Some of the in game decisions made by our coaching staff is the hardest thing for me to understand this year. For example, I didn't agree with the decision to go for it on 4th and 5. In my mind, you take the 3 pts and establish a lead. The Sunday QC Times stated the coaches had talked earlier in the week about 4th downs in the red zone and how they would go for a first down if that situation arose against Rutgers. What puzzles me is, I could understand if it was 4th and 1 or 2 maybe, but it was 4th and 5 and up to that point we struggled to produce much offense so I am not sure why the coaches thought we could pick up at least 5 yards. Either our kickers are not that good or they thought they had a play that would guarantee five yards. I have a hard time believing that not one of our kickers could make a 25-30 yd FG.
In game coaching decisions
- Thread starter o2bahawk
- Start date
Even an ardent supporter of the current staff as I am is baffled by what they do sometimes. My only hope is they are doing things "today" to set up options for tomorrow.
Effectively sand-bagging future opponents. For instance, bringing out the raider on defense for only a few snaps against Rutgers for the first time this year. The more you show it now, the more future and better opponents are ready for it later on.
But yeah...NDSU was especially baffling to me regarding Iowa's offense. A ridiculous lack of using Wadley in that game. He must get touches every drive.
Effectively sand-bagging future opponents. For instance, bringing out the raider on defense for only a few snaps against Rutgers for the first time this year. The more you show it now, the more future and better opponents are ready for it later on.
But yeah...NDSU was especially baffling to me regarding Iowa's offense. A ridiculous lack of using Wadley in that game. He must get touches every drive.
Look no further than the NDSU game. Final drive and we need a couple of first downs to win the game. Iowa had not been able to run the ball at all for the entire game so why try two consecutive runs up the gut for no gain and a loss of yards. Ultimately a three and out and we know the rest!!!!
So, against Rutgers they played aggressively on 4th down and that was wrong. Against NDSU they played conservatively at the end and that was wrong.
I think what we hate most is decisions that don't work out.
I think what we hate most is decisions that don't work out.
going for it on 4th down is the 43% rule... if you score 7 points 43% or better in that situation... you go for it every time.
Davis, Parker, and Ferentz are in a no-win position.
Pass too much, bickering ensues. Run too often, complaints follow. Blitz more, blitzes are good -except when they don't work- then Parker is a damn fool.
A constant complaint against Ferentz is his conservative play calling and aversion to risk. So Ferentz risks it on 4th down and the next thing you know, Ferentz should just stick with the odds.
Iowa's play calling is too predictable they say. Davis calls for an end-around to see if Jay Scheel can make a play. It fails - Davis is an idiot, everyone knows you don't run that play there, should have run Wadley up the gut.
No win. For years Ferentz was berated for not playing younger guys. He plays a slew of freshman and fans question the value of removing a redshirt for certain players. To this day, some fans are mad at Ferentz that Derrick Willies quit the team even though Willies played in 3 of the first 5 games that he was eligible as a freshman (and one of the missed games was due to injury).
It will never end. Ferentz and staff are not much different from any other major college coaching outfit. Some fans will never be happy no matter the game plan or game time coaching decisions. Without knowing more, a glance at this message board and you never would have known that Iowa beat a B10 opponent on the road this past weekend.
Wadley was banged up against NDSU. He had 12 touches compared to Daniels' 13 against Rutgers. Wadley isn't built to handle 25 touches a game.10-15 touches a game is right in Wadley's wheelhouse.
Where did you find that stat? I'd like to read more about it. The HS team I help coach was recently in a somewhat similar situation recently when deciding on going for 2pt conversion vs PAT. I'd like to reference something in my discussions with coaching staff.
Ya his knee magically healed in a week. Or he dropped a pass and was essentially benched. The coaches failed in getting him more touches against NDSU. Him at less than 100% was clearly better than the alternative.
Ferentz will never say this to the press or public, but I know for a fact they don't have much faith in their kickers. All 3 struggled big time in camp. Again, FERENTZ WILL NOT TELL THAT TO THE PRESS OR PUBLIC.
It's easy to say that, but being aggressive or conservative is not an all or nothing concept and there's an easy way to tell if a person's position on any given play is results based. It's not always right to be conservative, nor is it always right to be aggressive (look at Pitt a few years back where we made that massive comeback). Further, if you feel very strongly about a situation before the play begins, you clearly are not basing that on the results of the play.
