Statistical In-Ferentz, Week 10: Crisitunity

by Horace E. Cow on Nov 8, 2011 11:05 AM CST in Iowa Hawkeyes Football

Given some of the decisions this past weekend, it appears the Body Snatcherization of Kirk Ferentz is nearly complete. "Go for it on fourth and one? Why not?" "Fourth and seven? No problem." Sure, there was still a decision to run out the clock with a minute left and timeouts in his pocket, but a complete Les Miles personality transplant takes time, so maybe by the Nebraska game we'll see this happen. In this week's look at the statistical side of the game, I'll look at some of those bold choices, as well as the other single plays that turned out to be most crucial to the outcome in terms of changing the win probability of the game.

* Win probability is a figure that is used to estimate the chances that a team will win a football game given a certain game situation (the down, distance, yard marker, time remaining, and score). WP figures derived from the Advanced NFL Stats generic model. The usual caveats apply about an NFL model not totally applying to college football, etc. etc. (see previous versions of this post for more on WP, or look around the Advanced NFL Stats website).

1) Iowa ball, 3rd and 8 from the Iowa 26, 12:30 left in first quarter, 0-0; James Vandenberg completes pass to Keenan Davis for 44 yards to Michigan 30: +.10 WP for Iowa

This was a huge play for Iowa, not only because it gained so many yards, but also because it converted a long 3rd down play. How did it happen? It was a confluence of a soft zone call by Michigan and a shallow crossing route by Davis:

It looks like the Wolverines were in a quarter-quarter-half type zone in back with their linebackers dropping in zone underneath. The middle linebacker for Michigan drops a little too far back and is then out of position for the tackle when Davis catches the pass near the line of scrimmage. One interesting wrinkle is how Kevonte Martin-Manley's "route" effectively sets him up to block the outside linebacker after Davis makes the catch, suggesting that this was a read to Davis all the way. Add in some speed by Davis and a bad angle by a cornerback, and you have a 44-yard catch. This play was followed up by another pass play that was almost as significant, a 20-yard completion to Marvin McNutt that was worth +.08 WP.

2) Iowa ball, 4th and 1 from the Michigan 39 yard-line, 7:47 left in first quarter, 7-6 Iowa; Iowa fails to convert 4th down: -.04 WP for Iowa

This was an interesting sequence of events. On 3rd and 3, Marcus Coker ran the ball for what looked to be either a first down or inches away from it. Here's a screen shot of his forward progress before the referees waved the play dead:

Maybe the angle is wrong or the ESPN first down line is off a bit, but it looks like Coker is very, very close to a first down. So it's understandable that Kirk Ferentz thought a quick QB sneak would almost certainly be enough to get the first down. How hard is it to get a few inches, right?

Well, somehow between the end of the 3rd down play and the beginning of the 4th down play, a yard disappeared for Iowa:

Now when Vandenberg attempts the QB sneak and gains maybe a few inches, Iowa is short the first down by about a yard. I call shenanigans.

With all that said, Iowa has shown a decided affection for the quick QB sneak on 4th down, and I just don't know if it's justified. There's a certain gain from surprise, but there are also times where the decision is unnecessarily rushed and important information goes unnoticed, like, say, that the refs shorted you by about a yard, or that Michigan has left the entire left side of the offensive line uncovered. It also reflects a kind of pathology among coaches that one needs to call a play that gets exactly the number of yards required in short yardage conversions.* Defensive coaches, not being dummies, react by placing 9 or 10 men at the line, creating the bizarre situation where the defense is offering the offense 10 or 20 yard plays in exchange for stopping 1-yard plays. It's risky to throw down-field in these situations, of course (no one likes to see a pass flutter incomplete on 4th down), but the payoff for a completed pass is potentially huge. At the very least, it might pay to try some runs away from the massed concentration of the defense.

* This happened late in the Alabama-LSU game, where Alabama had a 3rd in 2 in LSU territory and obediently ran right into the LSU line for a one-yard loss. Alabama then punted and the game went to overtime, where they lost. Also important about the Alabama-LSU game: some more proof that kicking field goals in college is a sucker's game: the Crimson Tide missed four field goals, including one taken from the LSU two yard-line (two of the field goals were pretty much no-brainers, though, given the yardage needed).

One last note: even if the execution wasn't great, the call for the conversion was a good one. Iowa stood to gain +.08 WP with a conversion, and lose .04 if they failed to convert, while a punt to the Michigan 10 would have left the WP situation unchanged for Iowa. This translates into a break-even percentage of 33% to go for it; i.e. if Iowa felt they could get that one yard more than a third of the time, they should have gone for it.

3) Michigan ball, extra point try, 2:14 left in first quarter, 7-6 Iowa; Michigan fails to convert: +.03 WP for Iowa

This failed extra point was not a huge deal, but still cost Michigan a little bit. The fact that Michigan would have needed to convert a two-point conversion at the end of the game in order to tie goes back to this mistake.

4) Iowa ball, 4th and 7 from the Michigan 34, 9:00 left in second quarter, 7-6 Iowa; Vandenberg completes pass to Martin-Manley for 8 yards and 1st down: +.08 WP for Iowa

This was, from my perspective, the most surprising and delightful decision of the game by Kirk Ferentz and co. And actually, it still shocks me that Iowa took this gamble. The payoff was considerable (+.08 WP in the generic model) and the costs were not quite as high (-.06 WP). Also, the alternative (punting) was not that attractive (a punt to the Michigan 10 would have been worth -.01 WP). The break-even percentage to go for it rather than punt winds up being 35%, so this was a very reasonable bet by Iowa's coaches. The only other real option would have been to kick the field goal, but that would have been a slightly worse bet due to the lower payoff for making a field goal rather than keeping the drive alive. The break-even percentage for kicking a field goal versus punting works out about the same, though, so if Iowa's coaches had felt Michael Meyer could make that field goal more than about a third of the time, that would have been an equally reasonable bet. The key point, though, is that a punt in this situation is just not worth it, and even the worst case scenario -- turning the ball over at the opponent's 34 -- is really only slightly worse than punting, so why not take a chance? Iowa did here, and it worked out beautifully, allowing them to continue their drive and eventually score a touchdown.

Here's how the play broke down: Michigan blitzed two linebackers up the middle, but James Ferentz and Matt Tobin did an admirable job absorbing the extra men, leaving Vandenberg plenty of time to find Martin-Manley on an out route (KMM was facing man coverage thanks to the blitz). Martin-Manely got open easily, and Vandenberg makes a very accurate and long throw to the sideline. In general, the pass blocking seemed much more secure this week than last, and Vandenberg made some good throws under pressure all game.

5) Michigan ball, 3rd and 10 from the Michigan 47, 4:07 left in second quarter, 14-6 Iowa; Denard Robinson fumbles, recovered by Tyler Nielsen at the Michigan 31: +.10 WP for Iowa.

Robinson really cost his team on a couple of plays in the second quarter, and this was the more inexplicable of the two. Credit Nielsen for applying pressure and Norm Parker for calling a blitz on an obvious passing down. The fumble marked a huge shift in field position and possession, and led directly to three Iowa points.

6) Iowa ball, 4th and 3 from the Michigan 24, 2:11 left in second quarter, 14-6 Iowa; Myer makes 42-yard field goal: +.02 WP for Iowa.

I highlight this play precisely because the impact on Iowa's chances was so limited. A kick in this situation gave Iowa a slight boost, but you have to balance that against the fact that even a 42-yard kick was no guarantee. If we assume that it was pretty likely -- say, 80% -- then the weighted value of trying the kick works out to be only +.004 WP. Meanwhile, converting on fourth down would have been worth +.06 WP and failing to convert would have been worth -.05 WP, leading to a break-even percentage on the 4th-down conversion of 49%. Could Iowa have made three yards half of the time? Maybe. They had, after all, just made eight yards on fourth down. Iowa's coaches were probably feeling like they had finished their gambling for the day, though, and were glad to take the (pretty) sure three points.

7) Michigan ball, 2nd and 8 from the Iowa 11, 1:02 left in second quarter, 17-6 Iowa; Robinson throws interception to Christian Kirksey, returned to Iowa 5: +.10 WP for Iowa.

This play followed the inexplicable semi-squib kick by Trent Mossbrucker, which in itself cost Iowa .03 WP (if you assume that the alternative was a Michigan return to their own 30). The interception was another costly play by Robinson, although it was not as clear of a mistake as the fumble. Micah Hyde may have gotten away with some pass interference on the Michigan receiver, and the throw was deflected into the air into the waiting arms of Kirksey. The play stalled a promising Michigan drive and left the half-time lead at 11. In the generic NFL model, a team in Iowa's position would have an 85% chance of winning the game.

