Rewatched Purdue first half.......

[Incredible Hawk]

I saw a Tweet from Moorehouse after the game w/ quotes from Welsh and one of the PU defensive players - both guys mentioned Iowa's snap count either directly or indirectly as one of the components that limited the iowa offense. I didn't notice at the game, but the on field mic's did a really good job of picking up Stanley's rhythmic pre-snap instructions. I fast forwarded through some but when he wasn't rushed the snap count was the exact same - probably 70% of the time - and you can hear it plain as day on the TV video......

The other thing I questioned was why Iowa didn't try to push the ball more before half. They had 1:45 from the 20 w/ 3 timeouts. To me, this deserves much more criticism than the decision to go for 2 early. They ran on first down and got 7 yards then let ~25 seconds run off - On second down they completed a pass for another 7-8 yards - THEN decided to go into hurry up mode........I thought that was a big mistake - You have to decide before you get the ball - Are we going hurry up or are we killing the clock? I understand the argument for killing the clock in some situations, but the worst thing you can do is not make a decision which is what Iowa appeared to do.. ..........Especially frustrating after Purdue came out in the 2nd half and took full advantage of the wind and scored in under a minute...........

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

The boo birds were strong at the end of the 1st half.

 

[Incredible Hawk]

I noticed the boo-birds too - more on TV than I did at the stadium........

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

Muskie tried saying the boo birds were after a missed pi call. BULL$HIT! As you watching that game there are at least 3 times it is very easy to hear the fans boo and the announcers say something twice. FWIW if you find the spot Matt Milan says "that's bad coaching" let me know.

 

[OutbackBowl2017]

When you have the wind and 1:30 on the clock, you have to take advantage of the opportunity since you hadn't scored into the wind in the first quarter and got the nine with it.

You'd think after 19 years being the HC at Iowa, playing at Kinnick stadium in windy conditions that KF would know by now you have to take advantage each possession with the wind.

It's simple things like this that make me shake my head with the man thinking a 9-7 advantage is going to be enough to win him the ball game. At worst, try to run a two minute offense from the start to get into field goal position or score a TD to go up 12-7 or 16-7 and momentum heading into the locker room. Worse case, you have the wind with you to be able to punt the ball 40 yards at worse if you don't sustain a drive downfield.

Old Kirk is what we saw on Saturday and it bit him in the butt - ebb and flow, that's football, and going for two down 9 when you needed the extra point to make it an 8 point game so the onside kick had any meaning. $4.5 million gets you this. Wow.

 

[Muskie5]

I saw a Tweet from Moorehouse after the game w/ quotes from Welsh and one of the PU defensive players - both guys mentioned Iowa's snap count either directly or indirectly as one of the components that limited the iowa offense. I didn't notice at the game, but the on field mic's did a really good job of picking up Stanley's rhythmic pre-snap instructions. I fast forwarded through some but when he wasn't rushed the snap count was the exact same - probably 70% of the time - and you can hear it plain as day on the TV video......

The other thing I questioned was why Iowa didn't try to push the ball more before half. They had 1:45 from the 20 w/ 3 timeouts. To me, this deserves much more criticism than the decision to go for 2 early. They ran on first down and got 7 yards then let ~25 seconds run off - On second down they completed a pass for another 7-8 yards - THEN decided to go into hurry up mode........I thought that was a big mistake - You have to decide before you get the ball - Are we going hurry up or are we killing the clock? I understand the argument for killing the clock in some situations, but the worst thing you can do is not make a decision which is what Iowa appeared to do.. ..........Especially frustrating after Purdue came out in the 2nd half and took full advantage of the wind and scored in under a minute...........

If you don't get a nice gain on first down, if you don't get the first down, you are giving the ball back with good field position and too much time on the clock. Sound strategy. Iowa was leading at the time and most teams don't go into a '2 minute drill' with a lead, deep in their own territory.

