I agree. Usually on mud fields, you run more screens. Playcalling definitely can be better. Even with few touchdowns, we had no touchdowns and was terrible on third down even thoiugh the yardage was not that long. ARob was underutilized first half and we failed to utilize his strengths. 27 rushes for 73 yards did not help the passing game.
Playcalling, coaching, etc. - consolidated thread
- Thread starter cyismydog
- Start date
I agree. Usually on mud fields, you run more screens. Playcalling definitely can be better. Even with few touchdowns, we had no touchdowns and was terrible on third down even thoiugh the yardage was not that long. ARob was underutilized first half and we failed to utilize his strengths. 27 rushes for 73 yards did not help the passing game.
:biglaugh: Now the folks who know better than the coaches come out--Chizik will be getting a condolence call from Danny Mac shortly.
Admit it. You guys don't know the reasons for the coach making any particular call, so you have no basis to citicize them--especially with "definitlies".
I don't understand.....
how everyone is complaining about this loss.
"The helmet to helmet hit was a terrible call, it changed the course of the game."
"If we wouldn't have missed three field goals....."
"If we could have tackled Brodell on that punt return....."
"We had too many penalties."
1. The helmet to helmet call was the right call. Now, in slow motion, it looks like the defender was trying to get out of the way so he didn't go helmet to helmet. But in fast motion, which is the only view the refs get to see, it looked a lot worse than it did in slo-mo. Anyways, Moeaki's knee WAS down before the ball came out.
2. If ISU would have made all three field goals, that would have put the score at 12-10 (taking away the safety.) But wait......add a TD to Iowa for the free play they had where Brodell was wide open and Stanzi didn't make the play; it would have been an easy TD. And Iowa missed a field goal too. So if we are talking about if all teams would have capitalized, the score would have been 20-12 in favor of Iowa.
3. Only one player had a good chance of tackling Brodell, and it looked like he may have slipped because he was laying on the ground when he tried to make the tackle. It was a decent punt, just terrible coverage.
4. Iowa stalled several drives in the opening quarter because of penalties. If they had scored a TD on just one of those drives it would have been a completely different game.
And in defense of the coaching staff......it is completely different calling the plays from the sideline when you are playing in Jack Trice than when you are playing in front of 70,000 screaming Hawkeyes doing their best to make it so you can't hear the play.
Also, it ended up not mattering, but there was a pretty iffy pass interference call against Fletcher early in the game. He was ahead of the receiver, and although there was a small bump, the ball was a good 10 yards ahead of the receiver. If anything, without the bump the pass would have been intercepted.
Iowa State is a young team and they will continue to improve throughout the weeks. I understand that is what Hawkeyes do when they lose this game, but Iowa was simply the better team today.
how everyone is complaining about this loss.
"The helmet to helmet hit was a terrible call, it changed the course of the game."
"If we wouldn't have missed three field goals....."
"If we could have tackled Brodell on that punt return....."
"We had too many penalties."
1. The helmet to helmet call was the right call. Now, in slow motion, it looks like the defender was trying to get out of the way so he didn't go helmet to helmet. But in fast motion, which is the only view the refs get to see, it looked a lot worse than it did in slo-mo. Anyways, Moeaki's knee WAS down before the ball came out.
2. If ISU would have made all three field goals, that would have put the score at 12-10 (taking away the safety.) But wait......add a TD to Iowa for the free play they had where Brodell was wide open and Stanzi didn't make the play; it would have been an easy TD. And Iowa missed a field goal too. So if we are talking about if all teams would have capitalized, the score would have been 20-12 in favor of Iowa.
3. Only one player had a good chance of tackling Brodell, and it looked like he may have slipped because he was laying on the ground when he tried to make the tackle. It was a decent punt, just terrible coverage.
4. Iowa stalled several drives in the opening quarter because of penalties. If they had scored a TD on just one of those drives it would have been a completely different game.
And in defense of the coaching staff......it is completely different calling the plays from the sideline when you are playing in Jack Trice than when you are playing in front of 70,000 screaming Hawkeyes doing their best to make it so you can't hear the play.
Also, it ended up not mattering, but there was a pretty iffy pass interference call against Fletcher early in the game. He was ahead of the receiver, and although there was a small bump, the ball was a good 10 yards ahead of the receiver. If anything, without the bump the pass would have been intercepted.
Iowa State is a young team and they will continue to improve throughout the weeks. I understand that is what Hawkeyes do when they lose this game, but Iowa was simply the better team today.
Ahh, a favorite fallback for any fan... if things don't go well, it's the play calling. I've seen this one countless times.
IMO, you guys just need better OL play and a better run threat... you have an idea of what you want to do passing the ball, you just don't have the dominant type talented needed to pull it off without a run game or stellar OL play. (not many teams can be too one diminsional)
Re: I don't understand.....
Hey ****** ***....I understand why we lost. We didn't score more points.