8) Michigan ball, 3rd and 8 from the Michigan 39, 1:30 left in third quarter, 17-9 Iowa; Broderick Binns sacks Devin Gardner for 12-yard loss: +.05 WP for Iowa.

It was fun to compare the way Binns treated Robinson in the pocket and how he treated Gardner. With Robinson, Binns always stayed a respectful five yards away, hoping to both contain Robinson's dangerous rushing ability and swat away passes with his Goro arms. With Gardner, Binns went right after him and planted him in the ground. Gardner assisted him by not throwing the ball away when he had the chance. The fact that Gardner was even playing is attributable to another sneakily significant play, the blitz by Tanner Miller on the previous drive that temporarily knocked Robinson out of the game (and should have led to an interception). That doesn't really show up in WP terms, but Michigan's offense certainly didn't seem as dangerous with Gardner in charge.

9) Iowa ball, 3rd and 1 from the Michigan 43, 7:53 left in fourth quarter, 24-16 Iowa; Marcus Coker runs for no yards: -.02 WP for Iowa.

If Iowa had one consistent problem on offense, it was a tendency to lose yards on running plays in short yardage situations. Brandon Scherff, in particular, whiffed several times diving for blocks, often trying to slow down Michigan DT Mike Martin. On this play, if Iowa had converted, their chances would have jumped up to 98% from 94%. As it was, getting no yards here dropped Iowa's chances to 92% in the generic model. The subsequent penalty on James Ferentz dropped them another 1%, but Eric Guthrie's punt (and Shaun Prater's excellent save at the four yard-line) bumped the odds back up to 93%.

It's an interesting question whether Iowa should have even been trying for the first down on that 4th and 1. Converting would have increased the WP in the generic model to 99% from 92%, while failing would have dropped a team in Iowa's position to 88%. Also, a punt, even one as good as the one Iowa wound up getting, would only increase their chances by 1%. It works out that the break-even percentage to go for it would have been 45%. Getting one yard 45% of the time seems like a reasonable bet to make, especially when you consider that the game did wind up still in doubt on the final play. Converting here would have taken time off the clock and increased the chances of going up two scores. It's not open and shut, but given that Iowa's defense had started to flag by this point in the game, I can understand the inclination to finish the game right there.

10) Those four plays from the three for Michigan: ????

I put question marks here, because the Advanced NFL Stats model spits out some nonsensical results here. Basically, it tells us that when Michigan completed that pass to the Iowa 3 yard-line with 16 seconds left, their chances of winning dropped from 15% to 1% when. This seems a little unreasonable, so I'm assuming it's an artifact of the fact that there have just not been that many 8 point games at that yardage with that little time left on the clock. Still, it's not like Michigan's chances were excellent heading into that first down. There was very little time left, and a two-point conversion was still needed. If you put Michigan's chances of scoring at 75%, converting the two-point conversion at 50%, then winning in overtime at 50%, the Wolverines chances would have been 19% on first down. That may be a little low, but it's hard to see their chances as above 30% at that point in the game, given all the things that would have needed to break their way.

Of course, this means that if B.J. Lowery was guilty of pass interference on that 4th and 3, that play could have been quite significant in WP terms. If you assume that Michigan had a WP heading into the play of something like 15%-20%, and that their chances of scoring on the final untimed down would been good (say 75%), then their chances of winning overall would improve to something like 30% (.75*.75*.5) the benefit of a potential PI call would have been a 10%-15% in their chances of winning. Another way to look at it is that a no-call dropped Michigan's chances of winning to zero from 15%-20%. And maybe the best way to look at it is to take into account the cost of the call and the opportunity cost of the non-call -- that is, that getting the call might have increased their chances by 15% and not getting the call reduced their chances by 15%, so that single play was worth a hefty 30% swing in Iowa's favor. So I can understand why Michigan fans are upset about the call, but that just raises the question: was it pass interference? I didn't see anything egregious there, but I am of course biased. What's not in doubt is that the final play was indeed very crucial to the outcome of the game, given the leverage involved.

