Kirk Ferentz doesn't know about 2PT Conversions
Surprising no-one, Kirk Ferentz decided to kick a field goal when down by 8 Points during their loss to Wisconsin. Here is how he addressed this after the game (HT GoIowaAwesome):
Q. This will sound like second-guessing. It’s 14-6, you go for the field goal. You’re still going to need a touchdown. What was the thought process there?
COACH FERENTZ: You have to score twice. It gets down to that. Somehow, some way you’re going to have to score twice. If there’s a little bit less, fourth-and-two, something like that, we probably would have gone for the touchdown.
Q. 14-6, if you get the touchdown and the two-point conversion, you have a tied ballgame.
COACH FERENTZ: The situation we were in, we felt that was the best play. Fourth-and-five against these guys is not easy, especially down there in the red zone. We didn’t see that as a high-probability play. We’re going to have to get back there again. Kind of the thinking there.
This provoked the following excellent line from Patrick Vint:
This is not typical Ferentz conservative philosophy. This is no philosophy at all. This is kicking field goals without thought. This is cro-magnon football nihlism.
Pour some out for every Iowa fan you know. It's gonna be a long decade in Iowa City.
October 24th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^
As bas as Ferentz can be, I'm sure that's not what he meant. 14-6 with like 5 min left on 4th & 5, I can see the field goal there as defensible.
October 24th, 2016 at 11:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 24th, 2016 at 11:53 AM ^
Yeah, but then they win if they also get the TD later. With 5 minutes left, you're probably getting the ball back if you have timeouts. Someone can run the numbers, but in a game like that, I wouldn't be surprised if he thought his chances at making that 4th & 5 are pretty low, like 20%.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^
Iowa was at the Wisconsin 20, which was the best they had managed all half. They willingly deprived themselves of a chance to tie the game on the assumption that they could then stop Wisconsin, get the ball back, and then go back down the field to score a touchdown in the remaining couple minutes. That's first-degree coaching malpractice.
Failed 4th down conversion: Wisconsin gets ball at their ~20, you need a stop and a touchdown.
Successful 4th down conversion: opportunity to score game-tying touchdown with a first and ten inside the opponent's 20.
Failed field goal: Wisconsin gets ball at their ~20, you need a stop and a touchdown.
Successful field goal: Wisconsin gets ball wherever the kickoff ends up (probably ~20), you need a stop and a touchdown.
The obvious point is that there's no substantive difference between making the field goal and missing it. But the killer is that there's no substantive difference between making the field goal and failing the 4th down conversion. Ferentz lit their best opportunity to avoid a loss on fire.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:40 PM ^
Uh, I think you're forgetting that if you make the FG and then score your touchdown, you win outright. If you miss (or miss your 4th down conversion), then you only tie with your TD (and you need your 2PT conversion, which you wouldn't need with your FG), and your win probability is still about 50%. So, making your field goal actually more than doubles your win probability as compared to missing or failing to get it on fourth down. Little bit of a difference there.
I'm also not saying the call was necessarily correct -- but I think the numbers are probably pretty close in that decision. Defensible call.
EDIT: To spell it out
Make the FG. To win, I need to:
- Stop Wisconsin and score a TD (? Probability)
Miss the FG or don't get the 4th down conversation. To win, I need to:
- Stop Wisconsin and score a TD (? Probability), AND
- Make the 2 PT conversion (~45% probability), AND
- Win in OT (~50% probability)
See the difference there?
October 24th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^
Well technically there's a substantive difference: in the successful field goal situation, Iowa can allow a Wisconsin field goal and it's still a one possession game.
Though it's such a small benefit, I doubt the probabilities work out to make it the correct decision.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^
There's a huge substantive difference. As LJ points out, a touchdown wins you the game if you make that FG and then get the ball back. It only ties the game otherwise. Of the following things, none of them are guarantees:
- Making the 4th down
- Scoring a touchdown after
- Making the 2PC
- Stopping Wisconsin from driving for a GW FG
- Winning in OT
And you put everything in terms of "you need a stop and a touchdown." No, you make the FG, then you need a stop and a touchdown. You make the 4th down, you need a stop and a touchdown....AND a 2PC, AND you need to play overtime. That's an incredibly crucial difference.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^
Yep. Basically, the decision comes down to: which of these two is more likely:
- Make the FG, get a stop, and go score a TD (with 1 pt conversion), OR
- Make a 4th & 5, score the TD, get the 2 point conversion, stop Wisconsin from scoring, and win in OT.
