A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
It's not about guaranteeing the win. It's about giving your team the higher probability of winning the game.
It's not about guaranteeing the win. It's about giving your team the higher probability of winning the game.
No It didn't you 97% troll. You get the score and count on your defense getting a couple of stops. Your theory doesn't hold up because there are to many variables involved. Show me a coach that would ever think of telling his players to not score so we can go for a field goal when the clock runs down some. Not smart in any way shape or form.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Peyton Manning has done it before. And I agree, that most teams won't do that. I'm pointing out that it's a flawed coaching methodology. You should go with the higher probability strategy.
To boot, not quite sure WTF you are talking about. Tonight's performance by Barkley on the ground was nowhere close to the greatest performance by a PSU RB. LJ Jr. had at least one game over 300 if not more. If not, several others very close.
OP, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. There is not a coach at any level of the sport that would tell a player not to score a touchdown at that point, to take the lead. Really OP?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
What are the variables? A kneel down is not a variable. It literally runs the clock down to nothing then you kick what is equivalent to an extra point which is 97% conversion rate in college football with no time remaining.
I get what you are saying but you can't micromanage players like that. Any other point in the game if you see daylight hit it and score. That is what they practice for. You haven't done much on O all game and why not put it in the hands of your D. Who has been playing lights out. You just can't play the What if game when its something that they have not and would not been trained for
And thank God you will never be a coach for any major sports team..
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
First off, Peyton Manning has done it before. Second off, you might be right that no coach would do it (although I wouldn't put it past Belichick for a second). I'm just pointing out that old school methodology of take the touchdown in that scenario no matter what is incredibly dated and it probably cost us the game tonight.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
It's not micro managing. Defensive players are trained to slide instead of run turnovers back all of the time. It's training/coaching. Has zilch to do with micro managing. It's game awareness and it can be trained. Football players are constantly learning what to do based on certain situations and based on coaching.
And congrats on the NCAA going back on their decision to allow you to have those scholarships back..
I’ve come to terms with what Iowa will be for a very long time.
KF will wait 5 more years to retire.
Brian will take over and stay for the next 20 years.
What we are seeing and have seen is what we are going to be. Mediocre. 8-5 for 5 years and the one 10 win season and eve Ferentz clan will be set for life.
KF will wait 5 more years to retire.
Brian will take over and stay for the next 20 years.
What we are seeing and have seen is what we are going to be. Mediocre. 8-5 for 5 years and the one 10 win season and eve Ferentz clan will be set for life.
LOL. So you're saying that on the 35 yard line the coaches should have told Wadley that in the incredibly low probability situation that he gets free and runs toward a sure TD (after being stuffed all night) that he should take a knee in side the five? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! You're one of the funnest types of trolls, a guy who will keep going and going no matter how ridiculous explanations have to become to keep going. LOLOLOLOLOLOL Good job.
According to the media, his stats tonight were the highest all purpose yards ever in a PSU game there sport.
Offense scores that is what they do. We will have to just disagree.
You're probably right. Next time Iowa is in this position, they should have their future unanimous HOF QB just manage the game. Then we'll win.
And just as we expected here you are to point it out. Gracious winners are we?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
No, you're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting and then you're calling me a troll. C'mon man.
I'm saying the players should have informed the players before the drive (and train/coach the players this way in practice/training camp) that if they break free or are about to score on any point during that drive, to instead just go down at around the 3 yard line. Then Iowa can kneel it to run clock out and kick what is essentially a game winning extra point. This is a much higher win probability than giving PSU the ball back with 2 minutes.
Wow.
Oh please. We had more than enough chances on that last drive to stop them. Defense played their hearts out. They played great the whole game, perfectly fine to score.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Well, guess your coaches should have designed a way to stop him then. Pretty sure folks on here said Josey would matchup well with him in the passing game. Guess not.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
You're right we did have plenty of chances on last drive to stop them. I'm just comparing raw probabilities. We had a high probability to win no matter which strategy we went with. However, we had a higher probability to win by utilizing the strategy I suggest.
No offense to the OP but the coaches are not running algorithm probabilities. If AW would have just observed the Standard Bell Curve and realized he was 5 standard deviations away from the 15-yard line...and didn't take a knee....my goodness...who the hell is not goin for the end zone on that TD play. Show me where that has actually happened.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
The probability comparison I'm talking about isn't a difficult probability to comprehend or notice by any means. Coaches absolutley utilizie probablity analysis all of the time, hence why coaches punt on 4th down typically and kick an extra point instead of a two point conversion. This is similar methodology, but just takes adjusting to instead of the old school mentality of score no matter what the circumstance.