Tweet Comment 51 comments | 8 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The 2 point conversion was no gimme

I’m probably not the first to say this, but maybe the first to say it in this thread. Let the Michigan fans have their pass interference on Lowery. On this given Saturday, Michigan being able to convert the 2-point play would have been no gimme. Iowa was playing fairly good Defense.

I kinda wish they’d have called PI on Lowery and given Michigan one more chance at the end zone. Would Hoke have finally called for a Denard Option? would iowa have stopped it? If iowa didn’t stop it, would Hoke have called another Denard option, and would Iowa have stopped that?

I think even the most delusional Michigan fan must admit that Michigan’s chances of gaining two yards on two consecutive plays with the Iowa D mounting a goal line stand would have been a surmountable task.

You got no fear of the underdog; That's why you will not survive!

by YouCanPutYourEddsInIt on Nov 8, 2011 11:28 AM CST reply actions 1 recs

Maybe our coaches are setting something up with their affinity for the quick sneak.

Recall the play action to the TE at the end of the Insight Bowl last year. Obviously Missouri was selling out to stop a quick-hitter to Coker, so that play action worked to perfection. I’d look for us to do that again in the near future.

"No I'm not going to 'limber up'. You ever see a lion stretching before it takes down a gazelle?"

by Swarley on Nov 8, 2011 11:38 AM CST reply actions

This thought makes me wonder

What’s the over/under on the number of “FU” plays Ferentz calls this weekend?

by Captain n Diet Coker on Nov 8, 2011 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Depends. If we're up by about 30 in the 2nd half

I put the FU over/under at 2.

If it’s a close game, I don’t think there can technically be an “FU” play.

White Horn Gold Pants

by DM_Purp on Nov 8, 2011 4:12 PM CST up reply actions

6-4

"West Texas seems to be full of fake boobs providing a comfortable shade for well-developed pot bellies" - Lycurgus (06/24/2011)

by BStylin Hawkye on Nov 8, 2011 4:40 PM CST up reply actions

Six FU?

Four merely Screw You?

KF doesn’t like Dantonio, and I think some of it dates back to the 2009 game, the Sandeman stuff and the overall rough play by the Spartans.

"Apparently, riding Joe Paterno like a small horse is FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT!"

by The Director on Nov 8, 2011 6:41 PM CST up reply actions

I love this.

I wish there were more coaches that Ferentz just plain didn’t like. Against MSU, he coaches to win and then some, wish he would do that every game, a la “Why’d you go for 2, coach?” “Cause We couldn’t go for 3!”

Bethany: Were they sent to Hell?
Metatron: Worse. Wisconsin. For the entire span of human history.

by kurthy on Nov 8, 2011 7:39 PM CST via mobile up reply actions

I think it was play #9

Where Coker did not follow Rogers and hit the “incorrect” hole. In watching that play again Coker would have easily gained the first and most likely significantly more yardage if he would have shifted his read one gap to the right.

As a somewhat diversion from the topic at hand – having Rogers as a lead blocker has significantly improved the ground game. Rogers was killing people on Saturday and as he gains more playing time this should only get better.

To be a linebacker knowing that IF you can avoid a lineman you have the 230 pound Cambus with a full head of steam coming at you and IF you avoid him you have 230 pound Coker with a larger head of steam coming at you cannot be a good feeling.

"Sometimes the truth gets in the way of a good story" - KF

by The Bacon Explosion on Nov 8, 2011 11:52 AM CST reply actions

Completely agree about Rogers

The running game the last 4 or so games has significantly improved due to a couple of (noticeable) factors: 1) Rogers and 2) Coker being more confident (because he’s got healthy? more practice?) and decisive.

by Captain n Diet Coker on Nov 8, 2011 2:59 PM CST up reply actions

Follow the Cambus

"You start to get out of bed, you say, 'Oh, [expletive], I only got one leg on, I better get the other leg on.'" -- Norm Parker

by nerdhawk on Nov 8, 2011 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs

I think the thing that becomes more obvious each week is that punting from the opponents side of the field is NEVER a good idea.

And yet coaches all across the country love punting from the 35 or further. It’d be hilarious to see “experts” meltdown if a coach just refused to punt as soon as his team reached midfield.

