Why were we so Conservative in that 2nd half?

[SDK46]

Although if you go over to Bucknuts you'll see similar threads about how agonizing Tressell-ball is. Why they ever choose to sit on things offensively, with their talent base and re-loading year after year, is beyond me.

 

[imported_ankle23]

I understand we were up 17-3. But really? It seemed to me like every play was a -1 yard rush or a run for no gain. It was kind nice to see us throw the ball a little bit in the 4th. Im just glad we got a good W tonite against a "decent" Penn St. team. We were the dominant offensive team in the 1st half and it seemed to me like we held back a bit and we could have impressed the Polls by putting up more points but we aren't Oregon lol. Also I loved all the praise the commentators were giving us like comparing to Alabama. LETS GO HAWKS AND COULDN'T ASK FOR A BETTER BYE WEEK GETTING PREPARED FOR B*TCHIGAN!

Do you think KF would do anything to try to 'humilitate' Paterno? I think he saw Iowa jump out to a quick lead, and saw that he could run the game how he liked, and chose the tried and true. No reason not to get reps in the run game for practice. They were not going to score and if they did, one score would not have put the game in jeopardy.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

Do you think KF would do anything to try to 'humilitate' Paterno? I think he saw Iowa jump out to a quick lead, and saw that he could run the game how he liked, and chose the tried and true. No reason not to get reps in the run game for practice. They were not going to score and if they did, one score would not have put the game in jeopardy.

It is interesting, some people who defend the conservative play-calling also point out that we probably didn't play Rogers or Coker because we didn't want to risk a fumble. While others opine that the game was never in jeopardy because Penn St couldn't score on offense. Did KF believe this? Because our defensive starters were in there until the very end, as Bob Davie pointed out. And now we hear just get some reps in the run game for practice. And even if they did score once, the game would not have been in jeopardy.

HUH? You guys are all over the board.

My only gripe about this game is that we did NOT give Rogers or Coker any reps and that seems very befuddling. We pulled the shirt off Coker and we are going to need him sooner than later. Personally, I would like him to have a few carries in a meaningful game before he is possibly thrust into action due to an injury to a back who, yes, doesn't fumble, but also probably shouldn't be carrying the ball 28 times. Or 13 times in one quarter as he did against Ball St.

People can call it conservative but can't it be construed as playing scared or not playing aggressively enough? *See end of Ohio St game last year. Yes, I have gone and done it and invoked that again.

I just don't get the discrepancy between those who claim the game was over at the end of the 1st quarter but still didn't want to risk a fumble so it is best to keep your backup running back from getting a sniff of the ball.

 

[SDK46]

[/B]
It is interesting, some people who defend the conservative play-calling also point out that we probably didn't play Rogers or Coker because we didn't want to risk a fumble. While others opine that the game was never in jeopardy because Penn St couldn't score on offense. Did KF believe this? Because our defensive starters were in there until the very end, as Bob Davie pointed out. And now we hear just get some reps in the run game for practice. And even if they did score once, the game would not have been in jeopardy.

HUH? You guys are all over the board.

My only gripe about this game is that we did NOT give Rogers or Coker any reps and that seems very befuddling. We pulled the shirt off Coker and we are going to need him sooner than later. Personally, I would like him to have a few carries in a meaningful game before he is possibly thrust into action due to an injury to a back who, yes, doesn't fumble, but also probably shouldn't be carrying the ball 28 times. Or 13 times in one quarter as he did against Ball St.

People can call it conservative but can't it be construed as playing scared or not playing aggressively enough? *See end of Ohio St game last year. Yes, I have gone and done it and invoked that again.

I just don't get the discrepancy between those who claim the game was over at the end of the 1st quarter but still didn't want to risk a fumble so it is best to keep your backup running back from getting a sniff of the ball.

Well said. I just don't drink the kool-aid (see avatar)

And I agree 1000% with your tOSU comment.

 

[CRhawkeye4life]

Iowa never had a 14 point lead against Arizona; it's not even a valid comparison.

Why isn't it? everybody on here is saying we have the best defense and that is why we went conservative to protect the lead. Like I said the defense only gave up 13 points yet we still lost, why is that? Maybe it's because there are other ways to score points then against the defense. Also if you think Penn St couldn't have scored a TD on 1 long pass like last year, would be foolish. Heck they were only a couple of inches from only being down 7.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Why isn't it? everybody on here is saying we have the best defense and that is why we went conservative to protect the lead. Like I said the defense only gave up 13 points yet we still lost, why is that? Maybe it's because there are other ways to score points then against the defense. Also if you think Penn St couldn't have scored a TD on 1 long pass like last year, would be foolish. Heck they were only a couple of inches from only being down 7.

Because Iowa was down 21-7 and Arizona had only run 8 plays. I'm guessing that if Iowa had ever had a 14 point lead at Arizona, or even had the lead in the first place, that we would have seen a similar brand of football out of the Hawks.

Those "other ways" that Arizona scored were fluke plays. Iowa hadn't had a punt blocked in two year before Zona got one, and I can't remember the last kickoff return that went for a touchdown, Zona got one of those. Penn State had ONE effective drive last night, and got nothing out of it. It's fun to engage in hypotheticals and conjecture, but Iowa did win 24-3, and Penn State never got into the end zone.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Here's what I saw:

- Iowa knew that they could pass on the Lions. However, we simply needed to continue to make progress executing in other aspects of our game. Namely, the coaches knew that PSU would provide the OL with a great challenge when it came to run-blocking. Thus, forcing our guys to execute in the running game was VERY VALUABLE for the continued development of our running game. You have to remember that proving that we can run block againt Ball State doesn't really teach our O-lineman a lot. Showing them the good and bad that they do against a quality PSU D teaches them A LOT!

- In addition to the need to further develop our run blocking ... it's also no secret that the coaches like to play ball-control football. Running the ball allows us to run time off the clock. Also, given how infrequently ARob fumbles, it's also a lot safer than getting all pass-happy.

- Stanzi also got more work checking down to ARob. That's good for Stanzi and for the O. It will provide Ricky with good tape about whether he made a good decision or not. Furthermore, it gets him more acclimated to throwing those dump off passes better. I absolutely loved the check-down pass to Morse. Morse runs really well with the ball after the catch ... he's a legit weapon there.

- The D was forced to play a more "basic" form of our D because we had Morris in at the MIKE spot. The D still executed well ... however, we needed to err on the side of conservatism in order to protect our lead.

- As the coaches preach ... we have a great D and a great punter ... we needed be afraid to put the game in their hands (or feet). We exploited the PSU D early before they could make adjustments ... we gained the early lead ... and then we were able to protect the lead. It seemed like a pretty good strategy to me.

- As other have alluded, given our D ... the game was pretty much already well at hand after the first half. There was little need to show opposing teams any more than we absolutely have to. It's called strategy.

- Ferentz and Co coach the team to win. They don't give a rats azz about "style points." We enjoy style points when the team is executing at an exceptionally high level. Our passing game was capable of doing so ... however, our running game is unable to do so without the passing game opening things up. That is, for now ... as the OL continues to progress, they could eventually reach the point when they can assert their collective will more on our opponent. However, they're simply not "there" yet.

 

[Hawks1]

So some of you bad card players think that when we have the game in hand that we should open up the play book and show the rest of the teams that we play what we can do.

Brilliant!

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

(Yes, yes...you've seen the following post in another thread..... )

Head scratcher for Seth: Iowa went up big on BSU (21-0 at half) and chose to continue pouring it on in the 2nd half with the 1st team playing deep into the 3rd quarter.

3:36 remaining third quarter: Ricky Stanzi passed to Derrell Johnson-Koulianos down the middle for 45 yard gain (Michael Meyer made PAT) 0 - 35

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...d=201009250028


So, I don't understand why the difference between how we "acted" versus BSU and PSU.

Either shut it down everytime we're up and in no danger or losing, or, continue to run our usual offense in an actual game so we're that much more prepared when we play our next tough opponent.

I'd prefer the latter over the former every time. Without question.

Seth -

And do you recall that Stanzi simply threw the long ball for a TD to DJK and then smiled and shrugged his shoulders over to the bench ... just as though he did something that wasn't exactly supposed to have done.

My guess is that the coaches wanted us to place more focus on running the ball and further developing the short pass game against BSU ... and Stanzi saw such a easy scoring opportunity that he simply couldn't help himself. In other words, I bet that the coaches REALLY DID want Iowa to quit chucking the ball downfield in the second half.

Furthermore, there actually were some SIGNIFICANT differences between the Iowa vs BSU and Iowa vs PSU games. Firstly, Iowa was able to grind out the run AT WILL against BSU. In contrast, PSU was able to adequately slow our game with 7 in the box ... and shut it down outright with more than 7.

Thus, if the outcome of the game really isn't in question, as we both probably would agree with ... how would it help the team more to pass the ball? Wouldn't it help the team more to force them to execute in the running game against a stout defense? Certainly, it would give us a clearer measure of our running game to see how our run blocking stacks up ... and give the unit a clearer picture of what they need to work on in order to further improve. Given that we're going to be facing some awfully good run Ds when Wisky, MSU, and tOSU come into town ... wouldn't it be nice to have our OL even better prepared to meet those challenges? Wouldn't it be great to be able to run with some success againt stacked boxes? Do you realize how much our play-action will be able to torch opposing Ds when we can do that?

In contrast, if we kept on chucking the ball, moving the ball, and scoring more ... our guys would be feeling awfully good about themselves and we'd certainly be benefitting from the associated "style points" ... however, it would do little to actually help the team get better.

Frankly, the strategy that I saw our coaches implement will likely go much further to help the team to improve.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Point #1 My only gripe about this game is that we did NOT give Rogers or Coker any reps and that seems very befuddling. We pulled the shirt off Coker and we are going to need him sooner than later. Personally, I would like him to have a few carries in a meaningful game before he is possibly thrust into action due to an injury to a back who, yes, doesn't fumble, but also probably shouldn't be carrying the ball 28 times. Or 13 times in one quarter as he did against Ball St.

Point #2 People can call it conservative but can't it be construed as playing scared or not playing aggressively enough? *See end of Ohio St game last year. Yes, I have gone and done it and invoked that again.

RE: Point #1 Have you not read Ferentz's comments before. He's on record basically alluding that while he's pleased with the progress that Coker and Rogers have made thus far, he's not entirely certain that they're quite Big 10 ready. The implication there NOT ONLY has to deal with their ability to hold onto the ball ... but also their ability to PROTECT Stanzi. All the same, in Ferentz's post-game presser, he's indicated that he has every intention of giving the young guys more reps. However, you don't necessarily want to risk playing those young guys against a D that is as good or well-coached as PSU's.

RE: Point #2 No, you can't say that because Ferentz has already established a precedent of erring on the side of MINIMIZING uncertainty. Ferentz always coaches to win ... however, he also coaches the squad to not beat themselves. Given the turnovers that Vandenberg had ALREADY MADE in the tOSU game ... and given that there was absolutely no guarantee that tOSU wouldn't blitz the crap out of the Hawks in that final drive had we attempted to push down the field ... Ferentz decided that playing for overtime was our best chance to win. Can you PROVE for a fact that he was wrong? I doubt it! In fact, had tOSU blitzed the crap out of Vandenberg throughout the game ... I dare say that tOSU would have likely pounded the Hawks into oblivion. Thank goodness Tress and Co thought that they could confuse the rookie QB more by switching up coverages and keeping guys back.

 

[tm3308]

RE: Point #1 Have you not read Ferentz's comments before. He's on record basically alluding that while he's pleased with the progress that Coker and Rogers have made thus far, he's not entirely certain that they're quite Big 10 ready. The implication there NOT ONLY has to deal with their ability to hold onto the ball ... but also their ability to PROTECT Stanzi. All the same, in Ferentz's post-game presser, he's indicated that he has every intention of giving the young guys more reps. However, you don't necessarily want to risk playing those young guys against a D that is as good or well-coached as PSU's.