I don't know the numbers, but those look about equally tough to me (both pretty long odds, obviously).
October 24th, 2016 at 4:48 PM ^
He makes the field goal, recovers an onside kick, makes another field goal, recovers another onside kick and wins the game with another field goal. The odds of that happening are probably about as good as scoring a touchdown and a two point conversion. I'm joking here, but I think he felt his odds of scoring 8 points on that possession were insurmountable.
October 24th, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^
you should have a chance to kick a FG after scoring a TD, making the 2-pt conversion or not.
October 24th, 2016 at 2:16 PM ^
This is true, but also, there's no telling how much extra time it'll take you to score the touchdown after making the 4th down - and therefore, how much easier it will be for Wisconsin to burn away the remaining clock on offense.
Also, the assumption is that kicking the FG is a much more likely proposition than making the 4th down. Turns out that making 4th and 5 is roughly a 40% chance. Probably less against the Wiscy defense. Kicking the FG is about, I dunno, 2/3 chance at worst, and not very defense-dependent.
October 24th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^
But for some reason, that was one possibility people were ignoring.
October 24th, 2016 at 1:27 PM ^
2-point conversions didn't exist when Ferentz started in coaching, so he forgets they're a thing
October 24th, 2016 at 12:19 PM ^
Not what could be.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^
What does that even mean? You play to maximize your chances to win on each play.
October 24th, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^
You are going up against one of the best defenses in the league, and you have a horrible offense. Getting into Wisconsin's red zone, or even getting the ball back under 5 minutes is not even close to guarenteed. You have a chance to tie the game with a TD. An FG does you basically no good considering you still need another TD to take the lead.
It's soft, conservative play. The best percentage of getting back in the game is going for it on that 4th and 5.
October 24th, 2016 at 1:12 PM ^
Okay. Whether the percentage is better, I don't know. I think it's close. But it sounds like you agree that you go with the higher percentage play, whether it is kicking or going. So I think we're in fierce agreement.
October 24th, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^
My verbiage left a lot to be desired.
But yes, knowing how Iowa sucks on offense, Wisconsin has a great defense, the higher percentage play to win that game was the 4th down attempt from the 5.
October 24th, 2016 at 6:21 PM ^
What everybody misses in the "Chance to tie the game" arguement is that the 2pt conversion is no gimme.
Go for it & even make the 1st, you still have to score. Time is ticking. You could just end up running another minute off the clock to then NEED to get the 4th down & TD+2.
Kick the FG & there is time left to maybe get the ball back & score. That 3 would mean no need to go for 2. It's one less score you need to worry about.
October 24th, 2016 at 1:13 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 24th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
I could see you thinking that your odds of converting, scoring a TD+2 pt conversion as being lower than getting 3, getting a stop, and getting a TD for the win. Not sure it's correct, but missing the 4th down conversion is basically game over whereas kicking the 3 leaves the door open.
I think the main joke here is that it didn't appear to occur to Ferentz that one of his options was going for the tie game on that drive
October 24th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
Anyone who jumps to the conclusion that he doesn't know 8 points equals a TD + 2 point conversion is just being silly. It seems likely there was some miscommunication there.
I think it's the wrong call. I guess if you don't think you can convert on 4th and 5 you also don't like your chances of making a 2 point conversion. If you make those assumptions, it's perhaps the right call, but I don't like making those assumptions. It's also possible to miss the conversion, get the ball back and kick a winning FG. Kicking the FG extends the amount of time you are sure to have a chance. Conservative coaches value that more than I would.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^
I don't understand how failing to convert the 4th means the game is over but taking 3 points when down 8 and kicking the ball back to UW does not. In both cases, you have to stop Wisconsin, get the ball back, and score a TD to avoid a loss.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^
Yeah, but keeping in mind, they would no longer need the 2PC. (They would want to try it anyway, theoretically being up 15-14 after the TD, but they wouldn't need it.) A life-or-death 2PC which only ties the game isn't a great situation. I think it's a defensible decision. It's not like Wisconsin was setting the world on fire with their offense. Reasonable thing to take the points and then tell your defense to go get the ball back.