Twitter

by The Mexican't on Nov 8, 2011 12:30 PM CST reply actions

Agreed

Logically, it makes sense. Your chance of a FG try goes to almost 100% if you convert, while the other team still has to drive 20 yds if you don’t convert. The only thing you are really giving up by failing to convert is field position (and momentum), which, if Kirk is concerned about field position, maybe he shouldn’t have a bend-but-don’t-break strategy of defense (which usually turns into Bend-And-Then-Snap-Back-And-Hit-Us-In-The-Groin anyway).

My main argument for going for it on 4th is that everytime another team chooses not to go for it against us I think “Thank God, that would have been a disaster.”

by TangerinePony on Nov 8, 2011 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

I just want to know the origin of your handle.

Tangerine Dream did the soundtrack to a great movie, as I recall. No clue as to Tangerine Pony.

We play tackle football.

by Bellanca on Nov 8, 2011 4:32 PM CST up reply actions

For the record...

… I staked out territory in the intoxicating interest in TP’s moniker after his legendary-to-me first post wherein he makes a veiled reference about killing his wife.

“TangerinePony” is arguably one of the top two or three handles on this site… and that is truly saying something. Just as Bellanca, I would like to know it provenance. Please.

by Lukateake on Nov 8, 2011 4:49 PM CST up reply actions

Curious to know your other top handles

by Captain n Diet Coker on Nov 8, 2011 5:10 PM CST up reply actions

Tangerine Dream did the opening music to

Risky Business (w/ Cruise) and it is amazingly smart if you listen to how they manipulated sound to link up the visuals and the metaphor of riding on a train to the big city (while losing one’s virginity).

"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.

by StoopsMyAss on Nov 9, 2011 8:34 AM CST up reply actions

I would love that.

Especially if you have a defense that’s anything better than just slightly mediocre.

"Pursue happiness... with diligence."

by Bucketochicken on Nov 8, 2011 1:24 PM CST up reply actions

Coaches punt way too often

according to this book I read a couple of weeks ago. It’s sort of the sports version of Freakonomics and it’s a quick read. The chapters on referee bias and home field advantage are very interesting. (Spoiler: the road team gets jobbed. A lot.)

"You start to get out of bed, you say, 'Oh, [expletive], I only got one leg on, I better get the other leg on.'" -- Norm Parker

by nerdhawk on Nov 8, 2011 3:36 PM CST up reply actions

/looks at dvr's Iowa-Michigan game.

YEP! Not saying Michigan necessarily got “job’d” but questionable calls went Iowa’s way which is fine by me.

White Horn Gold Pants

by DM_Purp on Nov 8, 2011 4:52 PM CST up reply actions

it's about friggin' time

we have DECADES of lost close calls to Michigan to make up…

Anyone here old enough to remember DB? A real old school baseball coach...

by two_niner_was_old_school on Nov 9, 2011 9:12 AM CST up reply actions

People seem to forget

that our good friends at GT rarely punted the year we played them in the Orange Bowl. (Until they met Mr. Clayborne, that is.)

by DrHenryKillinger on Nov 8, 2011 3:55 PM CST up reply actions

I did forget.

I think they had 9 punts on the year before the Orange Bowl. Was that because the offense was rarely in 4th down situations, though?

Twitter

by The Mexican't on Nov 8, 2011 4:26 PM CST up reply actions

No, it's because the offensive genius regularly went for it on fourth downs

especially in non-standard situations.

I spent half my life's earnings on wine, women & song. The other half I wasted.

by therealCatnuts on Nov 8, 2011 4:32 PM CST up reply actions

Makes sense

If you run the ball on pretty much every play and average 5 yards per carry, your chance of picking up 4th and 3 has to be pretty good.

by taliesin on Nov 8, 2011 5:28 PM CST up reply actions

It may have been partly that.

But they were also scoring over 35 ppg. It’s hard to punt when you keep getting those pesky touchdowns.

by EastLosRandy on Nov 8, 2011 7:38 PM CST up reply actions

Cogers

Brarcus Cogers is the best tandem since Tom and Jerry (in terms of violence induced).

I am a huge Coker supporter and I think he has a future in the NFL, but he was only decent against Michigan. I agree with Bacon Explosion (diarrhea reference?) not only on that play, but several others where Coker failed to read the correct hole.

Conversely, Rogers was magnificent. He is destroying LBs and Defensive Lineman. All this while missing summer and early fall workouts. AND GIVE HIM THE DAMN BALL! He is a capable running back and a decent receiver. Remember last year, when he was 3rd string behind Coker? Run some Edgar Cervantes like quick hitters. Or is Ken still recovering from his PTSD of imagining Tom Busch or Bret Morse running with the football?

