I apologize I didn't read your later posts, but there was still technically enough time to get a quick fg and another onside. Although extremely unlikely.
Did we really just go for two when down 9?
- Thread starter Mr. Royce
- Start date
I apologize I didn't read your later posts, but there was still technically enough time to get a quick fg and another onside. Although extremely unlikely.
Of course if your successful for 2 the first time the odds go up after that. but after the initial TD there's no difference in odds of possible success to complete the 2 regardless of which td is follows. Its one play it doesnt matter when it happens.
The only thing different is the pressure you can put on the defense and the potential to lengthen the game.
Theres only drawbacks to going for it first. ONLY. Unless there is some strategic matchup you could exploit that they could potentially fix by the next time like a guy going out for a play or something or you run a fake and catch them off guard.
No one does it the way Iowa did for a reason.
No down by 9 with 45 seconds left. You misunderstood me. Kick the quick fg and then try for another onside.
That would have been incredibly unlikely. Recovering onside kicks is much harder than converting 2-point conversions. You want to try to get two onside kicks at the end of the game? I just don't like those odds. But it's over and I've done most of my venting so I'm not going to worry about it much more. No worries, bud.
Yes there is an advantage to going for it after the first touchdown, if you don't get it then you know you need two scores. If you wait until after the second touchdown and don't get it, now you're most likely out of time and the game is over. Keeping hope alive longer does not necessarily mean you're increasing your odds to win.
That would have been incredibly unlikely. Recovering onside kicks is much harder than converting 2-point conversions. You want to try to get two onside kicks at the end of the game? I just don't like those odds. But it's over and I've done most of my venting so I'm not going to worry about it much more. No worries, bud.
Yep, game sucked either way.
I like this a lot...take the high percentage PAT, extend the game and give the kids more real game time experience...
Any time you recover an onside kick, you should have momentum. But all momentum was killed immediately when we no longer had the chance to extend the game after missing the 2 point conversion.
That would have been incredibly unlikely. Recovering onside kicks is much harder than converting 2-point conversions. You want to try to get two onside kicks at the end of the game? I just don't like those odds. But it's over and I've done most of my venting so I'm not going to worry about it much more. No worries, bud.
Any scenario where you're down 15 late in the 4th means it's highly unlikely you have a shot at winning
Yeah, as well as now two onside recovers in a minute to go with two scores.
What are you even talking about? Two more scores? Thats not even a possible scenario.
Would you have more or less momentum if we had scored a touchdown and two point and recovered an onside compared with touchdown, extra point and onside?
You should have more. But by missing the 2 points, it killed all momentum. Kick the EP and your guys should still be pumped knowing there is a chance.
So it all comes down to weather or not you convert the two point conversion then right?
lol--Yes, that was the main problem. They never should have been down like that at the end of this game--a home game, senior day, against a mediocre team (with a good coaching staff, admittedly)--but they got outplayed and outcoached all game. I feel bad for Jewell, Niemann, Bazata, and the other seniors who played their hearts out. Too many young, inexperienced, and undisciplined players who haven't been coached up right.
I don't know about the weather being a factor, but you either try to use the momentum you just got to get the 2nd TD and 2 pointer or you gamble on losing the entire momentum and give yourself no chance at all.
Same thing that happened after the first one. Game over.
The only difference is being able to put some pressure on the receiving team to recover. Give them a little something to worry about.
Once down by 9 and kicking there's no pressure to catch it. Both teams know it doesn't' even matter. Iowa could score and get a 2pt conversion and still have to get another onside. Which was impossible with a minute left.
So then wouldn't there be even more pressure on them to recover the onside if it's only a seven point game with that logic?
You've given your players the (possibly false) impression that you know what you're doing. You've given your team a reason to try to get the onside kick. You've given your offense a few more snaps with the game on the line. You give the fans a reason to get excited.
Missing it after the first TD gives them nothing.
Or you give yourself even more momentum if you convert the two point. Again extending hope longer doesn't mean you increase your odds of winning.
If you kick the EP, you are guaranteed to have momentum going into the onside kick.
So what happens if they get the two point conversion after the first touchdown? Even more reason for fans to be excited? Even more reason for the players to want to get the onside kick?
So you basically either decide to use the momentum from the TD and kick the EP, or gamble on ending it immediately.
I didn't miss it. and I really don't have much of a problem with what you wrote. I understand the argument.
What I KNOW is the decision is pretty damn close to a 50/50 call. The articles I shared are far from perfect, but it would seem to me help demonstrate the difference between going for 2 and kicking on the first score is practically insignificant. So to call it stupid or inconceivable for KF to go for 2 (which you didn't do) is riddiculous.
There are lots of reasons to consider KF a bad or average coach (especially late in games). I know folks have to be over the top with the hate and anger, but this thread is silly.
The EP is virtually a gimme. So you either decide to capitalize on guaranteed momentum or you gamble to end it immediately.
The conventional wisdom can't be explained any further than it already has. Watch more games. Coaches not named Kirk Ferentz kick the extra point in that situation 99 times out of 100.
I checked the momentum scale (I have one at home). Had we made the extra point we would have been just short of the momentum needed to recover the onside kick (would've given us 75 momentums and we needed 80). Getting the 2 point conversion would have provided the momentum we needed.
Sorry guys - KF was right. It's science.
Kicking the EP means you still have given your team a chance. I am a gambler, which is why KF as HC is not for me, but in this case I would have kicked the EP.
Right, youre back to not understanding the value of being able to place pressure on them for sure by going for 1.
Go for one and no matter what the onside is relevant if they kick it in. Sure thing.
Missing on the 2 early lets them off the hook for no reason because it doesn't increase any odds of winning.
Again, there is a reason no one does it the way Iowa does.
Theres a simple premise that holds true almost all of the time. When the majority of people who do something for a living all do it a certain way they are almost always right.
You forget KF does not allow the team to get excited tho. Remember even keel, no highs, no lows. So it is just a theory that was not applicable to a KF team.
I forget nothing. Are you suggesting my momentum scale doesn't factor that in? It's a nice momentum scale bro
Thanks, man. Sorry for being a bit like a prick earlier. Mostly mad at the game, but I'm pretty much done venting at this point. Somehow easier to accept this after last week's game. And I will admit that the article you posted helped me at least understand the thinking behind going for it. I still disagree with the call in today's game situation, but I can respect that there is an argument to be made for going for 2. I think the poor coaching and poor execution throughout the game made that 2-point decision seem worse to me. Iowa was finally moving the ball on offense with tempo near the end. Why they didn't do it earlier is beyond me, but I can't fathom what goes on in Kirk's head during games. He's never been a good in-game coach. He's made numerous bad judgment calls related to end of half/end of game situations. His time management has never been a strong suit. Eh, I'll just keep going and going so may as well stop here. peace.
If you go for two early and get it, you have increased your odds of winning. It all comes down to whether or not you convert it. Extending hope doesn't mean you've increased your odds of winning.
How much momentum is left after you miss a two point conversion if you've somehow managed to get the onside and score another touchdown?
This, I liked the call. knowing whether or not you made the 2 makes all the difference in the world as to how you call plays on the next drive (assuming you get the onside kick). You either know you have to leave time for another onside kick and a few plays, or you know you can run it all the way down to tie it at the end.
I'm just an armchair QB too, but to me, it made sense.
our momentum scale hovers near zero, which I have always found problematic. Now your business like approach scale would likely be better utilized.