Now go away.
Hey ****** ***....I understand why we lost. We didn't score more points.
Now go away.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think they were both bad.
Attempting a FG on a wet field from a bad angle on 4th and 1 at the 3-yard line is a very questionable play call. I also feel the coaches should have asked for a review of the spot on the third down play. Yes, Bates foot was out on the 3 yard line but it looked like the ball was at the 2 yard line.
Attempting a FG from a bad angle on a 4th and 3 at the 26-yard line when you're down 7 in the 4th quarter after your field goal kicker has already missed two from that angle is a bad play call.
Using all of your timeouts when you're on offense in the second half and you're behind is a bad decision (either by your QB or your coaching staff; hard to tell who to blame there).
Running the ball on 3rd and goal from the 1-yard line when you're down 14 with 3+ minutes left and no timeouts is a bad play call.
Throwing a fade pass on 4th and goal from the 3-yard line when you're down 14 with 3 minutes left and no timeouts is a very bad play call. What made it worse is that Arnaud had plent of time to choose a different receiver. More on that later.
Like a lot of ISU fans, I had hopes that Chizik and his staff would bring something different to ISU that we had not seen with the previous staff. I have seen some positives. There was a lot of hard hits by ISU's defensive backs and linebackers and they forced some big turnovers for the third straight game. But all of that was over-shadowed by the questionable play calls, the poor FG kicking and the poor decisions by our QB. And it's not just some of the bad throws by Arnaud/Bates that concern me. It's their lack of urgency to run the plays when we're down late. It's their inability to find the secondary receiver that concerns me the most. That's what separates ISU from KU and Mizzou over the last couple years. Their QBs know how to scramble and break down the defense. That gives their receivers plenty of time to get OPEN. We haven't seen that from an ISU offense since Wallace was here. If Arnaud had used his feet to buy more time on the 4th and goal from the three, that almost surely would have allowed one of our receivers time to get open. I don't want to see any more fade passes on 3rd or 4th down! We saw way too many of those when Mac was our coach!
Well, I'm done ranting. I hope to see a HUGE improvement in terms of the decision-making by both our coaches and our QBs as the season moves on.
Last edited:
Re: I don't understand.....
You might understand how we lost this game, but I think others here don't. This guy makes some good points, so how about laying off the name calling?
You might understand how we lost this game, but I think others here don't. This guy makes some good points, so how about laying off the name calling?
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: I don't understand.....
Read the other 400,000 post to understand why we lost. Why does some ****** hawkeye fan need to come here and tell us why we lost on our board?
Read the other 400,000 post to understand why we lost. Why does some ****** hawkeye fan need to come here and tell us why we lost on our board?
Last edited by a moderator:
You can pick at things like that in almost any game, for any coach, in my experience. Ferentz was really poor play calling wise at Iowa until he started to win... funny how that changes perception.
I think the point of bringing in Chizik is that he might develop players to play at a higher level, recruit better... lots of folks can play call, but can't develop a program. McCarney was a great coordinator -- was play calling his biggest failure? Doubt it. Developing, recruiting and cultivating talent is where your coach has to make it happen. Then on game day ... their play calling looks nice.
Re: I don't understand.....
Fine, let's all kiss and hug each other and act like we like one another.......
Fine, let's all kiss and hug each other and act like we like one another.......
Re: I don't understand.....
actually, i live in waverly, its by waterloo.....waverly shell rock....they are called the go hawks.
wsrgohawks
hence the name
actually, i live in waverly, its by waterloo.....waverly shell rock....they are called the go hawks.
wsrgohawks
hence the name
Re: I don't understand.....
Lost respect for his post as soon as he said Moeaki's knee was down before the ball came out.
A blind man can see that was not the case.
I'll acknowledge the penalty if he acknowledges that it would have been a fumble without the penalty.
Lost respect for his post as soon as he said Moeaki's knee was down before the ball came out.
A blind man can see that was not the case.
I'll acknowledge the penalty if he acknowledges that it would have been a fumble without the penalty.
Re: I don't understand.....
You don't have to act like you like anyone... but we CAN act like adults. It's a lot more effective to win an argument with words rather than resort to name-calling. Show 'em we're better.
You don't have to act like you like anyone... but we CAN act like adults. It's a lot more effective to win an argument with words rather than resort to name-calling. Show 'em we're better.
Re: I don't understand.....
I haven't seen anyone say that we should have won the game. Maybe I missed a couple posts.
Some people have analyzed parts of the game -- some accurately, and some not. That's what message boards do after a game. There's hardly been a meltdown or a cry that this game was stolen from us. Just frustration about missed opportunities.
I haven't seen anyone say that we should have won the game. Maybe I missed a couple posts.
Some people have analyzed parts of the game -- some accurately, and some not. That's what message boards do after a game. There's hardly been a meltdown or a cry that this game was stolen from us. Just frustration about missed opportunities.