 

[Muskie5]

Muskie tried saying the boo birds were after a missed pi call. BULL$HIT! As you watching that game there are at least 3 times it is very easy to hear the fans boo and the announcers say something twice. FWIW if you find the spot Matt Milan says "that's bad coaching" let me know.

I'm pretty sure I said that was the only time I noticed it. I wasn't in the stadium, but I didn't notice any other boos and I talked to some folks sitting around the 40 yd. line and they didn't notice it either. Must of been a handful sitting close to the announcers booth.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

I heard boos over the pass interference call. When you remember why they said was bad coaching and what they boo'd about, get back to us.

 

[JoelBittner]

I saw a Tweet from Moorehouse after the game w/ quotes from Welsh and one of the PU defensive players - both guys mentioned Iowa's snap count either directly or indirectly as one of the components that limited the iowa offense. I didn't notice at the game, but the on field mic's did a really good job of picking up Stanley's rhythmic pre-snap instructions. I fast forwarded through some but when he wasn't rushed the snap count was the exact same - probably 70% of the time - and you can hear it plain as day on the TV video......

The other thing I questioned was why Iowa didn't try to push the ball more before half. They had 1:45 from the 20 w/ 3 timeouts. To me, this deserves much more criticism than the decision to go for 2 early. They ran on first down and got 7 yards then let ~25 seconds run off - On second down they completed a pass for another 7-8 yards - THEN decided to go into hurry up mode........I thought that was a big mistake - You have to decide before you get the ball - Are we going hurry up or are we killing the clock? I understand the argument for killing the clock in some situations, but the worst thing you can do is not make a decision which is what Iowa appeared to do.. ..........Especially frustrating after Purdue came out in the 2nd half and took full advantage of the wind and scored in under a minute...........

Thanx for the hard work and self-abuse in delving deeper into the ugliness.

But micro-analyzing really isn't needed anymore. KF finally jumped the shark. It doesn't really matter why we lost to Purdue or any other team this season. It's clear the BF experiment has failed and 19 years of inexplicable losses with 14 years of underachievement can all be summed up with 1 word. And that word is not Ken, or Greg or Brian. It's Kirk. The author of all the pain.

 

[David1979]

What is crazy, is if they have an average offense this year they would at most only have 2 losses maybe only 1 and be a top 15 top 10 team.

 

[ichawk24]

If you don't get a nice gain on first down, if you don't get the first down, you are giving the ball back with good field position and too much time on the clock. Sound strategy. Iowa was leading at the time and most teams don't go into a '2 minute drill' with a lead, deep in their own territory.

I agree that it is a sound strategy to run on first down and see what happens. What I didn't like, is that they had a nice gain, but still remained in a slowdown mode. Once they had that nice gain, they need to start thinking to score.

I heard plenty of boos. After a frustrating half, everyone was pissed when they decided to not try to score.

 

[coreyzbizkits]

I said to my friend at halftime after the terrible clock management, "We are a 6-4 football team, what do we have to lose by throwing downfield." If we were 10-0, 9-1, or even 8-2, then I understand sometimes being conservative. Only 2 wins separated us from Purdue, and they said what the hell lets throw downfield a bunch and take chances.

 

[VodkaSam]

If you don't get a nice gain on first down, if you don't get the first down, you are giving the ball back with good field position and too much time on the clock. Sound strategy. Iowa was leading at the time and most teams don't go into a '2 minute drill' with a lead, deep in their own territory.

You're kidding right? 1:43 isn't enough time for Iowa to score with the wind at our back and 3 timeouts...and if things don't go right, and we have to punt, suddenly Purdue is going to turn into Alabama and go 60-80 against the wind to score? You and Kirk are over thinking this way too much.

