Salt on wound...
- Thread starter herbicide
- Start date
Agree; even with the Punt Rtn snafu, I would not have been confident we win by a FG unless we got down inside the 25 yd line.
I'd have to look but I'd be willing to bet WV's blocked field goal (72 yard return) for a TD was more yardage than they had in the whole 2nd half or close to it.
30-14 is still an ass kicking but it could have been worse....ISU still had 10 penalties for 95 yards.
Somewhat --
Iowa's opponents have a very bad success rate specifically on expected passing downs. This reflects very favorably on the Iowa defense on expected passing downs (like 3rd and long-ish). Iowa defense is 6th best in the nation.
Or basically, Iowa's defense has done exceptionally well when they get their opponents into obvious passing downs.
I'm not perfectly sure what defines "success" nor what defines a "passing down" -- but it's probably not hard to look up if someone really cares.
Special Teams killed us against Iowa last year too, and made the Tech game much closer than it should have been.
Far too many coaches don't put enough value in special teams.
I remember Bud Grant saying at one point that the game is split into 3 parts: offense, defense, and special teams. It'd be stupid to only be good at 2 of the 3.
I think it doesn't help that kickers constantly get **** on by everyone for no good reason, thus culling the population of people who would want to play the position.
It also doesn't help that ISU doesn't seem to use non-con games (like the UNI game) to get into "game shape". In that first game, UNI punted 6 times, and ISU didn't try to return one. And up until the last punt, ISU didn't attempt a punt return against Iowa. And then, when ISU needed to set up a punt return against Iowa under game pressure, it failed miserably.
It's just not possible to replicate the pressures of a real game situation in practice. I always thought one reason for playing a couple of easier non-con games was to get players used to the game experience. I guess for ISU now, the purpose of the easier non-con games is just to do the minimum necessary to grab a win for bowl eligibility. That just seems like a waste of a good teaching opportunity.
You could extend that to all facets of the game, as well as missing on opportunities to build depth.
We are getting good practice at being in critical 4th downs and other high pressure situations, although that seems like needless risk.
Through 2 games this year I can't figure out what we are trying to accomplish with our punt return unit. We don't really pin our ears back and go for he block but we don't really try to set up a wall either. It's almost like we just concede the play with a return safe coverage.
I have no idea. If the punting team has great coverage, then by all means, fair-catch it. But there have been several times where IMO ISU could have gained some nice yards with a return, and the current strategy eliminates any chance of making a big, momentum-shifting play. It seems like a passive approach, and as you say, it doesn't put any pressure on the punting team either on the front end or back end of the play. It's "safe". Maybe there is fear of injury???
The biggest differences in this game are that Iowa got (was give one) turnovers, and ISU did not. ISU had a lot of opportunities to get a TO, including the first play of the game where if Spears had broke on the pass .1 seconds earlier he would have had a walk in pick 6. Lots of balls were batted in the air, but ISU was just a couple feet too far away most of the time.
Yes, ISU did make some mistakes, but if ISU picks Stanley 3 times no one is talking about that.
Yes, ISU did make some mistakes, but if ISU picks Stanley 3 times no one is talking about that.
What people don’t seem to get is Iowa deliberately gives up underneath stuff, forcing a qb to make accurate pass after pass all the way down the field without making mistakes, which is statistically very tough.
Then when teams get to the red zone they tighten up and try not to give up anything. People that think Iowa’s pass defense magically got lucky every time the field shortened knows nothing about football strategy.
You could analyze any game where a team wins by less than a field goal and come up with the same "what if" scenarios. Games like this with minimal possesions are about playing smart and not making stupid mistakes. Iowa doesnt have special teams players that take out their own punt returner, so they won the game.
Just finished watching the replay. Announcers used the term "pitch and catch" several times. Purdy's talent is far understated. This AND Nwangwu!