Denard should have been in earlier!!!
The eleventy billion posts about how Tate should have been in for the last drive and how RR blew it are blowing my mind! Did you people watch the game?
If anything, Denard should have seen action much earlier. Tate was having trouble moving the ball, had communication issues, and was turning the ball over--all expected from a freshman--nonetheless Denard should have seen the field earlier.
The main argument that I might listen too about getting Tate in there for the final drive is the fact that having Denard run the ball would not be clock efficient enough to get into field goal range. That is it.
Discuss.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:07 AM ^
for a dollar.
Call me old school - but in my book, if you talk back to the coaches you get splinters in your ass from riding the pine.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^
i was upset when they ran the ball...denard need to run on a scramble not a designed run...i.e. tates drive last week to tie
October 11th, 2009 at 12:39 AM ^
That was probally the worst decicion possible y would u put in denard he hasnt proven he can throw y make him try in the last two minutes and tate had more time last week to be able to run then all they could do was pass.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
please????
October 11th, 2009 at 2:18 AM ^
all we needed to do was get in field goal range. which we couldve done if tate was in there
October 11th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
what i was saying is that if you look at tates long runs during the drive last week they were pass plays that he read correctly and scrambled...instead of a called qb draw.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:00 PM ^
This makes me sad and homicidal.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:12 AM ^
Denard is not a good passer. Perhaps he should have gotten in earlier to get some playing time under his belt...but this game was out of his capabilities at the end.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:13 AM ^
I think Shoelace is a good passer, I don't think he is a good decision maker yet. He threw a couple balls on those last couple drives that were good throws. His decision making is lacking which I would expect from a true freshman.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:20 AM ^
Tate had the extra eight months, it is a big difference.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:34 AM ^
Isn't part of being a good passer being a good decision maker?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:18 AM ^
if he were in earlier we wouldn't have needed him as a passer. He could have gone on like his only drive and moved the ball that way.
edit: reply is to tom hagen re: Denards passing skills
October 11th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^
true, but if Drob goes in earlier, i'm thinking Iowa figures out how to adjust. as it happened, they had NO time to adjust on the fly to the different threat. that was an advantage we happened upon by putting him in.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:12 AM ^
agree. they should have tried putting in Denard a little earlier.
and my only frustration is exactly what you suggested: if tate was HEALTHY, i would want him in there for clock efficiency. other than that, I'm fine with drob getting the experience. he made some plays.
i still think tate's our primary guy. he's gotta have help though. we're dreaming if we think he's going to be heroic in every game. we KNEW a clunker was coming.
I want to see how we fight back next week.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^
I would agree at the least to give Tate a breather through the first 3 quarters especially during the longer drives. He definitely took some hits tonight, looked like he was tiring again in the 2nd half and this is probably the coldest weather he has ever played in, and cold hands can make it hard to hang onto the ball.
Those points don't even take into account his youth, a veteran QB would have trouble overcoming some of those things. Its not surprising they seem to have impacted Tate negatively
October 11th, 2009 at 12:17 AM ^
to only use him as a breather for Tate. We need him on the field more frequently, yes for a breather, but also because he has 4 rushing TDs on the year and is a threat to take to the house.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:29 AM ^
Isn't that what I said? lol
Beyond Denard's athletic ability he was successful because he had fresh legs, Iowa's D was sucking wind long before Denard's drive. If he is sprinkled in there more he becomes an even bigger threat as a game changer in that situation.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:17 AM ^
I was thinking just this during the 3 and out in on the 2. Just let DRob run it out of the endzone rather than Tate making throws 30 yards down field into double coverage.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:18 AM ^
I love Tate. But tonight he was making mistakes and was off his game. His INT and fumble, (not to mention poor play clock management) were not giving us the best chance to win.
So, I think D Rob needed a chance earlier on. The more reps this kid gets, the better he will be.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:18 AM ^
Agree w/ Denard being in earlier.
There were so many offensive series where I was thinking, "Alright, this has gotta be when they're putting in Denard now...."
But regardless, I stil think Tate should have been in for that last drive, for the reason you cite, clock management.... unless there was a very, very good reason for him not to be in there, he should have been. He has the skillset (and game experience) that is much more conducive to succeeding in that situation.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:21 AM ^
i agree about denard being in earlier, but only as a spark and to change things up. he is a hell of an athlete and can lead a drive by running down the field.
he got put in too late though, when we couldn't afford to run that much time off of the clock. he's not reliable enough as a passer yet to move the ball and manage the clock.
we need to get him in early in games and run basically a wildcat that has more of a throwing element.
but you don't run the wildcat when you need to make a comeback
October 11th, 2009 at 12:24 AM ^
I partially agree.
I wanted to see Denard in there earlier.
However with 46 seconds left, no timeouts left, and about 35 yards to get in FG range...I would want the better passer in there to try and manage the clock with passing.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:25 AM ^
But I think Rich Rod was sending a message to Tate on that final drive.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:27 AM ^
What message was that?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:41 AM ^
"You are not above the team, and I will not tolerate being talked back to like that."
Something along those lines.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:54 AM ^
Unfortunately, now I'm not sure just what message Tate takes away from all of this. If you were in his shoes, does the last drive demonstrate just how much the team needs you, or did the previous drive demonstrate just how much it doesn't.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:31 AM ^
rocket science here. I'm sure RichRod was aware of the clock situation, Tate's reputation for late game heroics, and D-rob's affection for TacoPants. I doubt that he was trying to teach a lesson, I think winning is too important to him. More than likely, he just noticed something was off with Tate today. I think it was clear to see that a road night game at Kinnick may have rattled the kid. I think a huge part of having "Moxie" is being confident, which Forcier did not appear to be today.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
IF Tate was benched for immature behavior (we'll probably never know), then this was the message: that he is not bigger than the team, and that the team will go on without him. It's in the best interests of both Tate and the team that he get his act together.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
The drive didn't start with 46 seconds left. It started with 1:30. If you wanted RR to sub in Tate before the play in which Denard threw the pick, it would have wasted additional time, as the clock was ticking. We pretty much had to keep the QB we put in to start the drive.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:31 AM ^
I agree with the sentiment that Denard should have seen the field sooner. Our passing game thrives off of the unpredictable nature of our run game. Iowa's DBs are obviously very well disciplined and it looked like the receivers really weren't getting open. Might as well put in a more dangerous run threat and maybe even loosening up the passing game some.
All that being said, you have to go with Tate on that last drive. There is just no sensible reason for Denard to be in there at that point. First and foremost because Tate has already proved he can step up, but also because Denard's at his most dangerous when the other team presses the line to stops the run game. They obviously aren't going to do that when just one or two run plays that aren't first downs equals the end of the game. So to me it was not only not fair to Tate, but a bad strategical move.
Still, as much as moral victories suck, our defense has shown consistent improvement and Denard has shown consistent improvement and Tate seems like the type of guy that will work even harder after being benched. We are making a bowl game this year and the possibility of having a Notre Dame esque(multi year) down period seems highly unlikely at this point.