 

[David1979]

The one thing I think in the games they have lost is that they let the defense dictate things instead of dictating things to the defense. If the defense is going to put that many guys in the box, spread them out and go multiple WR sets so that they can't keep that many players in the box. Just look at how successful Iowa has been on offense when teams haven't done that- OSU and ISU during the comeback late. It is like in basketball when a teams plays zone against you and you are content to just pass the ball around the perimeter and refuse to penetrate or get the ball in the middle of the zone. You are letting the defense dictate the terms. You have to do something to get them to stop playing the way they are playing. I am not sure it is stubbornness, ego, or that they don't trust the WRs and tackles in the passing game? They do have the worst WRs in the Big Ten.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

FWIW. If Iowa scored the average* (2017 median "buffalo 27.8 points per game) ppg we would have 2 losses on the season ISU and wiscy. I did the math in the thread if you guys want to look at it but it breaks down like this. My data only went back to 2003. KF has something like 113 wins right now since then. His defenses are 2.5 standard deviations above "average" during that time. His offenses are .5 standard deviation below average during that time. If KF could have kept his defense and each year changed the offense to that years "average" offensive team he would have had something like 135 wins in that time frame. If he kept his offense and changed his defense to statistical "average" he had like 89 wins. Under the same circumstances he would have averaged 9.5 wins or 5.8 wins per year respectfully.

In the 19 years KF has been at Iowa only twice 01 and 02 has the offense been the higher rated unit. 9 times in 19 years a KF offense has been in the top half of PPG. 8 times during his 19 years the defense has been in the top 15 ppg against.

 

[kcgolfer]

Kirk is just being Kirk, sadly.

 

[markfromj]

Most definitely there were boos after a bad punt by Iowa. I believe it was late in the second quarter.

 

[mustang_horsepower]

The boo birds were strong at the end of the 1st half.

And Matt Millen couldn't understand. He was perplexed.

 

[Muskie5]

You're kidding right? 1:30 isn't enough time for Iowa to score with the wind at our back and 3 timeouts...and if things don't go right, and we have to punt, suddenly Purdue is going to turn into Alabama and go 60-80 against the wind to score? You and Kirk are over thinking this way too much.

What would I be kidding about? It's not the two of us that think that way, I assure you. Very few coaches at any level would have gone into a 2 minute drill in that situation and almost no one goes into a 2 minute drill to increase it's lead.

 

[Muskie5]

I agree that it is a sound strategy to run on first down and see what happens. What I didn't like, is that they had a nice gain, but still remained in a slowdown mode. Once they had that nice gain, they need to start thinking to score.

I heard plenty of boos. After a frustrating half, everyone was pissed when they decided to not try to score.

I rewatched the game and the fans boo'd when the defender wouldn't stop trying to strip the ball after the sack in the last minute of the first half, and then there were what sounded like a small pocket of boos after Iowa just ran out the clock after the sack. Matt Millen pretty much called the few booer's morons and said 'that doesn't even make sense'. The other times I heard booing was after a couple more short punts and after what the fans thought should have been a pass interference call on Purdue (I said on the pass interference call in another post, but I misspoke) late in the game.
And Matt Millen never said, 'that's poor coaching' at any time during the game that I can find, as some posters have claimed. He did say he didn't agree with the call of the QB draw off the fake jet play.

 

[plmac9]

If you don't get a nice gain on first down, if you don't get the first down, you are giving the ball back with good field position and too much time on the clock. Sound strategy. Iowa was leading at the time and most teams don't go into a '2 minute drill' with a lead, deep in their own territory.

How so? Worse case you punt the ball back with the wind.

 

[Muskie5]

And Matt Millen couldn't understand. He was perplexed.

the boo birds weren't 'strong. It sounded like a small pocket close to the booth and Millen pretty much said they were morons, "...that doesn't make any sense..."

 

[MGOHAWK2]

Muskie tried saying the boo birds were after a missed pi call. BULL$HIT! As you watching that game there are at least 3 times it is very easy to hear the fans boo and the announcers say something twice. FWIW if you find the spot Matt Milan says "that's bad coaching" let me know.

