His decision to punt on 4th and short was almost as big of gift as the fake field goal. Did anyone else think they would punt the ball in that situation?
We should send a thank you letter to Paul Rhoads
- Thread starter lenoxhawks
- Start date
Looks like all your other angles have been destroyed. Time to blame the win on the other coach. You are relentless I'll give you that.
Fair question and I agree. I was certainly relieved. Real Sports on HBO recently aired the story about the odds of punting versus going for at certain points of the field - made sense to me and with the way the game is going, certainly made sense in that position at that time.
Some Cyclone fans are upset with the call. With all due respect to them and to you, that's nuts. CPR made a lot of mistakes in the game, but that decision definitely was not one of them.
* ISU had all the momentum, the lead, and was playing outstanding defense. Failing to pick up the first down would have changed the momentum and given Iowa the ball at midfield. A huge swing.
* Given the way ISU was handling Iowa's offense, the chances were good that ISU would get the ball back at about the same spot with a new set of downs. And Iowa would be in the shadow of its goalposts, where any error can be a real killer.
* The odds of picking up the first down weren't that great. Iowa had stuffed the Cyclone running plays on first and second down in that series.
Rhoads would have been wacko to go for the first down in that situation, given the risk/benefit ratio. And his decision would have paid big dividends if (a) Beathard hadn't made a great effort to barely avoid a safety; and then (b) Beathard hadn't broken out for the big gain -- against a deep reserve linebacker, who was in for God alone knows what reason, but that's another story.
You are talking about the game 9/12/2015? If so I think you have been drinking too much of Jamie Pollard's dipsh$t juice.
Good points LC and 89.
I bet after Iowa took over at the 6 ISU fans were happy enough. Then the near safety and loss back to the 1, ISU had squeezed Iowa into a terrible rut. The punt had to look like a great decision then, and it was.
Then Iowa just out-executed the Clones with several big plays.
Execution by Iowa and not the play call of Rhoads flipped that exchange in Iowa's favor.
Having said all that ... I was sure glad when ISU punted!
I bet after Iowa took over at the 6 ISU fans were happy enough. Then the near safety and loss back to the 1, ISU had squeezed Iowa into a terrible rut. The punt had to look like a great decision then, and it was.
Then Iowa just out-executed the Clones with several big plays.
Execution by Iowa and not the play call of Rhoads flipped that exchange in Iowa's favor.
Having said all that ... I was sure glad when ISU punted!
This is my point. I bet the majority of Iowa fans were relieved to see them punt. They had a chance to take control of the game. Thank you Paul for making the wrong choice!
Football is the ultimate sport for Captain Hindsight.
Well I think if you have proven anything today it's you got a good bead on the majority of Iowa fans. Now that's funny.
I like you little buddy. You are what we call in the world of arguments....an easy win.
Lenox.....seriously?!?!? With the way the game was going that was 100% the right call, we had nothing going offensively at that point and if they do not convert on 4th down all momentum and field position is gone....wasn't this the series you alluded to in the other thread where CJB bailed KF out and now on this thread you change your stance? You stopped posting on other thread bc we called you out on your Bs, now u r trying a different angle? How about giving credit where it is due and say "I was wrong, KF did a nice job in preparing his team this week to win on a hostile environment" bc we know if we lose we are going to have to hear about that! You can compliment when it is deserved and criticize as well
Yes, and it was the right call. The punt pinned us deep in our end of the field , and their chances of running for a first down were far from a sure thing.
My hat is off for how focused and prepared KF had the team for Sat. They have a nice start to the season and a win Saturday would get some of the good buzz back around Iowa City.
Thank you, good balance is essential in life....if/when we lose again feel free to fire away....lol but do not forget to enjoy the wins, even the ugly ones to crappy teams
You must have been one of the Hawkeye fans who was puking on his neighbors in the stands instead of watching the game. At that point, ISU was definitely dominating Iowa's offense.
The bigger mistake by CPR was dilly-dallying around and not running a play, which gave Kirk a chance to challenge the first down call.....which, as the announcers pointed out, shouldn't have been overturned if the review official applied the criterion he was supposed to apply. Unless he had a view we didn't have, there simply was no way to tell when Lazard's knee touched. It wasn't in view. The call shouldn't have been overturned whether it had been a first down or a fourth down.
Another error CPR made around that time was substituting backups on defense after the near-safety. Would the starters have allowed Beathard to break that great scramble run? Maybe, but there's a reason they're starters.
Lots of "what if?" moments in this game. You guys look at it as Iowa making great plays at crucial times, and that's certainly true. We look at it as mental breakdowns at crucial times, which also is true. That scramble is a good example. Another was the punt return, which had great coverage until two guys overran the returner.
IMHO, the bottom line was ISU's inability to run the ball in the second half, plain and simple. Obviously, Iowa's defense deserves a lot of credit for that. However, ISU hasn't been able to run the ball on any opponent for four years, so I wouldn't give the defense all the credit.
Just ignore that at halftime isu had only one more yard of total offense. This may be the first time in history that 1 yard more of total offense is defined as "dominating".
LC says if you have one more yard of total offense you dominated. Don't laugh he is serious. How else do you explain that isu dominated the first half when the stats said they had 244 yards of total offense to Iowa's 243?
Must ignore though so clone fans can keep a myth alive.
So it would be safe to say that before Iowa drove 95 yards for a touchdown, that maybe ISU had around 96 more yards than Iowa? That could be considered dominating in one half.
Maybe if Iowa didn't actually go 95 yards. I don't see how any team can give up a 95 yard drive and then say they dominated the half.
But... but... but... the genius of Mark Mangino is as the helm of isu's offense. Should not even be in question when his offensive schemes are implemented. Especially against a team such as Iowa that is only the ninth or tenth best on isu's schedule (according to some).
Iowa's defense made the necessary adjustments and limited not only the running game, but also the ability of the isu QB to move freely. That was the difference.
This is probably a rhetorical question, but you do realize this conversation is regarding the situation at the time of the game when it was 4th and 1, and not as of half time, right?
At that point the 2nd quarter was about half over and Iowa had 60 yards total offense and 1 FG. Iowa St. had 180 yards and 10 points, with both of their previous drives going 50+ yards. So yes, at half it was close to even and the game ended up in our favor, but you have the reading comprehension of a 1st grader.
I know this reply is pretty worthless because nothing will stop you from spewing your verbal diarrhea over all things Iowa St., but as an Iowa fan you keep embarrassing us by looking like an idiotic 5 year old. Please stop posting.
Yet when the half ended isu had 1 whopping yard more of total offense. Hardly what anyone would call dominating.
Again I act as clone fans do both here and on cyclone fanatic. When they quit giving me so much to mock I will leave them alone. History says that will never occur.
Reading is still a struggle for you, eh?
At the time of the 4th and 1 (hint: prior to half time, with around 7-8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter) Iowa had 60 yards total and 3 points. On 4 drives. How is that not Iowa St. D dominating the Iowa O?
Further, what does total yardage of the offenses at any point have to do with one another? Disregard at the time (again, prior to half time) that Iowa St. had outgained Iowa 3 to 1, the comment/discussion was "Given the way ISU was handling the Iowa offense" what does that have to do with how Iowa St.'s offense was doing in comparison?
Again, I get that you are just trolling and/or just hate everything Iowa St. and want to show them up (go for it), but at least make a coherent and correct argument.
I know, it's futile, but I've refrained from pointing out his ineptitude for a while and just had to this morning.
Regarding the actual topic, I was very surprised that they didn't go for it. I get the argument and logic behind punting, it was the safest route and at the time it looked like Iowa couldn't get anything going on offense. That said, I probably would have been pissed if it was Iowa and Ferentz punted. It shouldn't be that hard for a QB to fall forward a foot or two to get the first.
Of course PR punting was the wrong decision. When your defense has kept Iowa in check, why would you ever punt the ball to the 7 yard line when you could potentially give them the ball at midfield. This is just another example of fans wanting to think they know more than coaches. Every wrong decision was a horrible one and fans would have always done something different.
Lynch should have gotten the ball when all you need is 1 yard in the Super Bowl.
Well they gave it to Lynch Sunday when all they needed was a yard and he got stuffed.
You know what fans out here are saying now, you have to use a fullback. Fans can't ever be wrong. It's a great place to be, doesn't pay very well though.
Lynch should have gotten the ball when all you need is 1 yard in the Super Bowl.
Well they gave it to Lynch Sunday when all they needed was a yard and he got stuffed.
You know what fans out here are saying now, you have to use a fullback. Fans can't ever be wrong. It's a great place to be, doesn't pay very well though.
So let me get this right, Iowa had 60 yards of total offense going into the last 7-8 mins of the half, ended up with 243 as opposed to 244 for isu yet isu dominated the first half and their lead was only 7?
That sure isn't domination the way I saw it. The isu defense was wearing down and the end of the half and the entire 2nd half proved it. How else do you explain the yardage and point differential from your time frame of 7-8 mins left in the 1st half to the end of the game?
Last edited:
Dear god, did you ever make it out of elementary school?
At the time of the 4th and 1 (NOT AT HALF TIME!!!!!!!) Iowa St. defense was holding Iowa offense in check. What happened after that punt has absolutely nothing to do with the decision at that point in time. Zero. The decision (again, PRIOR TO IOWA GAINING 180 MORE YARDS) was made to punt because Rhoads thought the D could hold, which they were doing so up to that point. The rest of the half/game has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT LC MADE.
Seriously, how hard is it to understand that as of midway through the 2nd quarter Iowa St.'s D was holding Iowa's O to a paltry 60 yards offense, 3 first downs, and 3 three-and-outs?
If you go back I agreed with what LC said in that punting was the right decision. However saying isu dominated the FIRST HALF was and still is a fallacy.
Please quote where LC said that Iowa St. was dominating for the entire first half, or mentions the entire half anywhere in his original post where his point is made.
Similar threads
