Neal Brown postgame on Iowa State ... well worth your time

[StPaulCyclone]

Last year we won all the close games. We were great, but got a lot of breaks. This year we're not getting the breaks and small errors are compounding things.

As well as injuries adding up.

 

[jsb]

Are those of you saying it was clear that Breece fumbled basing that on a clear camera angle that shows that? With the few angles I saw, it was completely unclear, so I wasn't surprised at all when they upheld the call on the field. I'd say it was clear from the end-zone camera that Breece's knee had hit, but I couldn't tell if he had the ball at that point or not.

I don't see how some are throwing this in with the many screw jobs we've gotten from refs over the years. Whatever the call was on Purdy's run late in the game - I can't understand how he either wasn't out of bounds short of the 1st down or had the 1st down (also stopping the clock, til markers set). But, the PIs that went in our favor seemed a bit favorable to us. So, I don't get the "we got screwed" angle. We got beat in many phases, including clock management - we burn t/o's early in halves quite often. Great leadership of our program, but lots of "margins" to clean up by our coaches. At least Special Teams wasn't the issue this time...

the problem was there were two calls on the field. A TD and a fumble.

 

[Kurttr]

I realize that, just don't understand how it fits in the "we were screwed" model. Couldn't tell which ref signaled which. If it was the ref on the far side of the field - which was one of the camera angles, I don't know how he could have made a call, with all the traffic in there... would hope he'd have deferred to the near side, unless he somehow had a clear view different from that camera angle.

Would hope they're not encouraged like the NFL to err on the side of fumble, which, if the review is inconclusive, means by circular "logic" that a fumble is the call... the Vikings got hit by that one in game one v. Bengals. (They've done plenty on their own to sink their season anyway.)

 

[goody2012]

I realize that, just don't understand how it fits in the "we were screwed" model. Couldn't tell which ref signaled which. If it was the ref on the far side of the field - which was one of the camera angles, I don't know how he could have made a call, with all the traffic in there... would hope he'd have deferred to the near side, unless he somehow had a clear view different from that camera angle.

Would hope they're not encouraged like the NFL to err on the side of fumble, which, if the review is inconclusive, means by circular "logic" that a fumble is the call... the Vikings got hit by that one in game one v. Bengals. (They've done plenty on their own to sink their season anyway.)

This is the biggest problem with the "stick with the ruling on the field" rule. If that's the case it has to be ruled as they see it, not biased one way or the other to allow the play to continue. You never know about camera angles, etc.

Always thought they should go into review without any ruling on the field in mind. Call it as you see it is most likely on the replay.

 

[SolarGarlic]

I realize that, just don't understand how it fits in the "we were screwed" model. Couldn't tell which ref signaled which. If it was the ref on the far side of the field - which was one of the camera angles, I don't know how he could have made a call, with all the traffic in there... would hope he'd have deferred to the near side, unless he somehow had a clear view different from that camera angle.

Would hope they're not encouraged like the NFL to err on the side of fumble, which, if the review is inconclusive, means by circular "logic" that a fumble is the call... the Vikings got hit by that one in game one v. Bengals. (They've done plenty on their own to sink their season anyway.)

We got screwed because two of the calls were relatively obvious on the replay, but didn't get overturned, and it shouldn't have even got to the point of review if the refs made a decent call in live play. Everything that could go wrong on those plays did, and it resulted in points being put on or taken off the board. I'm not of the mind that this was a conscious effort by the refs to screw us, just that their incompetence screwed us.

 

[Kurttr]

We got screwed because two of the calls were relatively obvious on the replay, but didn't get overturned, and it shouldn't have even got to the point of review if the refs made a decent call in live play. Everything that could go wrong on those plays did, and it resulted in points being put on or taken off the board. I'm not of the mind that this was a conscious effort by the refs to screw us, just that their incompetence screwed us.

And you felt the PIs weren't ruled in our favor? Sure seemed like those went in the "plus" column... I know we Cyclone fans have been dealt many unfair blows, but I just don't see how this game fits there. Sure, some unfortunate calls happened, but it didn't feel biased against us. As I'd noted, I don't understand what they called on Brock's late scramble, but I don't know why we use our timeouts like they're free candy early in halves, either. I think, ultimately, we just got outplayed and outcoached by WVU, which is too bad.

 

[SolarGarlic]

And you felt the PIs weren't ruled in our favor? Sure seemed like those went in the "plus" column... I know we Cyclone fans have been dealt many unfair blows, but I just don't see how this game fits there. Sure, some unfortunate calls happened, but it didn't feel biased against us. As I'd noted, I don't understand what they called on Brock's late scramble, but I don't know why we use our timeouts like they're free candy early in halves, either. I think, ultimately, we just got outplayed and outcoached by WVU, which is too bad.

I only remember the one offensive PI, but could've missed another. Those plays didn't directly result in points being scored/taken off the board.

We definitely got outcoached and outplayed. That doesn't mean we can't get screwed. The Hall fumble/TD was a massive play, and it was obvious he either had scored or was down. But they didn't have the guts to overturn it. That's getting screwed. I don't think the refs were biased, just that their incompetence had much more of an impact on our score than theirs.

 

[Aduhbolu15]

They lose that game he would’ve been the biggest crybaby!

 

[mikeiastat]

Yes, we lost and gave up 38 points to an offense that had been putrid.

Isn't doege leading the league in passing yardage. I know its a quantity/Quality discussion, but I don't care how inflated the attempts are you don't lead the league in yardage being "Putrid."

We couldn't get as much coverage without our all american cleaning up the middle and got burned over the top because we had to be pushing up.

 

[farm85]

I totally agree that its sad / unfortunate that this group will go out in relative - maybe not obscurity but not with a ton of fan fare but in a way...

its the cost of raising the bar. its a hard pill to swallow but if you raise the bar to where 7-5 isn't considered a great achievement but then go 7-5 - its tough.

And while I think Texas is beatable - I have zero confidence right now. Until last week I would have said I trusted the defense to keep us in the game and the offense would do enough but after last week, I'm still shook enough at the moment to where I think we'll beat Tech and TCU as they lack head coaches and lose to Oklahoma and Texas.

Cause I guarantee Texas will remember Breeces "players vs culture" comment and them losing at home last year.

They even made shirts to "show" their culture...lol.

 

[TheJackWePack5]

Isn't doege leading the league in passing yardage. I know its a quantity/Quality discussion, but I don't care how inflated the attempts are you don't lead the league in yardage being "Putrid."

We couldn't get as much coverage without our all american cleaning up the middle and got burned over the top because we had to be pushing up.

24, 66, 27, 13, 20, 20, 29, 38.

Two games out of 8 scoring over 30. One vs Longwood (66) and Iowa State (38). Sorry, that’s not good no matter how many yards Doege throws for.

 

[mikeiastat]

24, 66, 27, 13, 20, 20, 29, 38.

Two games out of 8 scoring over 30. One vs Longwood (66) and Iowa State (38). Sorry, that’s not good no matter how many yards Doege throws for.

Now maybe take those numbers with a grain of salt. They've played VT, OU Baylor and us. Maryland was not a terrible defense early in the year before injuries mounte either. There is a very wide gap between giving up that and a putrid offense.

The only real headscratcher I see from their Offense was Texas Tech, otherwise those are pretty respectable numbers or very good teams they played. I only take exception with the putrid part. Doege is a Good to very good QB, and they had the running game going.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

It's hard to argue this wasn't at least somewhat the case. I give WVU credit for just attacking speedy on repeat. Other teams have exposed him in the past, but then moved away from it later for whatever reason. I think that will be the blueprint the rest of the year for all of our opponents.

I can't believe it's the first time a school has done it.

 

[TheJackWePack5]

Now maybe take those numbers with a grain of salt. They've played VT, OU Baylor and us. Maryland was not a terrible defense early in the year before injuries mounte either. There is a very wide gap between giving up that and a putrid offense.

The only real headscratcher I see from their Offense was Texas Tech, otherwise those are pretty respectable numbers or very good teams they played. I only take exception with the putrid part. Doege is a Good to very good QB, and they had the running game going.

Virginia Tech is 4-4.

In those other 3 games you listed, he had 590 yards, 3 TD, 3 INT. (196, 1TD/1INT average).

Vs ISU he had 371 yards, 3 TD, 2 INT.

This is largely my point. He has been average AT BEST vs other solid teams.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I'm sure I'll get torched on here but I feel we have the personnel to run an aggressive defense so it is perplexing to me that we do the opposite. It works great against teams that don't have vertical threats or a quarterback who's accurate. We basically force ourselves to run bump and run after giving up too many scores and even then we don't run it often.

 

[VeloClone]

This is the biggest problem with the "stick with the ruling on the field" rule. If that's the case it has to be ruled as they see it, not biased one way or the other to allow the play to continue. You never know about camera angles, etc.

Always thought they should go into review without any ruling on the field in mind. Call it as you see it is most likely on the replay.

I thought it was supposed to be ruled as they see it on the field; they were just supposed to hold off on the whistle to let the play continue.

For example let a possible fumble play out through recovery and then convene to decide if everyone saw a fumble or the ground causing the ball to come loose. Then make the call and let review take a look.

 

[davegilbertson]

So basically he's saying that it was their superbowl. Hhmm, seems like we are playing in a lot of superbowls.

comes with the territory. ISU isn't in 'flying under radar' territory anymore. interested in how we adjust and continue to grow.

 

[jctisu]

And you felt the PIs weren't ruled in our favor? Sure seemed like those went in the "plus" column... I know we Cyclone fans have been dealt many unfair blows, but I just don't see how this game fits there. Sure, some unfortunate calls happened, but it didn't feel biased against us. As I'd noted, I don't understand what they called on Brock's late scramble, but I don't know why we use our timeouts like they're free candy early in halves, either. I think, ultimately, we just got outplayed and outcoached by WVU, which is too bad.

The OPI was a horrible call, but in the end PI is a judgement call. Nothing you can do about it. The Breece Hall fumble from any non-ISU/WVU fan on the national stage that I have seen or read has said it was about as clear as it can be Breece was either down just short or it was a TD. There was absolutely no way it was a fumble on either of the two camera angles they gave.

The TD WVU got when the play clock was at zero for almost 2 seconds is not a judgement call either. It's flat out the wrong call not to call it.

And the crazy catch where the guy didn't get his foot down, I actually see how because of the angles they showed and the shoe color it made it a little strange, but when you piece the shots together (have to find the tweet that did it) his foot is a good 3 inches off the ground when he finally has the football.

Replay blew it plain and simple on two calls Saturday. And pure incompetence with the play clock being at zero for as long as it was and not flagged.

 

[mikeiastat]

Virginia Tech is 4-4.

In those other 3 games you listed, he had 590 yards, 3 TD, 3 INT. (196, 1TD/1INT average).

Vs ISU he had 371 yards, 3 TD, 2 INT.

This is largely my point. He has been average AT BEST vs other solid teams.

I'm fine with that. That's my point. There is just a wide gap between average and putrid, checken little.

 

[ClonesInDallas]

And you felt the PIs weren't ruled in our favor? Sure seemed like those went in the "plus" column... I know we Cyclone fans have been dealt many unfair blows, but I just don't see how this game fits there. Sure, some unfortunate calls happened, but it didn't feel biased against us. As I'd noted, I don't understand what they called on Brock's late scramble, but I don't know why we use our timeouts like they're free candy early in halves, either. I think, ultimately, we just got outplayed and outcoached by WVU, which is too bad.

If you don't think the calls were against us Saturday, you're a brain dead moron. And that's putting it nicely