Hey did you ever see that Youtube video of a drunk bear chasing his own shadow? Just look under “3rd and Goal Fullback Pass to Tom Busch.”

by TangerinePony on Nov 8, 2011 12:36 PM CST reply actions

For your edification

Bacon explosion

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." - W.C. Fields

by rockyh on Nov 8, 2011 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

I'm okay with this (this time)

Sure, there was still a decision to run out the clock with a minute left and timeouts in his pocket, but a complete Les Miles personality transplant takes time, so maybe by the Nebraska game we’ll see this happen.

Unlike the usual circumstances surrounding this scenario, Iowa was going to get the ball back at the beginning of the next half. Since we usually receive the ball at the beginning of the first half, I disagree when we sit on the ball at the end of the first half, but in this case, with an 11 point lead and the knowledge of getting the ball back soon, I am perfectly okay with sitting on the ball (this time).

by Xarin on Nov 8, 2011 12:59 PM CST reply actions

Agree completely

With every other situation like this in recent games it’s been the other team that would get the ball first in the 2nd half. Also, our defense had already looked shaky in those games, whereas the first half of the Michigan game our d was holding their own. It was the right call for that situation.

by Skillet13 on Nov 8, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

Yes, it was the right decision

by H I McDonnough on Nov 8, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

Also agree

We had 1 minute and 2 timeouts. Coupled with the fact that we got the ball to start the second half, it was just fine to run out the clock.

In other situations we sat on it with 2+ minutes and 2 or 3 timeouts, when we weren’t getting the ball to start the 2nd half. That’s hyper-conservative, and basically conceding a possession. Might as well just punt on first down, it’s the same.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." - W.C. Fields

by rockyh on Nov 8, 2011 1:29 PM CST up reply actions

I'll take the other side

We have one of the best passing attacks we’ve had in years, have shown effectiveness in the two minute offense all season, and have a kicker who can actually make a FG from distance. There’s a big difference between an 11 point lead and a 14 or 18 point lead.

Our defense had played well, but against Denard Robinson and the Michigan offense there was every reason to believe they would give up points in the second half, especially given our end of game struggles and lack of depth this season.

It’s still trying to win versus trying not to lose, and an 11 point lead at halftime is never safe. We should’ve been trying to get 3 more with our WRs, QB and K.

by Notclevr on Nov 8, 2011 1:32 PM CST up reply actions

This

Ferentz speaks often of lost scoring opportunities in the early part of the game contributing to close losses at the end of the game. He should practice what he preaches. Vandy is not nearly as erratic a thrower as the Manzi and #7 has a knack for catching those sideline over the sholder tosses that defenders can’t get to. They can do it, they can do it all night long.

"Make it tasteful, but dongier" - Blackheartnopants

by Kluginator on Nov 8, 2011 4:34 PM CST up reply actions

For this game, and this game only

I was actually ok with sitting on it. I don’t remember what the field position looked like. If we’re INside our own 20, then fine, kneel/run it out, but if we’re OUTside of the 20 w/ 2 TO, we need to be pushing that ball down the field EVERY time.

White Horn Gold Pants

by DM_Purp on Nov 8, 2011 6:05 PM CST up reply actions

I'm thinking it's an ace up the sleeve that will be played at SOME point.

KOK and KF do things with a looooooooooong view and I’m often too impatient.

But when something works and it’s because it’s something we never do and we clearly caught the other team/coach off guard, it’s beautiful. Sometimes the game goes full tantric after that.

"Gophers are filthy digging rats"
-one of HFMR's many amazing tags

"It's Northwestern," he explained. "A smart school."
-TMart on jNW reading signals

by Eyeheartfreedumb on Nov 8, 2011 6:18 PM CST up reply actions

We were at the 20, with a minute on the clock, going against the wind and had just dodged a bullet on D

We had also went from the 34 earlier in the game, probably meaning the need to at least 60 yards.

by rupertj on Nov 8, 2011 5:48 PM CST up reply actions

I see a combination of variables here.