RE: Point #2 No, you can't say that because Ferentz has already established a precedent of erring on the side of MINIMIZING uncertainty. Ferentz always coaches to win ... however, he also coaches the squad to not beat themselves. Given the turnovers that Vandenberg had ALREADY MADE in the tOSU game ... and given that there was absolutely no guarantee that tOSU wouldn't blitz the crap out of the Hawks in that final drive had we attempted to push down the field ... Ferentz decided that playing for overtime was our best chance to win. Can you PROVE for a fact that he was wrong? I doubt it! In fact, had tOSU blitzed the crap out of Vandenberg throughout the game ... I dare say that tOSU would have likely pounded the Hawks into oblivion. Thank goodness Tress and Co thought that they could confuse the rookie QB more by switching up coverages and keeping guys back.

While you make a good point about Coker/Rogers not being BT backs yet in Ferentz's eyes, largely because of their inexperience in blitz pickup, what difference does that make if all we're going to do is run the ball anyway?

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

While you make a good point about Coker/Rogers not being BT backs yet in Ferentz's eyes, largely because of their inexperience in blitz pickup, what difference does that make if all we're going to do is run the ball anyway?

Just think strategy here.

Iowa still wants to execute in the running game. They seemingly had the primary intention to run the ball.

However, all the same, they want to maintain the element of surprise. Stanzi had a completely open shot to DJK in the 2nd half and took it. We ended up not scoring on the drive ... but it still reminded the PSU D that they couldn't cheat up too much.

Had we played Coker/Rogers instead ... that would tip our hand more concerning our intentions. Had either guy entered the game at that juncture, it would invariably have been a running play.

 

[okobojihawk]

I've tried to read all of the responses to this thread I don't believe I saw a reference to the fact that the #1 team in the nation played PSU this year and scored 24 points while allowing 3.....sound like familiar numbers?

We did as well as the number 1 team in the nation! Let it go!
Enjoy the bye week and hope for some good healing on our gimped up guys!!

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

However, all the same, they want to maintain the element of surprise. Stanzi had a completely open shot to DJK in the 2nd half and took it. We ended up not scoring on the drive ... but it still reminded the PSU D that they couldn't cheat up too much.

Had we played Coker/Rogers instead ... that would tip our hand more concerning our intentions. Had either guy entered the game at that juncture, it would invariably have been a running play.

**Good points made, but wouldn't that possibly still be some of the experience these guys would need? And as such, if PSU was going to fully over commit to the run than we could still throw the very aforementioned "reminder" pass?

"Thus, if the outcome of the game really isn't in question, as we both probably would agree with ... how would it help the team more to pass the ball? Wouldn't it help the team more to force them to execute in the running game against a stout defense? Certainly, it would give us a clearer measure of our running game to see how our run blocking stacks up ... and give the unit a clearer picture of what they need to work on in order to further improve. Given that we're going to be facing some awfully good run Ds when Wisky, MSU, and tOSU come into town ... wouldn't it be nice to have our OL even better prepared to meet those challenges? Wouldn't it be great to be able to run with some success againt stacked boxes? Do you realize how much our play-action will be able to torch opposing Ds when we can do that?"

**Again Homer, great concise summary. After reading everyone's posts, we've kind of "talked" it out here (for my mind anyhow as [most] all viewpoints are valid). After all a W is a W - and the bonus TD gives our D that much more confidence going forward. It also helped post a score more indicative of the actual game.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

RE: Point #1 Have you not read Ferentz's comments before. He's on record basically alluding that while he's pleased with the progress that Coker and Rogers have made thus far, he's not entirely certain that they're quite Big 10 ready. The implication there NOT ONLY has to deal with their ability to hold onto the ball ... but also their ability to PROTECT Stanzi. All the same, in Ferentz's post-game presser, he's indicated that he has every intention of giving the young guys more reps. However, you don't necessarily want to risk playing those young guys against a D that is as good or well-coached as PSU's.

RE: Point #2 No, you can't say that because Ferentz has already established a precedent of erring on the side of MINIMIZING uncertainty. Ferentz always coaches to win ... however, he also coaches the squad to not beat themselves. Given the turnovers that Vandenberg had ALREADY MADE in the tOSU game ... and given that there was absolutely no guarantee that tOSU wouldn't blitz the crap out of the Hawks in that final drive had we attempted to push down the field ... Ferentz decided that playing for overtime was our best chance to win. Can you PROVE for a fact that he was wrong? I doubt it! In fact, had tOSU blitzed the crap out of Vandenberg throughout the game ... I dare say that tOSU would have likely pounded the Hawks into oblivion. Thank goodness Tress and Co thought that they could confuse the rookie QB more by switching up coverages and keeping guys back.

re your Point #1. Yes I have read his comments. Football is Football. So just play your 2nd string players against teams that aren't as well coached? Good grief, so you are afraid of a freshman running back fumbling against Penn St but not Michigan? The only reps he will get now before Michigan will be in practice. Do you think Ferentz is going to let him get hit really hard and hit really often in practice? Against our #1 defense? Maybe, I don't know how he runs his practices during the season. You get hit and you either hang onto the ball or you don't. I think that is being overly cautious.
Whether you like it or not they are our backup's and if they show they can't protect Stanzi then we can move the pocket, etc.

Point #2. Minimizing Uncertainity???? This is priceless. I really don't know how to respond to that.
How can you prove that Tressel would have blitzed the crap out of VBerg on that last drive? We had the ball and Ohio State's offense may never have seen the field again. We had what 30 yards to get into field goal range and over a minute to do it? You have momentum and the ball on the road so why not go for it? Why did you think we could beat Terrell Pryor in a shortened field in an overtime setting at the Shoe? against the 2nd ranked red zone defense in the Big Ten? Furthermore, in overtime we threw on first down and do you remember what we did on 2nd and ten? That's right, we ran the ball and took a 6 yard loss. Why is this noteworthy? Because that is KOK's tendency and Ohio St knew it was coming because I guess they are well-coached.

Oh, and we did lose in overtime.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

re your Point #1. Yes I have read his comments. Football is Football. So just play your 2nd string players against teams that aren't as well coached? Good grief, so you are afraid of a freshman running back fumbling against Penn St but not Michigan? The only reps he will get now before Michigan will be in practice. Do you think Ferentz is going to let him get hit really hard and hit really often in practice? Against our #1 defense? Maybe, I don't know how he runs his practices during the season. You get hit and you either hang onto the ball or you don't. I think that is being overly cautious.
Whether you like it or not they are our backup's and if they show they can't protect Stanzi then we can move the pocket, etc.

Point #2. Minimizing Uncertainity???? This is priceless. I really don't know how to respond to that.
How can you prove that Tressel would have blitzed the crap out of VBerg on that last drive? We had the ball and Ohio State's offense may never have seen the field again. We had what 30 yards to get into field goal range and over a minute to do it? You have momentum and the ball on the road so why not go for it? Why did you think we could beat Terrell Pryor in a shortened field in an overtime setting at the Shoe? against the 2nd ranked red zone defense in the Big Ten? Furthermore, in overtime we threw on first down and do you remember what we did on 2nd and ten? That's right, we ran the ball and took a 6 yard loss. Why is this noteworthy? Because that is KOK's tendency and Ohio St knew it was coming because I guess they are well-coached.

Oh, and we did lose in overtime.

First off, the tone of your response does little to support your points. So I urge you to come across a bit more respectful please.

Anyhow, your retort to my first rubuttal misses the mark in two key ways. Firstly, look at our field position in the 2nd half. An Iowa turnover deep in our own territory would completely reverse the momentum in the game ... even in spite of how dominating we were in the 1st half. While I thought that the game was basically in hand after Iowa halted PSU on the 1 yard line in the 2nd half ... there's a reason why we kept Stanzi and Co in the game. The margin of error still wasn't so large to take such a risk ... especially with our average field position in the 2nd half.

