Quarterback battle thread…

MeetTheFerentzes

All-Conference
Sep 6, 2022
2,166
4,151
113
Retired!!?? That should never be the focus of a football team. The focus should be score a bunch and dont give up many scores at all. It is just amazing how the offensive line play improved a ton after Brian left. Lester's run scheme sets up a lot of great angles for the blockers.
You must have missed the thread where eyes educated us all about how the offense purposefully s*cked balls under BF because of this amazing long-term plan he had, and he have BF himself above all to thank for the great OL's we've had since he left.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Retired!!?? That should never be the focus of a football team. The focus should be score a bunch and dont give up many scores at all. It is just amazing how the offensive line play improved a ton after Brian left. Lester's run scheme sets up a lot of great angles for the blockers.
The focus should be the team ending up with more points than the opponent.

It's just amazing that although TL's scheme has value, no scheme would have done much with an o-line the was close to two years underdeveloped, physically.

It's just amazing (literally) that's fans don't understand that/aren't equipped with that specific information about the physically underdeveloped line/feel the need to publicly speak about things they are underinformed about.

It's just amazing that KF, GB, and players have all since commented that there was no way to get bigger and stronger overnight.

It's just amazing that KF told GB, while interviewing him for the position, that the o-line would be a long rebuild.

It's just amazing that KF told us going into '22, that there would be no quick fixes. And that it would be a lengthy, step by step, rebuild process up front.

It's just amazing that KF told us before the '23 season that the o-line was seeing incremental growth, but still had a lot of growing to do.

And it's just amazing that KF told us before TL was even hired, that he expected the offense to make a jump in '24, as he expected the o-line to be in a good place.

And it's just amazing (literally) that fans have come up with all these laughable narratives, rather than simply listening to what the coach was saying.

Football fans.....just amazing (literally)
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
This!
The offense's job is to score points.
The defense' job is to prevent the other team from scoring. Some of the cult followers on here have come to believe that eschewing offense and having a punter pin the other team deep so the defense can score off turnovers is a reliable formula for winning. I mean it worked in that 7-3 SDSU masterpiece so why wouldn't it be just as effective against the OSUs of the world?
The job of the offense is to do whatever it takes to help the team win
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Well, okay, yeah. I agree. I hated the term from the beginning, but you know what I meant—the term was coined for the sole purpose of making a bullsh*t excuse for why the offense had to suck.
Assuming you're referring to the term, "complimentary football", that term goes back many decades.

Welcome to football
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MeetTheFerentzes

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Great job to you and everyone else fighting against that worthless loser's lies and delusions. I always used to destroy him in arguments, but reading his blatantly anti-Iowa beliefs and attempted fan policing was enough for me to cut him off. Just happy to see Hawk fans working together against a anti-Iowa troll. Maybe at some point we'll need to get Kakert's attention to see if we can't get him permabanned.
This guy has been lying to the entire board for months!

Claims to have me custom deleted from his monitor. But can actually read my posts.

Absolutely disgraceful.

I can link much incriminating material in support of this claim.

Go Hawks!
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
You must have missed the thread where eyes educated us all about how the offense purposefully s*cked balls under BF because of this amazing long-term plan he had, and he have BF himself above all to thank for the great OL's we've had since he left.
I've never said anything close to this!

You should be ashamed of yourself
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MeetTheFerentzes

2D

All-American
Oct 8, 2013
2,858
5,949
113
Once again, eyes has ruined a thread. Such a di*k. Man, I wish I could read better. Better yet, I wish we didn't have to "read" him in the first place.
I felt the same way, which is why I made a code to block his lies. It was necessary to make this place tolerable again. I wish Tom would do some moderating to help the rest of you out. Maybe if we all message Tom requesting a permaban, that could finally get him off the board?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Doc

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Once again, eyes has ruined a thread. Such a di*k. Man, I wish I could read better. Better yet, I wish we didn't have to "read" him in the first place.
Once again, one poster can't ruin a thread by himself.

My initial post would have stood as my lone contribution to this thread, had it not been challenged.

