SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
There are probably several threads where this has been discussed at some point. I can't bring myself to read all of them right now.
I don't want to get hung up on one play, but this is the thing that bothers me most about yesterday.
Yes, it seems the coaches should have had Stanzi spike it. But for all the great attributes of the Iowa staff, making quick decisions on the fly as the clock winds down has been problematic. I can live with that weakness.
What baffles me, though, is once the coaches called timeout and had a chance to plan out the last 10 seconds, how could things have gone so wrong? Isn't the only option at that point to run a quick out pattern to the sideline? And all the players, especially Stanzi, needed to be given the clear message that anything else will result in the end of the game.
The coaches had a whole timeout to discuss this - it wasn't a matter of making a split-second decision under duress. Doesn't Stanzi need to be told to throw the ball away immediately if the quick sideline out isn't there? Either way it is a bam-bam play. Stanzi is told to throw the ball either to the receiver or out of bounds. And then told to run the exact same thing if it doesn't work the first time. If two sideline outs in a row didn't work, we'd still be discussing the spike, but at least it would have been clear what strategy the staff had after the timeout. To me, the mismanagement after the timeout is a worse sin and more uncharacteristic of the staff than the mistake of not spiking the ball.
Am I missing something here?
I don't want to get hung up on one play, but this is the thing that bothers me most about yesterday.
Yes, it seems the coaches should have had Stanzi spike it. But for all the great attributes of the Iowa staff, making quick decisions on the fly as the clock winds down has been problematic. I can live with that weakness.
What baffles me, though, is once the coaches called timeout and had a chance to plan out the last 10 seconds, how could things have gone so wrong? Isn't the only option at that point to run a quick out pattern to the sideline? And all the players, especially Stanzi, needed to be given the clear message that anything else will result in the end of the game.
The coaches had a whole timeout to discuss this - it wasn't a matter of making a split-second decision under duress. Doesn't Stanzi need to be told to throw the ball away immediately if the quick sideline out isn't there? Either way it is a bam-bam play. Stanzi is told to throw the ball either to the receiver or out of bounds. And then told to run the exact same thing if it doesn't work the first time. If two sideline outs in a row didn't work, we'd still be discussing the spike, but at least it would have been clear what strategy the staff had after the timeout. To me, the mismanagement after the timeout is a worse sin and more uncharacteristic of the staff than the mistake of not spiking the ball.
Am I missing something here?