I don't second guess the coaches a lot, but there are times when I'm watching a game where I have a *really* strong idea of what to do or what not to do. The end of the NDSU game was spot where it was pretty obvious based on results up to that point that going wholesale conservative was highly unlikely to be successful. I was literally saying "please play action, please play action" because of our inability to run in that game and my suspicion that they'd sell out to stop the run.
Similarly, in the Rutgers game, it was pretty clear to me that our offense was not consistent enough to be comfortable going for it there. I assumed we would take the points as it seemed obvious to me.
This staff has, at times, been uncanny in their ability to make what I would consider to be exactly the wrong decision. I say that based on my take before I knew the results of the decision...
43% * 7 = 3.01. Thus, if you expect to have at least a 43% chance of scoring a TD by going for it on 4th down, you're better off going for it than kicking a field goal. That also assumes a 100% chance of making a field goal.
That's a start, but yeah, that's where things get squishy for me in terms of probability equations. Our FG kicker is about 80% accurate inside 25 yards.
Here's my thinking regarding whether to go for 2pt conversion or PAT:
FG kicker has 80% chance of conversion inside of 25 yards, and PAT kick (HS) is 19 yarder. PAT is one point, so 0.8 x 1 = .8 points per attempt. For our 2 pt conversion to be viable, it would have to have a conversion rate of at least 40%, right? .4 x 2 = .8 points per attempt.
In our case, our 2pt conversion rate is about 10%, so I'm advocating for PAT all the way!
When at the game I thought same thing when your on the road put points on the board especially since it was 5 yards that you needed.Also thought we should of declined the illegal motion penalty,it would of been 3rd and 8 instead of 2nd and 13,didn't matter though they picked it up on next play.How long are we going to keep saying our WR's can't get separation.What do we need better recruiting,better route running,better coaching or different coaching.Whats the answer I don't know but we aren't there yet.
it is my pleasure...
if you are in a situation... such as 4th and 5.... and the data shows that you can convert that play 43% of the time... you go for it every time...
with the exception of the 4th quarter, of course...
you figure by converting, you will wind up scoring 7 points....
out of 7 attempts... if you convert 3 times... you will have scored 21 points...
if you elected to go for the field goal... out of 7 attempts, you will have scored 21 points.
therefore, if you can convert that play 43% of the time or better... you go for it every time.
now... the data that the Hawkeyes use may be different from the data you have available... but I would imagine they are pretty similar.
what you and your staff will want to figure out is at what distance on 4th down do you go ahead and kick the field goal....
for example...
4th and 1..... go for it...
4th and 2.... go for it...
and so forth...
you want to figure out where your limit is... where it is that you decide to go ahead and kick the field goal...
as well.... you would want to consider how good your field goal kicker is... that would be another factor....
in the case of Iowa.... when they are inside the Red Zone... they have a reliable enough kicker where they should convert that field goal every time....
in High School... kickers may not be as reliable.
I would have been more impressed with their creativity/go-for-it attitude if they would have run a fake field goal on 4th and 5. Rutgers would not have expected that from us and would have had a good chance for success.
What would you be saying if they threw incomplete pass and stopped clock?? Or are you suggesting a different running play
All I see is griping and no suggestions or constructive criticism
This was not first time Kirk has passed up FG to try for TD and it won't be last. I believe similar choice made last yea several times
I was wondering if cj over threw or if the receiver got jammed. You couldn't tell on tv, but cj has been money on those throws in the past.
I think a little of both,he got jammed but CJ didn't have any air on the pass,more of line drive.
Yeah I thought it looked a little flat too. Usually he drops those in a bucket.
Here's a no-brainer "suggestion". Put your PLAYMAKER IN THE GAME! You only have 1 (maybe 2 with C.J.). There it is. Problem solved.
THe time it takes to get a play call in seems rather lengthy. When the QB only has 10 seconds to get to the line and read the defense it doesn't leave a lot of room for adjustments. The whole mentality against NDSU of "get a few 1st downs and bleed the clock" won't lead to many wins. THe other teams we have played the past 2 weeks have come in with our "edge", what happened to us having that "edge"?
I liked the call, I hated the formation (no run option). Also CJ in that situation has to just lob the ball up. Its 4th down might as well just lob it up and make the DB/WR fight for it.