And I am allowed to respond, when my posts have been challenged
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Kelsers and F6n6

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
I felt the same way, which is why I made a code to block his lies. It was necessary to make this place tolerable again. I wish Tom would do some moderating to help the rest of you out. Maybe if we all message Tom requesting a permaban, that could finally get him off the board?

Post #46 in linked thread
 

MeetTheFerentzes

All-Conference
Sep 6, 2022
2,166
4,151
113
I've never said anything close to this!

You should be ashamed of yourself

Receipts

I expect Wisconsin to be a lot better this year, as it was obvious they were committed to properly rebuilding last year.

Similar to what happened with BF in '22/'23. And the Hawks are reaping the benefits to this day

Do those rational observers include the people within the Iowa football building?

Yes, BF sacrificed some stats and reputation to commit to rebuilding the line (and offense, as a byproduct) in the proper way in '22/'23.

And yes, Iowa football can still feel some benefit of that today

The foremost expert and most informed person about the situation was KF. And up to that point, KF did not see a reason for BF to be fired.

But that's all irrelevant to the facts that BF did indeed sacrifice, in order to be all-in in "rebuilding", brick by brick. And that the benefits of his commitment to the brick by brick approach, can still be felt today

Let me guess? Mischaracterizing?
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Receipts







Let me guess? Mischaracterizing?

You must have missed the thread where eyes educated us all about how the offense purposefully s*cked balls under BF because of this amazing long-term plan he had, and he have BF himself above all to thank for the great OL's we've had since he left.
Yes, absolutely mischaracterizing.

Nowhere have I said the offense purposefully sucked balls under BF.

And you have cherry picked certain posts that don't necessarily represent my overall sentiments.

Because many times I have posted that it was a staff decision (not BF's), and ultimately KF's decision, to approach the o-line (offensive) rebuild with a pared down, brick-by-brick approach.

And benefits of that approach can still be felt across the entire program today
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MeetTheFerentzes

r_desihawk

All-Conference
Jul 3, 2025
2,697
3,866
112
…. Maybe if we all message Tom requesting a permaban, that could finally get him off the board?
in response to your email if tom decides it’s easier to just shutdown this free board let’s all meetup on clemson’s football forum and make a niche for ourselves. they are a rather welcoming bunch. im mentioning this right now so it’s easy to continue iowa fb discussions without missing a beat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Doc
Aug 14, 2025
226
330
63
Once again, one poster can't ruin a thread by himself.

My initial post would have stood as my lone contribution to this thread, had it not been challenged.

And I am allowed to respond, when my posts have been challenged
<<Once again, one poster can't ruin a thread by himself>>

Bullshirt. You do it on the daily.

<<And I am allowed to respond when my posts have been challenged>>

To all on the board, I think we may have just realized one way to stifle this guy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Doc and 83Hawk

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
<<Once again, one poster can't ruin a thread by himself>>

Bullshirt. You do it on the daily.

<<And I am allowed to respond when my posts have been challenged>>

To all on the board, I think we may have just realized one way to stifle this guy...
Not if I'll "ruin" them myself, anyway.

Pick one
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
<<Once again, one poster can't ruin a thread by himself>>

Bullshirt. You do it on the daily.

<<And I am allowed to respond when my posts have been challenged>>

To all on the board, I think we may have just realized one way to stifle this guy...
People don't read stuff that involves me.

They just comment on it
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Kelsers

RuggieC

Senior
Mar 30, 2014
459
951
93
1. This is a response to you ruining every thread on here. I spend more time on here than I should because usually I enjoy it, but you just kill it. 90% of all threads that start trending in a positive direction, are fun to read/comment on, and have people giving some solid opinions or thoughts, result in some dumb argument between you and someone else. (Just like I’m doing now, JFC) Because you cannot possibly fathom the idea of someone else having an opinion that differs from your own.

And that’s not what you said, at all. Your response, which I quoted, was “then there wouldn’t be any reason to expect the defense to remain strong.” Therefore a QB that isn’t conservative can’t support a defense at all, per your words. The key word here is any, meaning you believe there is zero reason the defense could remain strong with a less efficient QB. Which is frankly not true at all. Stanzi, Beathard, and Tate were all aggressive QBs that had a great defenses to support them, defenses that were great despite their non risk averse nature. Notably, their starting seasons account for almost all of Kirk’s best seasons.

I, unfortunately, have to waste my precious time on this earth to be as specific as possible, because you will find the tiniest loophole to exploit and drag this out as long as possible. No matter how dumb it makes you look.

For example:
“Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.” Obviously a QB that throws no picks supports the defense. A QB also has to pick up first downs, eat up TOP, score points, etc. That involves risk. You cannot, and will not, win at the highest level without taking risks. But you just ignore all nuance, and boil it down to the simplest possible idea, probably because that’s all you can mentally handle.

You deflect the point everyone makes to overly simplistic ideas, hopefully to ragebait them into arguments. I truly, TRULY, hope you are just a troll, because the other option is a sickening level of mental illness/disability that doesn’t allow you to absorb new information and grow/develop as a person. The other option is that you’re just stuck in some pre pubescent state of mental development.

I’ll quote your response again at the bottom, as reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit of yours. As you have proven many times over.

2. You don’t understand the definition of mischaracterization, clearly. Please explain how it was mischaracterized. I would love to wake up to a good laugh tomorrow.

3. False. At the very best, you can say you’ve claimed to have never said things that you have heavily implied.


Don’t expect a response to whatever dumbass comment you make troll. I, unlike you, have a life, and cannot respond here all day every day. I went out drinking with some friends on a Friday night, and you caught me in a drunken motivation to respond to your ragebait when I got back home. I don’t have the time to be on here 24/7 dragging every argument out to the end of the earth. I’ve responded in a moment of weakness, unfortunately. The worst part is that I do think you’re a troll, so you’re probably reading this and just laughing at me. SMH
I ignored him a long time ago. Never read his garbage.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Which, unequivocally, means move the football and put points on the board. Unequivocally.

This is not difficult, eyes.
No, it does not.

I've already explained how that's the case.

And it actually goes so much farther than what I've even explained
 
Last edited:

RagnarLothbrok

Heisman
Jun 11, 2025
6,068
16,052
113
No, it does not.

I've already explained how that's the case.

And it actually goes so much farther than what I've even explained
Just because your moronic syllogism makes sense to you doesn’t mean it’s correct or disproves the almost unanimously accepted understanding of what the primary purpose of offense in football is.
 

iahawkeyes17

All-Conference
Apr 22, 2014
758
1,951
83
I believe Lester has already said the battle will probably go through camp and into the season, no?

I feel like they are willing to (Publicly) let the competition go for a lengthy period of time simply to not discourage the [eventual] loser.
Don’t think we will know till first depth chart comes out. Unless word leaks out of the building about one qb getting lot more 1st team reps late into camp.

I just hope KF and Lester stick with starter and don’t do shared reps (like stanzi and Jake to start 08’) minus end of game blowout when 2nd string gets in. Need who ever wins the job not be looking over his shoulder and get as much playing time as he can during non conf with our tough start to big 10 play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torgeroni

iahawkeyes17

All-Conference
Apr 22, 2014
758
1,951
83
Retired!!?? That should never be the focus of a football team. The focus should be score a bunch and dont give up many scores at all. It is just amazing how the offensive line play improved a ton after Brian left. Lester's run scheme sets up a lot of great angles for the blockers.
I’ve heard this narrative more than once. One was friend at coaching clinic with a subtle comment made by Barnett and other from credible source that Lester is lot more in synch and on same page with Barnett. Think is why we’ve seen OL get back to way were have been accustomed to at Iowa. BF and Barnett didn’t always see eye to eye on blocking schemes and other stuff with how OL was used was one of many reasons in long list why offense bottomed out by end of 22’.
 

83Hawk

All-Conference
Jan 1, 2023
1,585
3,550
113
Just because your moronic syllogism makes sense to you doesn’t mean it’s correct or disproves the almost unanimously accepted understanding of what the primary purpose of offense in football is.
I am quite certain that if you asked Tim Lester what the primary purpose of the offense is, he would say “to score points”. Or any coach for that matter.

While it is true that late in the game you want to run out the clock, that is purely situational. The entire rest of the game the offense is trying to score. Period. Because you never know how many points will be “enough” to win.

To say “the primary purpose of the offense is not to score points” is asinine. And wrong.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
Just because your moronic syllogism makes sense to you doesn’t mean it’s correct or disproves the almost unanimously accepted understanding of what the primary purpose of offense in football is.

I am quite certain that if you asked Tim Lester what the primary purpose of the offense is, he would say “to score points”. Or any coach for that matter.

While it is true that late in the game you want to run out the clock, that is purely situational. The entire rest of the game the offense is trying to score. Period. Because you never know how many points will be “enough” to win.

To say “the primary purpose of the offense is not to score points” is asinine. And wrong.

I would bet if you ask any player or coach on either side of the ball, they would agree they failed if they didn't score/allowed the other team to score.
Does the example I gave not prove my position, Ragnar?

Again, when I have more time today, I will cite many more examples.

You guys are really making yourself look silly.

That's what football fan does though. SMH
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
I am quite certain that if you asked Tim Lester what the primary purpose of the offense is, he would say “to score points”. Or any coach for that matter.

While it is true that late in the game you want to run out the clock, that is purely situational. The entire rest of the game the offense is trying to score. Period. Because you never know how many points will be “enough” to win.

To say “the primary purpose of the offense is not to score points” is asinine. And wrong.
That's what football is. A situational sport.

Guess what, the are many other situations in games where the offense is not trying to score. Period.

I will provide those when given time today
 

83Hawk

All-Conference
Jan 1, 2023
1,585
3,550
113
That's what football is. A situational sport.

Guess what, the are many other situations in games where the offense is not trying to score. Period.

I will provide those when given time today
I am going to stop you right here.

This discussion concerns the primary purpose of the offense. You claimed the primary purpose is not to put points on the board. That is wrong. You are going to attempt to offer your opinion and specific down and distance examples as “proof”. But those won’t be proof.

(I also admit my saying "the rest of the game" could be construed by some to think I meant every play, but that is not what I meant, as the next paragraph will clarify. A minor bit of semantics that does not change the main point.).

I will save you further embarrassment. It is not the purpose of every play to score. Nobody is saying that. But the overall purpose of the offense IS to put points on the board. And that’s that.

To say otherwise is idiotic.

Another thing....you said the purpose of the offense is to do everything it can to help the team win. Which primarily means put points on the board. Because, well, that's their job.

You also said the focus is for the team to end up with more points than the opponent. And who is primarily responsible for scoring those points? Yep...the offense.

So basically, you have proven yourself to be wrong.

Priceless!

(I am not going to be dragged into another one of your p*ssing matches. This debate is over, and you lost. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, by all means. Knock yourself out.)
 
Last edited:

RagnarLothbrok

Heisman
Jun 11, 2025
6,068
16,052
113
I am quite certain that if you asked Tim Lester what the primary purpose of the offense is, he would say “to score points”. Or any coach for that matter.

While it is true that late in the game you want to run out the clock, that is purely situational. The entire rest of the game the offense is trying to score. Period. Because you never know how many points will be “enough” to win.

To say “the primary purpose of the offense is not to score points” is asinine. And wrong.
Correct. Again, primary.

If you can’t get on board with that, I have no idea what your understanding of football is.
 

RagnarLothbrok

Heisman
Jun 11, 2025
6,068
16,052
113
Does the example I gave not prove my position, Ragnar?

Again, when I have more time today, I will cite many more examples.

You guys are really making yourself look silly.

That's what football fan does though. SMH
When arguing against what the primary purpose of offense is in football, no, it doesn’t.

I really don’t understand what your end game is here, eyes, other than to argue frivolous absurdities. Yes, everyone (or mostly everyone) is aware of how piss poor the OL was for a couple years. The greater question is, how did a 20 + year veteran coach, who specializes in OL play, allow the OL to get so god awful that a multiple-season reboot was required? A down year? Sure, it happens. But you’re trying to convince everyone it’s logical for that many P4 college O-linemen to require 3 years to get big and strong enough to be at least reasonably competitive? That is honestly your hot take? That is insanely idiotic. It makes no sense.

Why is it so hard to admit KF took a gamble by trying to launch Tommy Boy’s career and it absolutely backfired? At the end of the day, Brian was instrumental in recruiting players, developing players, coaching players, evaluating players, game planning, game managing, etc. I mean, this really isn’t difficult, eyes. It really isn’t.

Yes, absolutely, so much more goes into fielding a competitive football team than what the average football fan would understand. Most of us get that. The problem is a high football acumen is not required to understand that after multiple seasons of the offense being at the bottom of the country in nearly all statistical categories that something just isn’t working. And I don’t care how many times KF came out to the media to try to put lipstick on a pig. No father can ever be objective about their son. It’s just not possible. At the end of the day, Brian just wasn’t working out. And KF was never going to admit it.

Again, I don’t know what your end game is here, eyes, but you are on a fool’s errand and looking absolutely ridiculous in the process. Seriously. This is not a matter of “you guys just don’t get it.” This is a matter of you stubbornly and unfathomably trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t when it comes to the sh*t show disaster that was the Brian Ferentz OC experiment. Just stop. No one is taking you seriously.
 

Grayhair1981

All-Conference
Sep 3, 2006
812
1,578
93
When arguing against what the primary purpose of offense is in football, no, it doesn’t.

I really don’t understand what your end game is here, eyes, other than to argue frivolous absurdities. Yes, everyone (or mostly everyone) is aware of how piss poor the OL was for a couple years. The greater question is, how did a 20 + year veteran coach, who specializes in OL play, allow the OL to get so god awful that a multiple-season reboot was required? A down year? Sure, it happens. But you’re trying to convince everyone it’s logical for that many P4 college O-linemen to require 3 years to get big and strong enough to be at least reasonably competitive? That is honestly your hot take? That is insanely idiotic. It makes no sense.

Why is it so hard to admit KF took a gamble by trying to launch Tommy Boy’s career and it absolutely backfired? At the end of the day, Brian was instrumental in recruiting players, developing players, coaching players, evaluating players, game planning, game managing, etc. I mean, this really isn’t difficult, eyes. It really isn’t.

Yes, absolutely, so much more goes into fielding a competitive football team than what the average football fan would understand. Most of us get that. The problem is a high football acumen is not required to understand that after multiple seasons of the offense being at the bottom of the country in nearly all statistical categories that something just isn’t working. And I don’t care how many times KF came out to the media to try to put lipstick on a pig. No father can ever be objective about their son. It’s just not possible. At the end of the day, Brian just wasn’t working out. And KF was never going to admit it.

Again, I don’t know what your end game is here, eyes, but you are on a fool’s errand and looking absolutely ridiculous in the process. Seriously. This is not a matter of “you guys just don’t get it.” This is a matter of you stubbornly and unfathomably trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t when it comes to the sh*t show disaster that was the Brian Ferentz OC experiment. Just stop. No one is taking you seriously.
2023: worst ypg in all of FBS. Next-to-last in scoring offense. No one should ever have survived that as an OC. And Biff would still be in that position if a new AD hadn't made the decision she did.
 

Iron Doc

All-Conference
Nov 5, 2005
776
1,177
93
One encouraging thing:

Since somehow ol' Eyes hasn't received the BanHammer, we can rest assured that our forum isn't a "ban for virtually nothing" site like STATE's, Nebraska's, and Ped State's.

:)
 

Hawkmanic23

All-Conference
Mar 11, 2026
1,870
1,390
113
I am going to stop you right here.

This discussion concerns the primary purpose of the offense. You claimed the primary purpose is not to put points on the board. That is wrong. You are going to attempt to offer your opinion and specific down and distance examples as “proof”. But those won’t be proof.

(I also admit my saying "the rest of the game" could be construed by some to think I meant every play, but that is not what I meant, as the next paragraph will clarify. A minor bit of semantics that does not change the main point.).

I will save you further embarrassment. It is not the purpose of every play to score. Nobody is saying that. But the overall purpose of the offense IS to put points on the board. And that’s that.

To say otherwise is idiotic.