Penn State: 1:42 left, on the road, down three, PSU gets the ball first in Q3
Michigan: 1:02 left, at home, up two scores, we get the ball first in Q3

There’s still a decent case to be made for going for the hurry-up drill against UM, but sitting on it there doesn’t bug me nearly as much as it did at PSU.

by EastLosRandy on Nov 8, 2011 8:29 PM CST up reply actions

I don't necessarily agree

But I’m not that mad about it. However, if you’re going to run out the clock, please, just run out the clock. Why run Coker up the middle? What if he fumbles? I mean, he’s almost certainly not getting you into field goal range, so just down the ball if running out the clock is what you want to do.

by taliesin on Nov 8, 2011 2:01 PM CST up reply actions

Then you give Michigan a chance to take time outs and force a punt though

I get the point, and hopefully Coker knows to be extra careful covering up the ball and not fighting for yardage, but you need to at least threaten to get the first down in most situations with that kind of time left.

And Coker can break runs that would get us into FG range, especially against a prevent D!

by Notclevr on Nov 8, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

My recollection...

Michigan had two timeouts left. I suppose they could have forced a punt, but they’d be looking at getting the ball back with no timeouts and maybe ten seconds left. I doubt they’d do that, but if they did want to, wouldn’t they also do it after we ran the ball up the middle on first down?

by taliesin on Nov 8, 2011 2:38 PM CST up reply actions

Always a chance of a 20 25 yard run

by clay-born to party on Nov 8, 2011 2:40 PM CST up reply actions

Probably about equal to the chance of a fumble

Maybe worse, since teams will stack the LOS against the Hawks in that situation, expecting the run.

by taliesin on Nov 8, 2011 3:52 PM CST up reply actions

Eh?

You don’t stack the line to stop the run when the other team has the ball, time outs, and less than two minutes in the half? Even if Iowa brings out TEs and a FB, a big gain is pretty much the only thing that can hurt you. Stacking the line not only leaves you vulnerable to play-action, it also leaves you vulnerable to a big run. The RB is more likely to get stopped short, but if the LB misses then there’s not as much help in the secondary and the guy can go the distance.

by Notclevr on Nov 9, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions

I wonder

If that run had gone for 10-12 yards, would KF would have given the hurry-up the green light?

"You start to get out of bed, you say, 'Oh, [expletive], I only got one leg on, I better get the other leg on.'" -- Norm Parker

by nerdhawk on Nov 8, 2011 3:39 PM CST up reply actions

Probably

I remember that happened at least once last season, where the first-down run went for 12 yards and then all of a sudden they started trying to score. I found it a little irritating. Does that ten yards of field position really matter that much in your decision-making?

by taliesin on Nov 8, 2011 3:49 PM CST up reply actions

Switch to hurry up and you take away possibly the defense's chance to sub

by clay-born to party on Nov 8, 2011 4:05 PM CST up reply actions

I was ok with it

If they’d wanted to try to run a few quick run plays and see if something broke loose, then maybe try to pass, ok, but we just escaped a sticky wicket, I’m ok with sitting on it in that circumstance. Even the boo birds didn’t seem all that noisy, based on what I could hear in the broadcast, so I think people understood that decision.

A man may leave Iowa, but Iowa never leaves a man.

by hawkeyeinstl on Nov 9, 2011 11:10 AM CST up reply actions

Surprised the WP is so low for missed extra points . . .

Sure, it’s only my apocryphal observation, but it sure seems that teams that miss PATs tend to lose those games at a very high rate.

by Torbee on Nov 8, 2011 1:52 PM CST reply actions

First quarter though

It’d be a lot higher if it came later in the game. At 7-6 you still have the whole game to get it back via a 2 point conversion, and a FG (or even a safety) still wins the game. And it’s also the difference between being down and being tied—so even if you make it you have ~50% chance (probably lower, given that you’re kicking off) of losing anyway, which diminishes the WP impact.

That said, I’m kind of surprised it’s not a little higher too.

by Notclevr on Nov 8, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions

Good points, but teams seem to "chase" those points ALL DAY LONG

I remember last year’s Badger game.

Sigh.

by Torbee on Nov 8, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions

Great work HEC.

And rec’d for the title reference alone.

You can keep a gull as a pet, but you don't want to live with a seabird, okay, 'cause the noise level alone on those things...have you ever heard a gull up close? It's going to blast your eardrums out, dude.

by lo-hi-hawkeye on Nov 8, 2011 8:27 PM CST reply actions