Watching the ISU coaches show...interesting thing Rhoads said

I understand what you guys are saying in Ferentz's defense, but I also see what everyone else is saying. By kicking the field goal your playing it safe and taking the points, but in return your putting a defense on the field that had given up touchdowns and couldn't make a stop on ISU's final drive in OT and their first two possessions in OT. And guess what? The defense failed to come up with a stop, ISU found the endzone on their fourth consecutive drive, and we find ourselves losing another game where we made no attempt to win the game in regulation and played it safe in OT.
 
storminspank said:
And if Iowa doesn't get the 1st down when it was 4th and 1, game is over regardless.

I don't think this argument is as open and shut as some see it.

99% of those arguing to go for it on 4th and 1 would have been on here complaining that Ferentz didn't kick the FG.
Click to expand...

No.
 
storminspank said:
And if Iowa doesn't get the 1st down when it was 4th and 1, game is over regardless.

I don't think this argument is as open and shut as some see it.

99% of those arguing to go for it on 4th and 1 would have been on here complaining that Ferentz didn't kick the FG.
Click to expand...


If they don't get the first down, game isn't over. In both scenarios the defense is responsible for coming up with a stop, the obvious difference being a FG would win the game rather than tie it. Considering ISU shanked a few FG's earlier, I like those odds and I'm going for it.
 
I think the odds are better for holding ISU to a field goal vs. holding them to zero points. You kick the FG every time. Let's not forget that the players on the field had soemthing to do with the outcome of the game as well, not just Ferentz. Collin Sleeper should not be our starting safety. Our Dline was horrible except for a few good plays by Binns. If we had just one guy on the line that could generate a decent passrush we most likely would have won the game.
 
azhawkeyefan said:
If they don't get the first down, game isn't over. In both scenarios the defense is responsible for coming up with a stop, the obvious difference being a FG would win the game rather than tie it. Considering ISU shanked a few FG's earlier, I like those odds and I'm going for it.
Click to expand...

I realize ISU has missed a couple FGs already, but you cannot go first in an OT period and come away with no points - at that point the only thing you can hope for is a missed FG or a turnover, you can't win the game with your defense, you can only play to not lose... which, ironically, is something Iowa fans don't want KF to do - play to not lose.
 
David79 said:
I think the odds are better for holding ISU to a field goal vs. holding them to zero points. You kick the FG every time. Let's not forget that the players on the field had soemthing to do with the outcome of the game as well, not just Ferentz. Collin Sleeper should not be our starting safety. Our Dline was horrible except for a few good plays by Binns. If we had just one guy on the line that could generate a decent passrush we most likely would have won the game.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I'd be willing to bet that there were probably atleast 11 guys who wanted to be given the opportunity to put a drive together at the end of regulation and see about getting into field goal range. And I refuse to point fingers at anyone specifically on the defense because they did everything they could to win on the field.

Edit: On second thought, how do you call you certain individuals when the entire defense failed to get it done. I don't think any of them played great football, but nor do I think any of them stood out and played worsre than any others.
 
storminspank said:
I realize ISU has missed a couple FGs already, but you cannot go first in an OT period and come away with no points - at that point the only thing you can hope for is a missed FG or a turnover, you can't win the game with your defense, you can only play to not lose... which, ironically, is something Iowa fans don't want KF to do - play to not lose.
Click to expand...

There is a fine line between playing safe and playing not to lose. I agree with you on the need to come away with points, but when you play safe all the time and conitunally refuse to take those chances when they arise it unfortunately does become an issue when you lose.
 
kicker22 said:
There is a fine line between playing safe and playing not to lose. I agree with you on the need to come away with points, but when you play safe all the time and conitunally refuse to take those chances when they arise it unfortunately does become an issue when you lose.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this.
 
bogeyman said:
Not sure if it has been mentioned or not, but after the penalty that left 4th & 1 at the very least why not run the offense out there and set up like you're QB sneaking and try to hard count the defense offsides? If they don't jump we can call timeout and still kick the FG. I usually don't have a problem with KF's conservativeness in many games, but in this game he failed to see how the game was playing out and to realize this defense was not going to stop ISU. He needs to adapt to each game and how it is/has played out. 100% agree we needed to take a shot at the end of the 4th.
Click to expand...


Was going to post something...than I saw this post...which is exactly what I was going to say.
 
Why not go for 2 at the end of the second OT? One play from the 3 yard line. Those odds gotta be better than trusting that sieve of a defense one more time.
 
I'm sure no one likes me to bring the cyclones into this but this whole situation reminds me of the NU/ISU game last year. None of the ISU fans were happy that we lost to NU but I didn't see a lot of fans mad at Rhoads for the fake extra point. Just my opinion but I don't think many Iowa fans would have been mad if Iowa would have gone for it on 4th and 1 and fell short.
 
The coaches need to change their mentality....we cannot rely on the defense to win games this year. That was proven Saturday throughout the game...I can understand taking the pts in the 3rd OT; most coaches would do that.

I do not agree with sitting on the ball in the 4th quarter. Isn't the cardinal rule in coaching to go for the win when on the road? If you have a chance to go for 2 and the win, you go for it right? If you are at home you play for OT.

I just don't think this team is good enough to play conservatively "all the time". They are going to have to take some risks...blitz....throw on obvious run downs, etc.

We were outcoached Saturday....badly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top