Why shutdown the offense in 2nd half??

[uihawk82]

I dont think we had to score 42 points in the 2nd half but I also thought the playcalling was way too conservative.

One nice drive early in the 3rd Qtr where the hawks were still using the whole playbook, get a TD to extend the lead and then work on another score.

I think it was in the 3rd Qtr when Jake missed KMM in the gap between cornerback and safety and that could have been a huge play. It could have been housed or at least a needed first down. But that play was about the only decent pass play that seemed to be called in the 3rd qtr.

I just never feel safe with KF's teams unless they have a 3-4 score lead. The nature of this coaching staff is to go conservative. Heck even with a 24 point lead IU showed how quick it can be shaved to a 16 point lead a things get queasy.

Mich St shut it down last week and almost blew it. Mich st almost blew it yesterday.

What kind of offensive play calling can be safe for KF but still grind out first downs like we needed in the 3rd qt?

 

[theboat]

It is not like the offense was "risky" in the first half. Kurt sees anything more than a one point win as showing off.

 

[HomerChampless]

That's Ferentzes' influence on the offense, of course.

 

[uihawk82]

It is not like the offense was "risky" in the first half.

I agree but the feel in the 3rd qtr especially was run, run up the gut.

I know the hawks didnt have great field position in the 3rd qtr it seemed but especially with our Tight Ends it seems we should be able to play action and call some safe passes to these big targets.

 

[theboat]

I agree but the feel in the 3rd qtr especially was run, run up the gut.

I know the hawks didnt have great field position in the 3rd qtr it seemed but especially with our Tight Ends it seems we should be able to play action and call some safe passes to these big targets.

I'm on your side. Safe for Kurt is not scoring points.

 

[JonDMiller]

It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it.

 

[theboat]

It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it.

It is that exact philosophy that is the reason why Iowa consistently loses to inferior opponents. Letting everyone hang around until the end leaves more room for error than throwing a few passes does.

This is what I don't get about conservative Kurt. You are way more likely to lose a game that is within a score or 2 than you are if you are up big.

 

[uihawk82]

JM's post "It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it."

It is that exact philosophy that is the reason why Iowa consistently loses to inferior opponents. Letting everyone hang around until the end leaves more room for error than throwing a few passes does.

This is what I don't get about conservative Kurt. You are way more likely to lose a game that is within a score or 2 than you are if you are up big.

I have to go with theboat. JM, disagree with you that it was a done deal. My son and I were in the stands at jNW in 2005 to watch the horrendous blown lead against the 'cats. Iowa was so much the better team but they shut it down and got conservative.

You know what, yesterday if Lomax doesnt get the pick and IU scores with a minute+ to go and gets the 2 point conversion the score is 45-37. And with Iowa's history of not covering onside kicks I hate to say what might have happened.

I am not saying you throw stupid passes with a 38-17 lead but IU was needing to take chances on defense. I would have liked to see one nice drive in the 3rd qtr to eat a lot of clock and get at least 3 points.

 

[uihawk82]

Actually the week before the blown lead at jNW in 2005 I think the hawks were controlling the game with Mich at Kinnick but then went conservative on offense (which Drew Tate seemed to hate) and the hawks lost in OT.

These two weeks in 2005 was when the KF hawks lost their mojo for the most part. Opposing coaches know how KF will shut it down.

 

[NCHawker]

Style points get you the kind of recruits you want at the skill position and that can get you more wins. And for some coaches that success which means means job security

 

[ohhawk]

The "wear'em down" part of the Ferentz strategy doesn't seem to be hitting on all cylinders thus far which is also part of his normal approach to second half play calling. Rushing yards don't seem to be much easier in the second half of games than in the first so far.

 

[NCHawker]

Well, as I remember the game in the 2nd half (and this is just vague perception), I saw iowa starting on their own 15 or so, line up with 2 tight ends and I formation. I knew what was coming- Weisman for 2 or maybe 3 yards. Then repeat, then incomplete, then punt.

Saw it a lot. I attributed the scheme and playcalling to field position, maybe it was KF just dialing things down for security. What bothers me about this is - that approach has a low probability this year (in 3rd quarter) of allowing the hawks to retain possession. It more likely than not, and it did, result in a 3 and out... not a lot of time taken off the clock, not a lot of ball control, just a 3 and out.

Let the kids play!!!!

 

[1977Hawkeye]

A 17 point lead was nice, and with Indiana's starting QB out, yeah, I felt that there was little chance Iowa was going to lose that lead. But a 17 point lead is hardly insurmountable. It's too early to just shut it down IMO. If you go up 21-28 and it's in the 4th quarter, sure, different story, but as someone pointed out, if Indiana's pass into our end zone had been a TD instead of an INT, it could've been a 1 possession game, and anything can happen in an on-side kick scenario.

Put your opponent away!!!!

And I'm not saying hang 70 on someone the way Wisconsin or OSU have done, but it never hurts to add some style points for recruiting's sake. KF seems opposed to being "sexy".

 

[ThunderHawk]

It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it.

I had a problem with our inability to defend the hand-off. Yikes.

 

[trj]

JM's post "It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it."



I have to go with theboat. JM, disagree with you that it was a done deal. My son and I were in the stands at jNW in 2005 to watch the horrendous blown lead against the 'cats. Iowa was so much the better team but they shut it down and got conservative.

You know what, yesterday if Lomax doesnt get the pick and IU scores with a minute+ to go and gets the 2 point conversion the score is 45-37. And with Iowa's history of not covering onside kicks I hate to say what might have happened.

I am not saying you throw stupid passes with a 38-17 lead but IU was needing to take chances on defense. I would have liked to see one nice drive in the 3rd qtr to eat a lot of clock and get at least 3 points.

Shada got lit up like a Christmas tree and one onside kick did them in that game.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it.

There is no style points into losing to horrible teams also. Iowa has proven they can and will lose to the worst teams in the country because of 2nd half conservative play calling. Iowa over the last couple years is the example on how to not close games out.

 

[uihawk82]

Shada got lit up like a Christmas tree and one onside kick did them in that game.

It wasnt just Shada, I hate to say it but Norm had the Dbacks giving so much cushion, or maybe the players felt they needed to add extra cushion, that every throw by jNW was a practice squad pitch and catch and each pass resulted in a first down that stopped the clock.

Then jNW just hiked the ball when the clock started and got another first down.

It is ridiculous how many plays a team can get off in a minute in college ball when they get a first down on every play. YOu can nickle and dime your way 75 yards for a TD so easy in a minute or so against soft coverage.

Yeah, Albert Young was an ankle tackle from going the distance to lock up that game but that is just it, the hawks couldnt get two first downs when they needed it in the 4th qtr after running up 400 yards in 3 qtrs.

And then once the hawks fell behind, just like the week before against Mich, the offense opens up and they march down the field. Well he## just keep doing that from the get go.

If you are going to lose 50% of your games against inferior teams being conservative you might as well beat teams you are better than more often than not by being aggressive.

Hey, in ordinary life I am not a super aggressive person but football is just a game, come on go for it.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Actually the week before the blown lead at jNW in 2005 I think the hawks were controlling the game with Mich at Kinnick but then went conservative on offense (which Drew Tate seemed to hate) and the hawks lost in OT.

These two weeks in 2005 was when the KF hawks lost their mojo for the most part. Opposing coaches know how KF will shut it down.

The 2005 Michigan game broke a years' long home winning streak and was really a harbinger of the next 3+ years of Iowa football. The play calling in the red zone as time wore down was criminal, but Kurt wanted to settle for the FG and take it to OT. Prior to that game, Iowa had won every close game for something like 3 years and after that game our record in close games tanked until PSU in 2008 (I think the only close one we won was the thriller at Syracuse).

 

[ArvadaHawk]

It was pretty much a done deal at the half after Iowa scored that TD, as long as Sudfeld didn't come back. You knew Kirk would pull back the reigns because at that point, the only way Iowa was losing was if it made mistakes. You play to win the game and style points don't get you extra points in the Big Ten standings. I don't have a problem with what they did and certainly expected it.

Jon, perhaps in the specific game circumstances, I can see it, but not really. But KF does this with 10 point leads and you can't always just turn the offense back on, particularly, under KF and using JR and MW as primary players. Our D was gashed by Coleman 3 times and IU made it a 2 score game with over 13 minutes left in the game. I think KF needs to learn to keep the pedal to the metal, especially, when we're up by 3 scores. In KF's mind, 2 scores in insurmountable; yet, we've seen Iowa crash and burn many, many times before, with this strategy. There is nothing wrong with continuing to score points and keeping the offensive team in rhythm and blowing someone out.

 

[uihawk82]

The 2005 Michigan game broke a years' long home winning streak and was really a harbinger of the next 3+ years of Iowa football. The play calling in the red zone as time wore down was criminal, but Kurt wanted to settle for the FG and take it to OT. Prior to that game, Iowa had won every close game for something like 3 years and after that game our record in close games tanked until PSU in 2008 (I think the only close one we won was the thriller at Syracuse).

^^ Exactly, the hawks won the close ones in 2009 and 2008 with just great teams and defenses.

the last half of 2010 to the present really have seen the low point of the curve/cycle of the conservatism biting the players in the arse, and many times this problem comes from the coaching style and game time decisions.