I'm pretty sure I said that was the only time I noticed it. I wasn't in the stadium, but I didn't notice any other boos and I talked to some folks sitting around the 40 yd. line and they didn't notice it either. Must of been a handful sitting close to the announcers booth.

It was after the punts.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

the boo birds weren't 'strong. It sounded like a small pocket close to the booth and Millen pretty much said they were morons, "...that doesn't make any sense..."

I have already given you the times.

 

[Muskie5]

View embedded media

I have already given you the times.

I already know the times, and you were wrong about your assessment of the booing. And We're still waiting for when Millen said 'that's bad coaching'. Did we miss it, I can't find it.

 

[Suterman]

Thanx for the hard work and self-abuse in delving deeper into the ugliness.

But micro-analyzing really isn't needed anymore. KF finally jumped the shark. It doesn't really matter why we lost to Purdue or any other team this season. It's clear the BF experiment has failed and 19 years of inexplicable losses with 14 years of underachievement can all be summed up with 1 word. And that word is not Ken, or Greg or Brian. It's Kirk. The author of all the pain.

View embedded media

JFC! Are you out of your mind?

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

I already know the times, and you were wrong about your assessment of the booing. And We're still waiting for when Millen said 'that's bad coaching'. Did we miss it, I can't find it.

Haha. I found it! I was slighty wrong but I knew there was something Matt Milan said that was rough. At 5:06 in the first qt he says "that is completely on the coaching staff" after they drew up a poopy 3rd down. Salt. Muskie that is 3 times in as many days that I have owned you.

Again, if you find the thread where I gave you the times there are audible "boos". I pointed out three, I believe another poster pointed out another one.

 

[Muskie5]

Haha. I found it! I was slighty wrong but I knew there was something Matt Milan said that was rough. At 5:06 in the first qt he says "that is completely on the coaching staff" after they drew up a poopy 3rd down. Salt. Muskie that is 3 times in as many days that I have owned you.

Again, if you find the thread where I gave you the times there are audible "boos". I pointed out three, I believe another poster pointed out another one.

I already pointed them out dipshit and pointed out they had nothing to do with your original assertions. You are another one that just makes shit up and then changes your story when you are wrong. "That is completely on the coaches" is no where near "that's is just bad coaching". You're an idiot. You guys are masters though at 'twisting' what you say and others say to fit your agenda. Keep up the good work, lol.

 

[Muskie5]

I already pointed them out dipshit and pointed out they had nothing to do with your original assertions. You are another one that just makes shit up and then changes your story when you are wrong. "That is completely on the coaches" is no where near "that's is just bad coaching". You're an idiot. You guys are masters though at 'twisting' what you say and others say to fit your agenda. Keep up the good work, lol.

And they didn't 'draw up a poopy play' (nor did Millen say that), Wirfs simply blew his read in passpro.

 

[JoelBittner]

JFC! Are you out of your mind?

Have you ever been arrested for road rage?

 

[JoelBittner]

I already pointed them out dipshit and pointed out they had nothing to do with your original assertions. You are another one that just makes shit up and then changes your story when you are wrong. "That is completely on the coaches" is no where near "that's is just bad coaching". You're an idiot. You guys are masters though at 'twisting' what you say and others say to fit your agenda. Keep up the good work, lol.

Your agenda is to put one person's needs above the needs of 60,000. Sad that you're not smart enough to realize why that is illogical.

 

[kwik44]

I saw a Tweet from Moorehouse after the game w/ quotes from Welsh and one of the PU defensive players - both guys mentioned Iowa's snap count either directly or indirectly as one of the components that limited the iowa offense. I didn't notice at the game, but the on field mic's did a really good job of picking up Stanley's rhythmic pre-snap instructions. I fast forwarded through some but when he wasn't rushed the snap count was the exact same - probably 70% of the time - and you can hear it plain as day on the TV video......

The other thing I questioned was why Iowa didn't try to push the ball more before half. They had 1:45 from the 20 w/ 3 timeouts. To me, this deserves much more criticism than the decision to go for 2 early. They ran on first down and got 7 yards then let ~25 seconds run off - On second down they completed a pass for another 7-8 yards - THEN decided to go into hurry up mode........I thought that was a big mistake - You have to decide before you get the ball - Are we going hurry up or are we killing the clock? I understand the argument for killing the clock in some situations, but the worst thing you can do is not make a decision which is what Iowa appeared to do.. ..........Especially frustrating after Purdue came out in the 2nd half and took full advantage of the wind and scored in under a minute...........

I argued the decision to burn the last of the clock with a friend. I believe Wadley got 9 yards on 1st down. It was almost like they (KF) were shocked he got that many and had no play called to hurry up for 2nd. He subsequently got sacked and it was a moot point. Friend asked what were they supposed to do with under a minute facing a long passing down but remained to miss the point completely. They came unprepared to run a two minute drill with the wind to try and find points. Seen it a dozen times if not more under KF.

 

[kwik44]

If you don't get a nice gain on first down, if you don't get the first down, you are giving the ball back with good field position and too much time on the clock. Sound strategy. Iowa was leading at the time and most teams don't go into a '2 minute drill' with a lead, deep in their own territory.

It was 2nd and 1! He burned 25 seconds trying to figure out what to do. Then picked up the first down and burned another 25! Call a timeout somewhere in there at least to evaluate things. It's terrible!

Brings me back to his OSU quote ~"we knew they could put points up in a hurry so we had to keep the foot in the gas" ..
.no sh*t?! Why not play every game out trying to win & put up points? What makes it safe to assume the other team isn't eager to put up a bunch of points on you? Do they just say 'well ol' Kirk believes this one needs to be a 9-7 type one possession game so that's how we'll play'. Screw that! Jeff Brohm smacked Kirk with two TD's out of the gate because he wanted to win the damn game!

Ultimately, 4.5 will decide on how a game will be played and everyone else is along for the ride.

 

[BubsFinn]

I saw a Tweet from Moorehouse after the game w/ quotes from Welsh and one of the PU defensive players - both guys mentioned Iowa's snap count either directly or indirectly as one of the components that limited the iowa offense. I didn't notice at the game, but the on field mic's did a really good job of picking up Stanley's rhythmic pre-snap instructions. I fast forwarded through some but when he wasn't rushed the snap count was the exact same - probably 70% of the time - and you can hear it plain as day on the TV video......

The other thing I questioned was why Iowa didn't try to push the ball more before half. They had 1:45 from the 20 w/ 3 timeouts. To me, this deserves much more criticism than the decision to go for 2 early. They ran on first down and got 7 yards then let ~25 seconds run off - On second down they completed a pass for another 7-8 yards - THEN decided to go into hurry up mode........I thought that was a big mistake - You have to decide before you get the ball - Are we going hurry up or are we killing the clock? I understand the argument for killing the clock in some situations, but the worst thing you can do is not make a decision which is what Iowa appeared to do.. ..........Especially frustrating after Purdue came out in the 2nd half and took full advantage of the wind and scored in under a minute...........

I think everyone is tired of criticizing Kirk for this. It's been happening since he got here and complaining about it hasn't done anything. Don't get me started on that goddamn Ohio State game.

 

[hexumhawk]

I saw a Tweet from Moorehouse after the game w/ quotes from Welsh and one of the PU defensive players - both guys mentioned Iowa's snap count either directly or indirectly as one of the components that limited the iowa offense. I didn't notice at the game, but the on field mic's did a really good job of picking up Stanley's rhythmic pre-snap instructions. I fast forwarded through some but when he wasn't rushed the snap count was the exact same - probably 70% of the time - and you can hear it plain as day on the TV video......

