IMO Fitz made the right call...At best we were able to run a short yardage passing game with or with out the wind most of the day...Iowa had two time outs.....We throw two in completions or even a completion without a first down.....And Iowa has the potential to get the ball back with significant time,,,with the wind and only needing to advance the ball to the NU 30ish to win...At the game ...and the wind was significant...what makes you think we can all of sudden do what we have not been able to do all game ....Our defense is our strength...OT gives us a chance to stop Iowa and then only drive 25 yards or less if we just need a Field Goal....with the wind....This was absolutely the right call. Actually I was stunned that Iowa did not use their time outs and force the punt into the wind.
WTF - last series
- Thread starter DaCat
- Start date
The Tyrannosaurus Rex was also the world's most fearsome scavenger at one point. I'm aware of Graham - watched his highlights - and do love me some Otto, he played great in his day and was an All American wildcat. But he had most of his success in the AAFC and played when the NFL had 13 teams and barely any money involved. Hence he doesn't register with regards to the modern NFL - he likely had a second job in the offseason. Johnny Unitas sold cars when he wasn't busy playing football.
Fine, I give. Otto Graham was an all timer, nobody can argue that. I think Thorson could surpass Siemian as having the next best NFL QB career after Graham. And I do believe Thorton will be drafted higher than most on this board think due to his tools & raw potential, lacking college OL & WRs notwithstanding, after this or next season.
Sorry but while I understand where you are coming from, I don't have the problem with it you do. Our QB was off all day. Our running game was sort of in mud as well. And overall our O was pretty inept. We would have had to drive about 55 yds to the 20-25 to even have a shot at a FG, something we basically had not done all day. Last thing we could afford going a quick three and out and having to punt into the wind back to IA with time and two timeouts, the wind and a kicker who had just hit a 48 yd FG. They might only need about 20 yds to be in FG range. In that position, I see a lot of teams run the first play and not really open it up unless that first play is successful. We ran it for 5 yds. Not the right spot for it.
An Io*a fan told me the reason they wear yellow is because then if the mustard got on them no one would notice.
Of course it goes to the D. And Fitz recognized that and did not want to put them in a bad position. He was playing to the strength.
One could argue it, but given the positions taken on this board over a multitude of topics, that isn't saying a whole lot.
That was stupid. If he goes and fails, he can still rely on his defense to send us to overtime.
You're saying the likelihood of us losing the game exceeded the likelihood of winning the game had we decided to try to score in the last 90 seconds? What were afraid of? A turnover? You get a turnover in OT, and you probably lose too.
Basically, we decided to give u a free shot of victory to even things up and go mano a mano in OT. It's like when you are fencing and you disarm your opponent, you decide to throw away your sword to make things fair and win in hand to hand combat. Well, we won, just like in the movies, but damn, that was a dumb ass decision that simply can't be defended.
Where’s Thorson going to go? There is zero chance he plays in the NFL. The CFL?
You are kidding right? I admit that 90% of the time I would like to take a shot at going down the field. I was initially in that camp at first reaction. It was extraordinarily easy to defend when you think about it. You probably couldn't get an idea of how the wind impacted the game from another continent, but it was howling. We MIGHT have made a FG if we got to the 20. Neither team could connect on even an intermediate distance pass going that way. In fact, I don't think we had enough time to even try a long pass with the wind all day. Conversely it was reasonable to attempt a 50-55 harder going the other way if you turn it over. I don't like the odds of us moving it 60 yards into a gale, when WR's weren't open all that much, against a D that led the conference in interceptions and Iowa can basically pin their ears back on the rush. After my bravo subsided, I came to the conclusion that Fitz made the correct call.
Well, I'll admit that I may not appreciate the strength of the gale force winds. Still, it wasn't one shot and done. Ioa would likely be going to the 3 man rush and playing deep prevent, which means we could have moved up the field and into FG range. Maybe, not possible for us to hit it from say 40 yards out, but at least give it a chance? You manage it correctly and miss and you're still going to OT.
DId you watch the rest of the game? What did you see that would give you any confidence that NU could move quickly up the field to around teh UI 20 yard line, which was about the range for a FG into the wind? Without the fluke Thorson scramble the NU passing offense was impotent all game.
OK, so I'm actually starting to come around. I still think we should have taken a shot, but I'm seeing now also that there is some reasonable rationale for having done what he did. Again, I wasn't there so perhaps I can't appreciate how strong the winds were. Still, I really didn't see what we had to lose by trying, or at least what we could potentially gain outweighed what we could lose including the likely probabilities of good vs. bad outcomes.
The game. Just the game.
I can understand if you disagree with the decision. I personally am fine with it, even though it was a bit bizarre. But to call it an "unfathomable decision" just shows a lack of imagination or critical thinking. Very partisan attitude.
Doubt it. The likelihood of making a mistake that costs us the game is much smaller than the likehood of us actually getting into field position and winning the game.
If it weren't, then we ought to start punting the ball on 1st down instead of letting our offense try to do what it's supposed to do and move the ball down the field and score.
Continuing the 40-year streak of knowing nothing about football I see. Fortunately Rivals has an excellent search function, so we'll have a nice lol at your expense when CT is playing in the NFL, while you'll have a 42-year streak of knowing zero about football at that point.
You watched the game. You saw a good Iowa field goal kicker look like a Pro with the wind (48 yarder that would have likely been good from 60) and like a high school kicker into the wind (37 yarder). You saw Hunter punt 80 yards (80!) with the wind, and repeated times when both coaches would not try a FG into the wind. You saw 17 points scored with the wind and 3 against (a 30-yrd FG that was a testament to how hard/accurate of of a ball our FG kicker struck the ball). You saw our offense all of a sudden go into hurry-up mode the entire 3rd quarter when they had the wind and were behind/tied. But you only could apppreciate how strong the winds were if you were there?
If we had tried to drive, IA had a better chance to win than we did. In OT it was at least 50-50
How do you figure? We take a few shots then run clock. 90 seconds left. Iowa hadn't been able to move the ball on us AT ALL. So, Iowa would have a better chance to score on us with the ball for say 10 seconds vs. us with 90? C'mon.
So your argument is that scoring a FG into the wind as we would require us to kick it strong and accurate. Well, OK, then, you got me.
If they have the ball on the NU side of the field with a strong tailwind? Probably.
Not terribly infeasible. If we have incompletions first and second down, Iowa is going to call a timeout after we run on 3rd and 10. That gives them the ball back with one timeout and a stiff wind at their back with probably 1:00-1:10 on the clock around their own 35 at worst. From there, they would only have to gain about 30 yards to give their kicker a chance to win the game in the direction of the wind.
I didn't make an argument; I refuted your beyond ridiculous post about not possibly knowing about the wind being a factor unless you attended the game....
Thanks for playing as always though!
First, if we had "tried a few shots" and those had been incomplete passes, no time would go off the clock. With two time outs, they would have gotten the ball back with about 1 minute or more (potentially with a TO remaining), likely in pretty fair field position because we would have been punting into the wind. Based on the 48 yd FG they kicked to tie it at 10, he could have put it through from 10 yds further. That means all they would have needed was about 20-25 yds to get into position for a potential game winner. And no matter how well we had been doing against them, such a drive was definitely possible.
Basically if we had to try to "go for it", our potential for victory would have been dropped to 40% and theirs would have been increased to about 60%. By going to OT our chances went up to at least 50/50 and likely better. It was the right decision.
It is not as if Fitz had CT take a knee. Keeping the ball on the ground still could have allowed us to get into field goal range if one of our backs had been able to break through the line and get through the secondary. After all the D was likely expecting us to pass so that increased the odds of being able to maximize the ground game.
Didn't have to have a turnover (though that was definitely possible). A quick three and out (highly likely) and they would have gotten the ball in good field position with better than a minute and a time out with the wind and a FG kicker who had just shown he could put it through from distance. It was the right decision based on the circumstances. Had we been going the other direction, your position would have been more viable. If you fail, you are punting with the wind and they are working against it.
Last edited:
Show us this large number od f Io_a posters who thought we were nuts. Should be easy to do. We'll wait.
OK so it looks like Fitz checked his macho testosterone at the door and made the right call to run out the clock for OT. In retrospect it took more stones to make this call than it was to go for it. He played it smart given the conditions. It was befuddling and frustrating to watch the last series unfold, and the ESPN announcers were howling in disbelief. So credit goes to Fitz. The playcalling still stunk, especially the first two plays of OT. Lucky that JJ decided to take the game into his own hands.
Fitz clearly made the right decision. Ferentz, on the other hand...why not call time outs and try to force us to punt into the wind? Iowa could have had some time to try to get into wind-aided FG range.
This is a point, too. Iowa could have pressed the issue with a couple of timeouts there. If the likely three-and-out DID occur, Niswander is punting from around our 20 into that wind. If he's going to get any distance at all on that, he's got to kick it low . . . and if he does that, unless he's able to angle it toward the sideline - a tricky proposition - a low line drive punt sets up the strong possibility of a solid return. No need for me to stir up our collective heartburn at the memory of Jeremy Macklin fielding Stefan Demos' line drive punt just before the half . . .
Aaaargh. That has stirred up memories of dozens of shots of and stories about Chase Daniels' family.
Similar threads
