Has anyone heard if the Stanford coach said anything about throwing for a TD with 2 minutes left and a big lead?
Late TD
- Thread starter THOMASSONR
- Start date
We went for an onside kick telling them the game wasn't over. They answered by saying yes.
They were obviously playing it very conservative in the second half. Not going on 4th and less than one on one occasion. Also declining the penalty after the made field goal which would have made it 4th and 1 inside the 10 (yeah I know, never take points off the board, but I'm sure they knew they'd have a 90% chance of making it and chose not to), It seemed to me they could have named the score. When we did the onsides kick, I think Shaw thought, well if you're going to keep playing so will we.
Iowa called time outs on their last drive with no possibility of coming back. Was that ok?
It's our job to stop them.
Yeah, I thought it was a little bush league, and it's something Kirk never would have done. I thought Shaw was above that kind of thing. He seems like a good guy based on what I've seen. That said, we did attempt an onside kick and, to our credit, were still competing even though the outcome was no longer in doubt. In that context, I don't think it was a totally classless move to throw the bomb there. That said, I would have had more respect for Shaw if he'd just run the clock there.
Yes, it's our defense's job to stop them, but no, there was absolutely no need to be throwing long, up 22, with 2:30 left. A few dive plays and the game's pretty much over. I doubt Kirk cared for it much, although he has too much class to say anything about it publicly.
Yes, it's our defense's job to stop them, but no, there was absolutely no need to be throwing long, up 22, with 2:30 left. A few dive plays and the game's pretty much over. I doubt Kirk cared for it much, although he has too much class to say anything about it publicly.
This, bush league by Shaw. I liked him but lost a lot of respect. That was fullback dive time.
Last edited:
I came over here as I was trying to figure out what that halftime show was about. Anyways that last pass had to do more with all the scrutiny Hogan received last year when his head was not in the game due to his dad dying which he hid from everybody including the team as not to create distractions or excuses. This year with a clear head he really came back and made a mark for himself so it was to be his last pass and TD ever in a Stanford uniform and a homage to what he has done and the no credit he has received the past four years. It is not easy following Andrew Luck.
Oh boo hoo. Stop the crying. We onsided. They had every right to take us deep. Our safeties were garbage all game.
Things that are impossible: overcoming the gravitational pull of a black hole, going backwards in time, having mass with no volume, sound travelling through a vacuum, travelling a negative distance, electrically-conducting distilled water, etc. And yes, because we were behind.
If Iowa is still trying to put points on the board why can't Stanford? They scored on Iowas starters. If you don't like getting scored on you should do something about it.
I'm not following your logic. Shaw had him throw a bomb, up 22, with about 2:30 left in the game, to pay homage to what he's done for Stanford? Seriously? As if a 35-16 shellacking wasn't enough homage? If that was the logic, that was some seriously weak logic.
Not crying, but I think your logic is also flawed. The fact that a team trailing by 22 with 2:30 left attempts an onside kick doesn't necessarily mean the opponent has "every right" to throw a bomb. Of course, it's well within their rights, as it's their right to do anything they want within the rules as long as there's time on the clock, but the question is whether it was advisable or prudent. I'd argue that the prudent course of action would have been a few dive plays to run out the clock.
The fact that our safeties played poorly is, of course, completely irrelevant to this discussion.
yes and to let him soak up the moment. This guy was treated how you guys treated your coach last year. It's also a game and Stanford let up the entire second half. It wasn't that Iowa was a bad team or overmatched, it is more that we got up by three scores early and threw you off your game where you had to switch it up from what is normal and that is what gave Stanford complete control. If not for those early scores it would have been a slugfest. Iowa is a much better team than they showed today and we know that.
Of course they can. The question is whether it's advisable. I guarantee Kirk would argue that it's not. I was surprised Shaw did it. Seemed out of character, as he seems like a respectable guy. When the game is out of reach and you're guaranteed the win by just running out the clock, it's obvious that throwing deep is absolutely, 100%, unnecessary. In that case, many coaches would argue that the right thing to do is to run out the clock, shake hands, and go take a shower. Throwing deep there accomplishes nothing of value where winning the game is concerned. Therefore, sportsmanship gets called into question.
Not a big deal, but I have no doubt that Kirk would have run out the clock there, and I would have had more respect for Shaw if he had, too.
That was a statement saying , "we can still do whatever we want today ". If you're offended, big time football isn't for you. Not everybody has to be like coach ferentz.
Go hawks.
Go hawks.
Wow -- that's some seriously whacked-out thinking, IMO. But I will say he's a heck of a QB, I was extremely impressed by McCaffrey, and Stanford has a heck of a team. And I think you might be a little too generous about Iowa, but I appreciate the kind words! Congrats on the big win.
I'm not saying everybody has to be like Coach Ferentz, or that everybody has to be like anyone in particular. I am saying that Ferentz is a highly respected guy because he has an astute sense of sportsmanship. I'm saying that coaches like him who value sportsmanship would have run out the clock rather than throwing a 40-yard TD pass, up 22, with 2:30 left in the game.
Go ULM.
Try and justify it however you want colscap, it was a d*ck move from a guy who I thought was better than that.
Shaw could have left his defensive starters in until the end instead of letting Iowa score some garbage points. Just saying......
We played until the clock hit zero. They are allowed to as well.
Probably didn't want to get charged for murdering Beathard
Tailgate Tom. You may have spent too much time at the tailgate. I have seen plenty of games where Iowa has been up on opponents and scored late touchdowns. And there wasn't a single Hawk fan that was upset about it. Anyone who complains about that last touchdown should just be thankful they called the dogs off for most of the second half and let their reserves get some quality time in the game. This could have been the most embarrassing game of the entire bowl season.
I think a lot of Hawkeye fans are mad that Stanford didn't put in their ball boys on defense so that Iowa could've scored a bunch of garbage points to make it closer than what it was. Moral victories are very important to some of the fanbase.
People that cry about running up the score in a football game are pussies.
This wasn't a pee wee or JV game, it was THE FREAKING ROSE BOWL.
This wasn't a pee wee or JV game, it was THE FREAKING ROSE BOWL.
Point is Stanford could've easily ran through Iowa and got the first downs necessary to run out the clock but instead chose to take a shot down the field and score to rub in the fact that they were that much better than Iowa today. That and they didn't want to go the whole half without scoring a touchdown while Iowa was "outscoring" them in the 2nd half.
#3 was behind our secondary numerous times but Hogan had missed him on prior attempts.
#3 was behind our secondary numerous times but Hogan had missed him on prior attempts.
I'm not a fan of throwing a bomb up big, but can deal with it. My biggest issue is he had Hogan doing it.
Last edited:
A good thing about being old, is I probably won't be around the next time Iowa goes to the Lose Bowl.
If it's ok for Iowa to look to get some cosmetic scores just to make the score look closer then the game actually was, why can't Stanford want to keep it's margin of victory to show that they truly dominated the game? If Iowa was running up the middle, not onside kicking and calling time outs, then Stanford probable would of continued to hold back in the second half, but they didn't. Face it, Stanford could of won this game by 50.
Please provide examples of these "plenty of games" where Iowa was up by almost 30, with the starters in, 2:00 left and throwing bombs. Thanks.
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