Secondly, Ferentz and Co are teachers. You don't put young guys in situations where they'll likely not succeed unless you really have to. Given how PSU's D wasy playing and given how close the SCORE still was ... it simply wasn't prudent to put the young guys in that situation

 

[tm3308]

re your Point #1. Yes I have read his comments. Football is Football. So just play your 2nd string players against teams that aren't as well coached? Good grief, so you are afraid of a freshman running back fumbling against Penn St but not Michigan? The only reps he will get now before Michigan will be in practice. Do you think Ferentz is going to let him get hit really hard and hit really often in practice? Against our #1 defense? Maybe, I don't know how he runs his practices during the season. You get hit and you either hang onto the ball or you don't. I think that is being overly cautious.
Whether you like it or not they are our backup's and if they show they can't protect Stanzi then we can move the pocket, etc.

Point #2. Minimizing Uncertainity???? This is priceless. I really don't know how to respond to that.
How can you prove that Tressel would have blitzed the crap out of VBerg on that last drive? We had the ball and Ohio State's offense may never have seen the field again. We had what 30 yards to get into field goal range and over a minute to do it? You have momentum and the ball on the road so why not go for it? Why did you think we could beat Terrell Pryor in a shortened field in an overtime setting at the Shoe? against the 2nd ranked red zone defense in the Big Ten? Furthermore, in overtime we threw on first down and do you remember what we did on 2nd and ten? That's right, we ran the ball and took a 6 yard loss. Why is this noteworthy? Because that is KOK's tendency and Ohio St knew it was coming because I guess they are well-coached.

Oh, and we did lose in overtime.

When someone says MINIZMIZE risk, they don't mean ELIMINATE. Obviously KF felt like trying to go for it late was riskier than trying to win in OT. Was he wrong? Hard to say, even with hindsight, because we don't know what would have happened had we gone for it. Remember, the kinds of throws Vandenberg would have to make on that drive would have been the same ones he struggled with all game (and threw his INT's on).

 

[StatelineHawk]

When someone says MINIZMIZE risk, they don't mean ELIMINATE. Obviously KF felt like trying to go for it late was riskier than trying to win in OT. Was he wrong? Hard to say, even with hindsight, because we don't know what would have happened had we gone for it. Remember, the kinds of throws Vandenberg would have to make on that drive would have been the same ones he struggled with all game (and threw his INT's on).

Conservative is Iowa football. Sometimes the outcome goes Iowas way like Sat. night. other times not. i was disappointed last year at the end of OSU game, but thats Iowa football. I sure there was no one happier than OSU fans and Jim Tressel when Iowa decided to play for tie.

 

[tm3308]

Conservative is Iowa football. Sometimes the outcome goes Iowas way like Sat. night. other times not. i was disappointed last year at the end of OSU game, but thats Iowa football. I sure there was no one happier than OSU fans and Jim Tressel when Iowa decided to play for tie.

I agree that we're conservative, and most often I'm okay with that. But I DON'T like it when we get uber-conservative, like we did last night. Every now and then we do that, and it gets me every time.

 

[deanvogs]

I agree that we're conservative, and most often I'm okay with that. But I DON'T like it when we get uber-conservative, like we did last night. Every now and then we do that, and it gets me every time.

I think it was pretty easy this weekend to go conservative in the 2nd half with a 14 pt. lead. We had terrible field position the whole 2nd half. That was first and foremost. We simply weren't going to sling it around inside out 20 or 30 yd line. Secondly the ONLY way that Penn St. wins that game is if we turn it over, and they score on a short field, or score on D.

Playing conservative doesn't mean we aren't trying to move the ball. Hats off to Penn St. for completely shutting down our running game in the 2nd half. If we just average 4-5 yds. per carry in that 2nd half, we reverse the field position hole we were in, and you don't even view the offense as conservative. We did the exact same thing against E. Illinois, Iowa St., and Ball St. but we moved the ball on the ground, and continued to score.

So while I was just as frustrated in the 2nd half it had more to do with the execution of the run game. On the flip side there is nothing I love to watch more than when Iowa stuffs the ball down a teams throat when THEY KNOW that is exactly what we are going to do.