ADVERTISEMENT

Ferentz should have let Sparty score.

bdhman

Senior
Gold Member
Apr 19, 2002
2,315
2,835
113
Bad strategy. Should have let Sparty score and the gotten the ball with 1:45 left. Probability of stopping Sparty from inside the 3 was very low.

I thought IU should have done the same against Michigan in regulation.
 
I get that it can be an odd message to send to your D, but his job is to win the game. That's why Belichick had used that strategy.
 
Yes. I am talking coaching based on probability of outcomes. Sure there was a chance of Iowa stopping them or getting a turnover, but based on how MSU was running the ball it seemed to me like the better call would have been to let them score and get the ball back with 1:45 to go needing only a FG to tie.
 
Yes. I am talking coaching based on probability of outcomes. Sure there was a chance of Iowa stopping them or getting a turnover, but based on how MSU was running the ball it seemed to me like the better call would have been to let them score and get the ball back with 1:45 to go needing only a FG to tie.
Its not like Iowa was marching up and down the field on MSU. 1:45 isnt much time considering how the game was paced. And asking a team to whiff on a TD is a debatable strategy. Considering the low scoring defensive battle the game was, I'd have put it right where it landed...the defense to save the game. Giving up the lead and trying to score in less than two minutes was the long shot imo.
 
An impressive defensive performance by both teams that is littered with mostly 3 star recruits. Shows you where we "could" be!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigRedFootballEd
An impressive defensive performance by both teams that is littered with mostly 3 star recruits. Shows you where we "could" be!
Truth is imo there was nothing impressive about their performances yesterday. The offenses stunk. Neither looked like champs to me. Those offenses were inept. An average defense could have held them down. Had we a secondary, we would have beaten both of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: td75
Both are very good defenses. I think it speaks to how good our offense is and yes I don't think we are very far off from them. We are not a complete team yet. A top 50 defense and we are right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUHartselCol
Both are very good defenses. I think it speaks to how good our offense is and yes I don't think we are very far off from them. We are not a complete team yet. A top 50 defense and we are right there.
Agreed...both are good defenses, not close to great. Neither offense is know for explosive play. Decent D was all that was required.
 
Truth is imo there was nothing impressive about their performances yesterday. The offenses stunk. Neither looked like champs to me. Those offenses were inept. An average defense could have held them down. Had we a secondary, we would have beaten both of them.
The defenses of both teams were outstanding, though I'm not surprised that you can't see that.
 
Bad strategy. Should have let Sparty score and the gotten the ball with 1:45 left. Probability of stopping Sparty from inside the 3 was very low.

I thought IU should have done the same against Michigan in regulation.
Wait, you're saying we should have deliberately let Michigan score? That doesn't make any sense. I can buy the argument for Iowa because MSU HAD to score a TD that would give them the lead and you have to have time to try to score. Okay, fine, you can play it way but to have a touchdown lead and deliberately let the other team tie the game just you can set up some kind of miracle finish is not real smart. If a score isn't going to beat you, you most certainly don't let it happen on purpose.
 
Truth is imo there was nothing impressive about their performances yesterday. The offenses stunk. Neither looked like champs to me. Those offenses were inept. An average defense could have held them down. Had we a secondary, we would have beaten both of them.
They hit, they tackle and are sound fundamentally, something we are not even close to being. Our model is to play offense and let the defensive chips fall where they may. Those teams are successful with their philisophy and we are not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82hoosier
They hit, they tackle and are sound fundamentally, something we are not even close to being. Our model is to play offense and let the defensive chips fall where they may. Those teams are successful with their philisophy and we are not.
Do you really believe the nonsense that just drooled out of your mouth?
 
What's your problem it's my opinion and our record proves it.
Well, you are right in that those defenses arent bad, just nothing special. The tv announcers drove me nuts with their overhype. Some off that probably came your way unnecessarily.

But...if you honestly think Wilson just dont care about defense...you know, "lets the chips fall" however, that is ridiculous and uninformed. So maybe you didnt quiet mean that, eh?
 
Bad strategy. Should have let Sparty score and the gotten the ball with 1:45 left. Probability of stopping Sparty from inside the 3 was very low.

I thought IU should have done the same against Michigan in regulation.
Well, you are right in that those defenses arent bad, just nothing special. The tv announcers drove me nuts with their overhype. Some off that probably came your way unnecessarily.

But...if you honestly think Wilson just dont care about defense...you know, "lets the chips fall" however, that is ridiculous and uninformed. So maybe you didnt quiet mean that, eh?
Bad strategy. Should have let Sparty score and the gotten the ball with 1:45 left. Probability of stopping Sparty from inside the 3 was very low.

I thought IU should have done the same against Michigan in regulation.
Bad strategy. Should have let Sparty score and the gotten the ball with 1:45 left. Probability of stopping Sparty from inside the 3 was very low.

I thought IU should have done the same against Michigan in regulation.
Bad strategy. Should have let Sparty score and the gotten the ball with 1:45 left. Probability of stopping Sparty from inside the 3 was very low.

I thought IU should have done the same against Michigan in regulation.
I personally think they did the right thing in trying to stop them. Just as good a chance stopping them as trying to score with a minute something remaining. MSU could have possibly fumbled or had a penalty, give them nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IUHartselCol
Wait, you're saying we should have deliberately let Michigan score? That doesn't make any sense. I can buy the argument for Iowa because MSU HAD to score a TD that would give them the lead and you have to have time to try to score. Okay, fine, you can play it way but to have a touchdown lead and deliberately let the other team tie the game just you can set up some kind of miracle finish is not real smart. If a score isn't going to beat you, you most certainly don't let it happen on purpose.
 
I think he was right trying to stop them, it's not like MSU had been lighting them up. Plus there was an illegal motion that should have been called on the scoring play.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT