I hate the "hurry up"/No Huddle Style of Oregon/Mich/etc.

[DoeyHawk]

I'm not a big fan of this gimmicky shit. Lets hurry up while the other team isn't ready. Just seems like a cheap, bitch move to me.

Maybe I'm just bitter as I know Iowa's defense would be gassed halfway through the 3rd quarter.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

i had no idea that Colin Kaepernick was black. seriously, his name is Colin Kaepernick.

 

[Kamala]

What I'm a big fan of, is scoring more points than the other team. Whether that means your defense is going to have to pitch a shutout and your offense squeak out a field goal, or you're going to have to be more athletic on offense and run plays quickly to tire the defense, you should go with what will get you the most W's. It's called being innovative.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

well, kaepernick's background is certainly a good story

 

[The Full Monte]

Yeah....scoring lots and lots of point is so ghey......................

 

[Mo T]

Clayborn hates it also.

 

[Monster]

I agree, Doey. We finally find something we agree on. I'm not a fan of the hurry-up, spread em out, get down in a semi-set, then everyone stand up and look over to the sidelines bullshit offenses.

 

[Monster]

Yeah....scoring lots and lots of point is so ghey......................

So is allowing lots of points. Do you really want to Iowa to play those 54-48 games like we see out west?

 

[Mo T]

Yeah....scoring lots and lots of point is so ghey......................

So is allowing lots of points.

Are they mutually exclusive?

 

[Monster]

Yeah....scoring lots and lots of point is so ghey......................

So is allowing lots of points.

Are they mutually exclusive?

With a few exceptions, it seems so. The more points you score and the faster you score them = more possessions. More possessions = more defensive stops. Stands to reason that you're gonna allow more points.

 

[ivan_drago]

Yeah....scoring lots and lots of point is so ghey......................

So is allowing lots of points.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Do you even have any clue what mutually exclusive means? If scoring tons of points and giving up lots also were, indeed, mutually exclusive, you'd win every game you scored lots of points in. Because mutually exclusive means that the two things cannot happen at the same time.

But you knew that....right?

 

[cloudhawk]

I would always take a good defense over a good offense.

Cloudhawk= but that's me

 

[ivan_drago]

I would always take a good defense over a good offense.

Cloudhawk= but that's me

Me too, but Mo thinks those things might be mutually inclusive, and therefore impossible to happen together.

 

[MikeyJoe]

So is allowing lots of points.

Are they mutually exclusive?

With a few exceptions, it seems so. The more points you score and the faster you score them = more possessions. More possessions = more defensive stops. Stands to reason that you're gonna allow more points.

Which highlights one flaw in the ways we view defensive stats, actually.

What's the better defense? The one that allows 14 points per game, but plays with an offense that grinds it out and only allows the opponent 6 possessions per game, or the one that allows 21 points but plays with a high scoring offense that gives the opponent 10 possessions per game?

We say that some of these teams play bad defense, but some of it is just attributable to having a lot of possessions.

 

[PipeDaddy]

So is allowing lots of points.

Are they mutually exclusive?

With a few exceptions, it seems so. The more points you score and the faster you score them = more possessions. More possessions = more defensive stops. Stands to reason that you're gonna allow more points.

This is one of the reasons why defensive statistics are so flawed - they are in large part dependent on the offense's time of possession.

Todd The Criminal would coach a helluva defense in college football.

 

[PipeDaddy]

Are they mutually exclusive?

With a few exceptions, it seems so. The more points you score and the faster you score them = more possessions. More possessions = more defensive stops. Stands to reason that you're gonna allow more points.

Which highlights one flaw in the ways we view defensive stats, actually.

What's the better defense? The one that allows 14 points per game, but plays with an offense that grinds it out and only allows the opponent 6 possessions per game, or the one that allows 21 points but plays with a high scoring offense that gives the opponent 10 possessions per game?

We say that some of these teams play bad defense, but some of it is just attributable to having a lot of possessions.

You beat my post by a couple of seconds.

To me the best way to adjust the defensive statistics would be per minute of the other team's possession. If it were adjusted by number of possessions it would be skewed by the 30 second possession at the end of the half where the other team kneels on it, etc.

 

[The Full Monte]

How about we just combine a great D with an O that scores a lot of points?

 

[MikeyJoe]

Are they mutually exclusive?

With a few exceptions, it seems so. The more points you score and the faster you score them = more possessions. More possessions = more defensive stops. Stands to reason that you're gonna allow more points.

This is one of the reasons why defensive statistics are so flawed - they are in large part dependent on the offense's time of possession.

Todd The Criminal would coach a helluva defense in college football.

People at least seem to understand the concept of points per possession in basketball. Part of the reason it hasn't caught on in football is that generally there aren't that many variances in possessions per game from team to team - certainly not as big of a variance as there is in basketball. There are a few schools like Oregon that do buck that trend, though.

Your bolded line made me laugh. I can't remember how many times I saw someone on some message board point out "Well, we held Michigan State to only 60 points!" Yeah, and we scored 45.

 

[Mr. Hawk]

If Iowa ever goes to the spread, the hurry up, or the gay "look over to the sideline" offense, I'll find a new team.

 

[Mo T]

If Iowa ever goes to the spread, the hurry up, or the gay "look over to the sideline" offense, I'll find a new team.

Really? It's Iowa's lack of change over KF's tenure that has led to many of these losses......

 

[valp0guy]

If Iowa ever goes to the spread, the hurry up, or the gay "look over to the sideline" offense, I'll find a new team.

Can we have 11 am chat, please?

 

[FrodoTBaggin]

Mo, please tell me you aren't gonna be in chat today.

 

[Monster]

If Iowa ever goes to the spread, the hurry up, or the gay "look over to the sideline" offense, I'll find a new team.

Really? It's Iowa's lack of change over KF's tenure that has led to many of these losses......

It's a fad, Mo. That's all. People are suckers for the "newest" thing.

 

[Mo T]

If Iowa ever goes to the spread, the hurry up, or the gay "look over to the sideline" offense, I'll find a new team.

Really? It's Iowa's lack of change over KF's tenure that has led to many of these losses......

It's a fad, Mo. That's all. People are suckers for the "newest" thing.

The spread has been around for 25 years in some fashion. I'm not saying I want Iowa to run it, just pointing out how stupid it is to say "I'll find a new team"

There were probably Auburn fans that didn't want to see Malzahn's no-huddle offense, either.

 

[Costanza]

If Iowa ever goes to the spread, the hurry up, or the gay "look over to the sideline" offense, I'll find a new team.

Really? It's Iowa's lack of change over KF's tenure that has led to many of these losses......

It's a fad, Mo. That's all. People are suckers for the "newest" thing.

But, it is a fad that works...for now.

Just like the wishbone offense...it worked...until coaches figured out how to make their linebackers bigger and faster.

Coaches will figure out how to counter attack this fad and it will go away. My guess is it will not be sucessful for very long. For one, every time I wanted to make a substitution or slow the game down, I would have an injury. Cal did it to Oregon and I would do it too.

 

[Monster]

Really? It's Iowa's lack of change over KF's tenure that has led to many of these losses......

It's a fad, Mo. That's all. People are suckers for the "newest" thing.

But, it is a fad that works...for now.

Just like the wishbone offense...it worked...until coaches figured out how to make their linebackers bigger and faster.

Coaches will figure out how to counter attack this fad and it will go away. My guess is it will not be sucessful for very long. For one, every time I wanted to make a substitution or slow the game down, I would have an injury. Cal did it to Oregon and I would do it too.

Exactly. I know Iowa's boring attack gets under people's skin. Even I, as big of a coaches supplicant as I am, would like to see some variations to our offensive approach occasionally. But in the end, Iowa's basic attack is fundamental football, has been proven over time to work when executed properly, and won't go away over time as teams figure out the nuances.

 

[Mr. Hawk]

Seeing two offenses play straight up (like Wisconsin vs. Iowa) is a beautiful thing to behold.

 

[valp0guy]

Seeing chat open at 11 am is a beautiful thing to behold.

just sayin

 

[MikeyJoe]

If HaLo had existed 60 years ago, we would have had posters saying that this gay quarterback drops back and throws the ball thing is a fad, and everyone's going to get back to running the option eventually.

 

[cloudhawk]

How about we just combine a great D with an O that scores a lot of points?

Memo to KF:

Cloudhawk= Eureka

 

[The Full Monte]

Seeing two offenses play straight up (like Wisconsin vs. Iowa) is a beautiful thing to behold.

Seeing us fuck-stomp Wisconsin would have been much more beautiful, imo