You suggested that you needed to teach me about probability ... I was simply indicating that, in reality, the scenario should probably be reversed. Iowa's whole strategy against top-caliber teams is actually reliant on rare-event statistics ... so I found it amusing that you made your uninformed comment.
Given your strategy, PSU has in the ball park of around 1 minute (to maybe a a minute and a quarter) left in the game and that is assuming we're running the ball each time. However, given how effective they were at stopping our situational running game - we invariably would have been stuck kicking a field goal.
Thus, YOUR scenario still runs us into the risk of having another FG blocked. Furthermore, even if we make the FG ... our lead is by 1 point.
Just as they had enough time to go down the field and score the TD (just barely). The scenario would have been equally close. PSU would still have had JUST enough time to get down the field into FG territory.
There are no guarantees in the game. Just because you cook up a strategy that you believe is better ... it doesn't mean that its implementation would have been any smoother.
Given the situation of the game ... whether you play it like the Hawkeye coaches OR by your strategy ... either way, Iowa is mostly in a favorable situation to win. Ultimately the D still needs to make the stops ... either way. They didn't ... despite trying their hardest. PSU has a fine offense and they made nothing easy for our D.
Yes most coaching staffs use analytics to make decisions but not within a play
Can u give me a verified example (game, player, coach, time of game) when your scenario has played out? With all of the great coaching out there, I don't recall someone busting loose and taking a knee in gimmy FG territory?
You just don't understand you never take sure points off the board, score and let the defense try to do their job. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've watched a team take sure points off the board and then never get the score they were hoping for. Be real here no one was expecting Iowa to bust a long run for the score, you take it when it's there period. The variables you asked about I think you already know but here are a few of them for you. Mishandling the snap on center exchange, motion by a lineman, if they got to the field goal attempt bad snap, bad hold, kicker misses kick, penalty on kick which would make it longer there by changing your probability rate or like happened earlier in the game PSU blocks the kick which they would have done even if it had been kicked from ball being on the 3 yard line. TAKE THE SCORE WHEN IT'S THERE no questions asked.
I can see the argument of why didn't they run that play earlier or why the didn't change up their play calling earlier. I just don't see why you would tell a scorer not to score like why you can't tell an attack dog not to attack and stop. Or other situations
Pretty sure no one said that, and Jewell played a hell of a game.
I get it. It makes sense and in different circumstances, it's happened before and been successful. But Iowa was not moving the ball well all game, was still outside FG range, could not gain an inch running the ball except on two big plays by Wadley, Wadley had fumbled earlier in the game, and Iowa had also had a FG blocked earlier ... I'm not sure Iowa was in the Peyton Manning type of position. Hell, before the drive started I wondered if Iowa would even be able to get a first down, let alone drive into FG range. You mentioned Manning, a HOF QB, whereas this Stanley's fourth start as a college QB. All in all, I would not tell any player on Iowa's team before or during that drive to take a knee to run out the clock once the team was in FG range. If Wadley had been tackled at the 23? Yeah, I might have run down the clock. I want the points and Iowa'd D, who had held PSU to 13 points at that point and would need a full field to tie the game? I'll take my chances. They almost did it. One play. Four seconds. Iowa doesn't tip the ball on 3rd down incompletion, that game would have been over right there. A lot of things had to go right for PSU to make that final TD drive and they just barely did.
Okay, I've indulged you enough. Good day, sir!
You can kneel the ball all you want, but if the other team calls timeout the clock still stops. There is no way Iowa could've run the clock all the way down in that scenario. No chance at a first down since the ball was inside the 10. PSU would've got the ball back with a minute left just needing a field goal. That's way more likely for them to get than driving all the way down and scoring a td.
According to an ESPN real time box score Iowa had a 96% chance of winning after the TD. Pair that with the age old adage of "never take points off the board" which kneeling at the three instead of scoring the TD essentially is, I'd take the points 100 out of 100 times. Also, what percentage of extra points are kicked from the hash which this field goal woulda been kicked from or did you expect Wadley to cut back against the grain and kneel in the center of the field as well?
Sure they did. I agree he played a great game but people on here definitely said that. Found it odd since Barkley runs a 4.3.
It does not take a genius to comprehend that the clock stops if he slides down at the 1 yard line for the first down. The 23 seconds or so that it starts running after the first down brings you down to about 1:20 give or take. Two PSU timeouts are left so you are only going to run off four seconds or so if you kneel twice. Then one more kneel down with a 40 second running clock brings you to 35 seconds left giving PSU the ball back and the clock stops on every first down they make (they did not have anything but incomplete passes and first downs on their last drive). And PSU only needs a FG. Difficult situation, but not any more difficult than driving 80 yards in 12 plays with 1:42 on the clock and having to put in in the endzone - which PSU was having difficulty doing the whole night.
Not a coach in football would do what you suggest.