If the score was 44-36 instead of 14-6, I'd feel much less strongly about that, but it's not a crazy thing to do, especially when you need five yards.
October 24th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^
That's a weird answer from him (I wonder if he thought the reporter was asking about the other FG attempt, when it was 17-6) but this headline is over the top.
October 24th, 2016 at 11:52 AM ^
This is how I interpreted the presser as well!
The FG at around the 5:00 mark was the correct call.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^
In the presser, the questioner lays out the scenario to him perfectly.
October 24th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^
Yeah, but I suspect he misheard and/or anticipated that the question would be about the FG at 17-6.
October 24th, 2016 at 11:49 AM ^
October 24th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
I can sort of see the argument Ferentz defenders are making where they say if you miss on 4th down then you're basically done with Wisconsin having the ball down 2 possessions whereas if you kick you give Wisconsin the ball down 1 possession, but at the same time, seems like with no guarantee you get the ball back again that the right call is to go for the TD and the tie there.
But at the same time, this didn't appear to occur to Ferentz who thought he had to score twice no matter what. I bet they're psyched he's going to be there for the rest of his life
October 24th, 2016 at 11:56 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 24th, 2016 at 12:05 PM ^
Yep, you're right
October 24th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^
At 14-6 the difference is 1 possession. Period. If they fail to convert, how does that change?
You said they'd be "basically done with Wisconson having the ball down 2 possessions". You ARE aware of the 2 point conversion, right?
Not sure what you meant. They'd still be down 1 possession and Wisconson would be backed up to the 5 yard line.
Ferentz citing how tough Wisconson's defense is makes me laugh. If you can't make a play for 5 yards, how do you expect to drive for a touchdown and win the game IF you get the ball back!?
Not saying he should have gone for the TD, but his reason was crap.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
I guess I meant kicking the FG means you need a stop and then just a TD to win, whereas missing the conversion means you need a stop and then 8 pts. I can see the logic there in getting the points while they're in front of you because it'll be easier to get a TD later rather than 8 later
October 24th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^
And 8 points doesn't get you the win if you miss the conversion, it only gets you to OT.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:27 PM ^
I think it's defensible. 5 minutes is a lot of time. It's hard to execute a 5:00 minute drive to run the clock out. The most likely scenario is that Iowa either stops Wisconsin and now can win with a TD or Wisconsin scores. If Wisconsin scores a TD Iowa is done even converting a FG. But if Wisconsin scores a FG, now Iowa is only down 8 again and still have a chance. If Iowa goes for the conversion and fails, best case they now need a TD and 2PT conversion just to tie, and any FG pretty much ends it (this was ultimately the case with the missed FG).
October 24th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
October 24th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
And someone thought it was a good idea to give this guy an extenstion on top of the too many years contract he already had.
October 24th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
October 24th, 2016 at 11:56 AM ^
At least he didn't punt? Trying to find some snowflakes for Iowa fans here.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:31 PM ^
At least he didn't say it was a three possession game because 3 field goals?
October 24th, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^
But one of the more successful prehistoric coaching minds still out there, especially considering he's at Iowa where Midwest mediocrity is the expectation.
I remember him punting on 4th and 1 from their own 45 or so in that game when it actually looked like that had the first down. He didn't even challenge...it was like he was programmed to punt, almost as if he has a compulsion to punt.
I almost feel as if Ferentz would break out in hives or have a panic attack post game if his team didn't punt 10 times in a given game.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^
That was really weird. It seemed like once the officials ruled that they were short he rushed the punt team out there to get it off. I was so confused why they didn't give the box time to review the call.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^
Yep, it's twisted. He enjoys or, dare I say, even gets off on punting. He prefers it to getting first downs or even scoring.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:01 PM ^
October 24th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^
October 24th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^
But part of the Hayden Fry coaching tree, so....
October 24th, 2016 at 1:23 PM ^
are rocking those Sansabelt slacks and Pony turf shoes.
And also of note, a youngish Barry Alvarez in the front row.
October 24th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad