Please Stop with "should've run on 2nd"

[Frak]

A first down off of a defensive pass interference also allows the probability of an ISU win to go up, but the refs screwed ISU over. All I am suggesting is a run is no sure thing and I don't agree with those who blindly say 2 runs would've won the game. Of course running and punting is the norm in the situation, but that doesn't mean the norm ends up working out 100% of the time.
If Campbell could do it again, he probably would run it, but he can't. This is my point. Regardless of whether everyone in the world wanted ISU to run, they threw and had a successful conversion that was taken away. End of story.

Yeah, ISU did that exact thing against iowa...ran three times and forced them to use all their time outs. That didn't work so well and Manning got raked over the coals for not being aggressive enough. The biggest key to me (other than officiating) is that ISU's pass defense can get torched when teams are forced to pass...even by an average QB like Stanley or a FR like Thompson.

 

[clonedlion]

Yeah, ISU did that exact thing against iowa...ran three times and forced them to use all their time outs. That didn't work so well and Manning got raked over the coals for not being aggressive enough. The biggest key to me (other than officiating) is that ISU's pass defense can get torched when teams are forced to pass...even by an average QB like Stanley or a FR like Thompson.

Thank you. That is a ver clear way of saying it. I'm sure folks wished ISU tried to throw for a first down then as well, especially with points being scored and tired defense at that point.
It does seem like the D goes overboard on the prevent D in situations such as these. Let's hope they stay aggressive in the future.

 

[clonedlion]

The decision to pass on 3rd was more or less determined by choosing to pass on 2nd, throwing a difficult pass on 2nd was the issue.

As another just said, ISU ran 3x, forced IA to use all timeouts and punted. Iowa went down and still scored showing you the argument to run isn't valid. What is valid is a PI that took away a first down.

 

[madguy30]

As another just said, ISU ran 3x, forced IA to use all timeouts and punted. Iowa went down and still scored showing you the argument to run isn't valid. What is valid is a PI that took away a first down.

Issue being that ISU didn't run the ball very well vs. Iowa, and ISU's defense didn't play very well that day.

Saturday ISU was running the ball well and wearing down KSU's dline, and hadn't allowed 100 yards total offense until the 4th quarter.

 

[3TrueFans]

As another just said, ISU ran 3x, forced IA to use all timeouts and punted. Iowa went down and still scored showing you the argument to run isn't valid. What is valid is a PI that took away a first down.

The argument isn't that doing things one way or the other guarantees a victory, so the fact that it didn't work against Iowa with more time on the clock doesn't really make a difference.

 

[CycloneErik]

Running on 2nd would have been a good idea.

 

[3TrueFans]

Running on 2nd would have been a good idea.

But who's on first?

 

[CycloneErik]

But who's on first?

I don't know.

 

[Cyclad]

It’s all hindsight. Had we done that and lost, the same people would be in with the “play to win” narrative.

There is certainly some truth to your statement, but we should have run the ball. It was a bad decision to pass, and a really bad decision regarding the pass route.

 

[Cyclad]

Yeah, ISU did that exact thing against iowa...ran three times and forced them to use all their time outs. That didn't work so well and Manning got raked over the coals for not being aggressive enough. The biggest key to me (other than officiating) is that ISU's pass defense can get torched when teams are forced to pass...even by an average QB like Stanley or a FR like Thompson.

Correct. However, one big difference. KSU had shown no offense all day against our defense. Iowa had moved the ball a lot. Different calculation on how to “play to win.”