It seems like CJ is trying to make every throw a NFL type throw. Put some air under neath it and let your players make a play. I do like he is throwing it away more this year, but damn that throw he over shot him when he was open.
It seems like CJ is trying to make every throw a NFL type throw. Put some air under neath it and let your players make a play. I do like he is throwing it away more this year, but damn that throw he over shot him when he was open.
I'll ask it again and maybe you'll respond??? what is your name, football credentials & current employment? it's easy for cowards to hide behind screen names and criticize everything coaches do. But if you had any merits or guts you'd answer my questions? I'll sit back and wait. Oh, I know you won't answer my questions.
I'd like to believe we've been holding our cards close to the vest, but our offense and defense are not exactly a surprise to anyone. We've run the same dozen or so plays for the last 20 years. We're not going to do anything our opponents haven't seen a thousand times already.
How many times have we heard opponents say, "we knew exactly what they were going to do"?
A couple of points.
The NDSU and Rutgers games were a bit different. Against, NDSU, Iowa had just given up a 9-minute bonecrusher of a drive, where the Bison just crammed it down Iowa's throat. Iowa got the ball with under 4 minutes left after the kickoff. At that point, the best chance for an Iowa victory was to aggressively attack the defense, and almost pretend that the game was tied. Expecting the defense to keep NDSU out of FG range with more than 2 minutes on the clock was expecting a miracle. At that point, the Bison had taken over in the trenches. I would have preferred that Iowa came out trying play action the first 2 plays, as it gave the best chance for Iowa to hold on to the ball and not give it back.
Against Rutgers, Iowa led by 7. Game flow was different. Even if Iowa had to punt, Rutgers had to score a touchdown. Iowa had also successfully run the ball throughout the game, so it was reasonable to think Iowa might get a first down through running the gall. And it worked out.
I do like the fact that the staff is talking through the 4th down, going for it vs kicking situations in the game plan meetings during the week. Making those decisions when you can talk through all the options is better than spur of the moment. Iowa went for 4th and 7 I believe at the NDSU 30 yard line in the first half of that game. Conservative Kirk would have tried for the long FG or punted, but they went for it and McCarron scored a TD. In general, I like the approach of going for the 7 points. If they have a play the like and get the defense they are expecting, I say do it.
I do agree that the complaining about the playcalling after the fact gets a bit old. If the other team defends Iowa well, then our automatic reaction is that all would be right if a different play was called. Perhaps the other team was just better on that play or that series. I know we don't like to hear that.
In HS fb usually the only reason for going for 2 is the lack of a kicker.
I like going for it, but I think you get the ball to our real short yardage money man - the TE. Here is a real coincidence: he was thrown the ball TWICE at Rutgers. Both on the same drive. Best drive of the day and possibly the season. Anybody remember a pass being targeted to him the rest of the day? Beuler? Beuler?
Here is another "coincidence": Kittle has 100 yards receiving at halftime of NDSU. We have a 7 point lead. IIRC, zero throws to him in the second half. NDSU out scores us 9-0.
Our TEs have been so solid and reliable since the arrival of Hayden Fry, I just can't stand how little they are used. I hope Mary chewed Kirk's ass off after those two games.
When we throw the ball to Kittle, good things happen.
Here is another "coincidence": Kittle has 100 yards receiving at halftime of NDSU. We have a 7 point lead. IIRC, zero throws to him in the second half. NDSU out scores us 9-0.
Our TEs have been so solid and reliable since the arrival of Hayden Fry, I just can't stand how little they are used. I hope Mary chewed Kirk's ass off after those two games.
When we throw the ball to Kittle, good things happen.
The following scenario, which we've all seen a hundred times, speaks volumes at the ineptitude of this staffs game management:
Iowa has momentum, moving the ball right down the field. It's second and nine and we run an eight yard play making it third and one. For some reason we decide to substitute half the offense. Logic would tell you to go hurry up and run a play since you have them on their heels. We run the third down play and get stuffed, because we sub in an obvious package the opposing defensive coordinator has seen a million times in this scenario.
Iowa has momentum, moving the ball right down the field. It's second and nine and we run an eight yard play making it third and one. For some reason we decide to substitute half the offense. Logic would tell you to go hurry up and run a play since you have them on their heels. We run the third down play and get stuffed, because we sub in an obvious package the opposing defensive coordinator has seen a million times in this scenario.