The other thing I questioned was why Iowa didn't try to push the ball more before half. They had 1:45 from the 20 w/ 3 timeouts. To me, this deserves much more criticism than the decision to go for 2 early. They ran on first down and got 7 yards then let ~25 seconds run off - On second down they completed a pass for another 7-8 yards - THEN decided to go into hurry up mode........I thought that was a big mistake - You have to decide before you get the ball - Are we going hurry up or are we killing the clock? I understand the argument for killing the clock in some situations, but the worst thing you can do is not make a decision which is what Iowa appeared to do.. ..........Especially frustrating after Purdue came out in the 2nd half and took full advantage of the wind and scored in under a minute...........

This was befuddling to say the least. We were down 2 scores with under 9Mins to play....walking to the line and using 20+ seconds of the play clock. Still running stretch run plays.

Made no sense.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

And they didn't 'draw up a poopy play' (nor did Millen say that), Wirfs simply blew his read in passpro.

You are truly too dumb to have a conversation with. Not only have I provided the times and the video and the corrected verbage anyone with half a brain can listen and watch and see you are a fool. You have now resorted to the lowest of the low which is name calling with no facts. Again I provided everything you need to see it. Go hang out with Kilroy muskie you two are about the same speed.

Again, I have owned you the last 3 days and made you look like a fool. Keep talking and posting it will only improve my stats.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

I already pointed them out dipshit and pointed out they had nothing to do with your original assertions. You are another one that just makes shit up and then changes your story when you are wrong. "That is completely on the coaches" is no where near "that's is just bad coaching". You're an idiot. You guys are masters though at 'twisting' what you say and others say to fit your agenda. Keep up the good work, lol.

Twisting the agenda? Look at what you type you beta little boy. You have been proven wrong in every thread you post in and your response: go to the next thread. If your not smart enough to watch the video and fast fwd to the exact times I have your and listen to very audible "boos" the crowd should be "booing" your intelligence. Keep talking muskie and I'll keep proving you wrong. Child.

 

[luvmyhawks]

I already pointed them out dipshit and pointed out they had nothing to do with your original assertions. You are another one that just makes shit up and then changes your story when you are wrong. "That is completely on the coaches" is no where near "that's is just bad coaching". You're an idiot. You guys are masters though at 'twisting' what you say and others say to fit your agenda. Keep up the good work, lol.

Your defense in all of this is rather strange. Which ferentz are you? This is just a stupid argument.

Look. There was some questionable coaching last Saturday. I am not sure how that is debatable. There was definitely some boo birds. Why are you arguing this? It is very strange.

 

[Muskie5]

Your defense in all of this is rather strange. Which ferentz are you? This is just a stupid argument.

Look. There was some questionable coaching last Saturday. I am not sure how that is debatable. There was definitely some boo birds. Why are you arguing this? It is very strange.

Nothing strange about it. You don't think 'truth' or fact should be debated? And we wonder why this country is full of a bunch of uninformed idiots that support people that coin terms like 'alternate facts'. LOL. People come on here and speak in hyperbole and misinformation and when someone points it out, that is strange to you. Hmmm......

 

[Muskie5]

Twisting the agenda? Look at what you type you beta little boy. You have been proven wrong in every thread you post in and your response: go to the next thread. If your not smart enough to watch the video and fast fwd to the exact times I have your and listen to very audible "boos" the crowd should be "booing" your intelligence. Keep talking muskie and I'll keep proving you wrong. Child.

Nobody has ever proven me wrong about anything, especially you. I told you exactly when they booed and I keep referring to your ORIGINAL post about the booing and you were flat out wrong and lying. Like the another clown on here that lied and tried to change the story, you'll end up blocking me because you are a liar and I have proven you to be a liar. Show us how your original comment about the booing wasn't a flat out lie. We'll wait. Oh, and show me where ANYONE has ever proven me wrong in a post? We'll wait for that as well.
It will never come, you'll just attempt to insult me, twist things, and change the argument (like you already have) like most women do. Show us how your original post wasn't a lie honey. We're waiting.