P (1st) R-P-R

I-20 = R-R-P (sack)

I-05 = R-P (1st) P (1st) P-R(reverse)-P

I-15 = R-P-P

I-22 = R-R (1st) R-R-R

That's a pretty good mix of plays seems to me. Maybe reality doesn't match up with perception. That being said, watching the game, it also seemed we knew when Iowa was going to run. And it seemed like PSU did, too.
 
Can you give me the same breakdown for the first half? Sorry, but I don't have time to do this.

Also, your totals show 2 runs on third down, but your half-by-half breakdown has no runs on third. Must be missing something there.
 
NorthFloridaHawkeye said:
I think there are other variables missing and that is:
(1) how many times in the first half did Penn St bring 8 or more into the box vs the second half.
(2) What was the percentage of pass when Penn St brought 8 or more into the box in the first half vs the second half.

I think this will show Iowa went to a more conservative play call because they didn't check to certain pass plays that worked in the first half.
Click to expand...
I just went by box score, not tape. But Iowa doesn't mind when teams bring 8 in the box. If they bust through the 1st line then it's a huge gain. That's execution.

The second half was all about field position.
 
CAARHawk said:
Can you give me the same breakdown for the first half? Sorry, but I don't have time to do this.

Also, your totals show 2 runs on third down, but your half-by-half breakdown has no runs on third. Must be missing something there.
Click to expand...
Probably missing more than one thing. Probably did QB scramble differently on the two lists. Did it late last night fretting about my job. Now between dentist and doctor's visits. But I think the pattern is there that Iowa isn't as predictable as we might perceive.

1st half

I-20 = R-P (1st) P (1st) R-R(reverse-1st) P (1st) R-R-P (FG)

I-24 = R-R (1st) P (int)

I-49 = P-P(QBscramble) (1st) R-P-P (1st) R-P (TD)

I-42 = R-P-P

I-17 = P-R (1st) R-R-P

I-32 = P (1st) P (1st) R-R (1st) R-R (1st) R-R (TD)
 
Mac50702 said:
Wow, that was insane to read. This guy must have as much downtime at work as i have.
Click to expand...
:) Nope, not at all. Just waitin' until my kids go to bed and I get my turn on the computer and I couldn't sleep.
 
nice work..dont know if this is correct but my thought from being at kinnick was PSU was crowding the box quite a bit more in the 2nd half...which would explain some peoples belief that Iowa could have been more aggressive.
 
Long statistics there and a lot of work put into it. However, most of the time it was hand off on first down. It would have been to see a few more passing downs on first down.....especially in the second half.
 
tm3308 said:
After watching replays, I reversed my position and found that our lack of success had more to do with lack of execution than anything else. Though to be fair to a few of those 3rd down passes, we were in 3rd and really long a couple times. But if we could have just executed in the run game, we would have been moving the ball just fine.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

Upon rewatching the game, I was struck by a number of plays where we were initially set to do okay ... but then flubbed. Here are a list of things I noticed in the second half only (in no particular order) ....

- Stanzi whiffs on a roll-out pass to DJK
- ARob drops a pretty good ball that was threaded to him over the middle
- DJK doesn't adequately position himself to make a 1st down on a 3rd down conversion play
- 2 holding penalties by James Ferentz (one was particularly deflating since we seemed to have some momentum on a particular drive)

Also, while few folks are complaining about it ... here's another view of WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN in the first half.

- Were it not for a false start on Stanzi on the opening drive, we arguably should have gotten a TD on the opening drive. The implication there is that we probably SHOULD HAVE put up AT LEAST 21 points on PSU in the first half!

- Stanzi's INT in the 2nd drive was arguably one of the worst pass-decisions that he made all season. It was up there with him taking a sack against Arizona when we were in a makable down and distance situation.

- The roughing the passer penalty on Daniels was BOGUS! Without that bad call ... PSU doesn't even sniff a chance at scoring in the first half! Furthermore, that probably further deflates them to end the half with a pick rather than 3 points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top