Another thing....you said the purpose of the offense is to do everything it can to help the team win. Which primarily means put points on the board. Because, well, that's their job.

You also said the focus is for the team to end up with more points than the opponent. And who is primarily responsible for scoring those points? Yep...the offense.

So basically, you have proven yourself to be wrong.

Priceless!

(I am not going to be dragged into another one of your p*ssing matches. This debate is over, and you lost. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, by all means. Knock yourself out.)
The real purpose of Iowa’s offense is to cover the point spread, so that I can win my sports bets! 😉
 

2D

All-American
Oct 8, 2013
2,858
5,949
113
Everyone in this thread beating Eyes' *** like:



Keep fighting the good fight, boys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 83Hawk

93hawkeye

Senior
Sep 19, 2004
362
586
93
I am not a coach but I think the offense's job is to have the team be ahead on the scoreboard when the clock reads 00:00. Sometimes you accept spending possessions on attriting the other team, winning field position, resting your defense. One of KF's guiding philosophies, it seems, is don't give the game away, especially in the first 3 quarters.
I know, not sexy, and comes back to bite you sometimes. But the kind of teams the Hawks lose to usually have very talented QBs, WRs and RBs. The kind of teams that can run you out of the building if you don't treat your offense as a part of your defense.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
3,092
3,105
113
I am going to stop you right here.

This discussion concerns the primary purpose of the offense. You claimed the primary purpose is not to put points on the board. That is wrong. You are going to attempt to offer specific down and distance examples as “proof”. But those won’t be proof.

(I also admit my choice of the word "situations" was a poor one, and did not accurately convey the point I was making, as the next paragraph will clarify. I can see where someone could reasonably come to the conclusion that I was referring to every play. A minor bit of semantics that does not change the main point.).

I will save you further embarrassment. It is not the purpose of every play to score. Nobody is saying that. But the overall purpose of the offense IS to put points on the board. And that’s that.

To say otherwise is idiotic.

Another thing....you said the purpose of the offense is to do everything it can to help the team win. Which means put points on the board. Because, well, that's their job.

You also said the focus is for the team to end up with more points than the opponent. And who is primarily responsible for scoring those points? Yep...the offense.

So basically, you have proven yourself to be wrong.

Priceless!
- No, this discussion concerns how qb's can help their defense by not putting them in bad spots.

As a rebuttal, in attempt to minimize the importance of risk assessment, Ragnar stated that the "primary purpose of the offense is to score points."

He has also doubled down by stating the "job of the offense is to score, unequivocally."

I'm pretty sure he's not even conceding running out the clock situations. There are people that will tell you, that even in that situation, nothing better than a TD could possibly occur.

For one thing, that is incorrect. Scoring a TD will give the ball back to the opponent. And if the opponent in turn, scores a TD+2, the original offense comes out behind on that exchange, and worse off than if the opponent had never touched the ball. Same dynamic if the opponent in turn, scores a TD and recovers an onside kick.

But mainly, those who believe this, don't understand that to strive for maximum offensive production, carries a level of risk, that at some point just isn't worth it, when you're playing against the clock. That's why at the extreme end of this dynamic, teams literally take a knee to close the game.

- I clearly said, "the primary purpose of the offense is not to put points on the board, BUT RATHER, to do whatever it takes to help the team win the game."

And you clearly left that 2nd part (the point) out. People can read.

And if you're going to try to play semantics, you should be reminded that in addition to "primary purpose", the "job" of the offense has also been taken into question in this thread.

- Whether you want to call it the job of the offense, or the priority, or the assignment, or the strategy, or the approach, or even when talking "primary purpose", the most accurate and all-encompassing way to describe it is, "to help give the team its best chance to win."

There does come a point in games when it's time to prioritize playing vs the clock.

The most extreme downing of the ball is at the end of a sliding scale of risk tolerance, that can correspond with a sliding scale of priority to clock.

For programs like Iowa, that have strong running games and defenses that can be weapons, those sliding scales can extend to the majority the 4th quarter.

Similarly, the entire game requires risk assessment. When is potentially giving up field position not worth the risk? When is potentially giving up momentum not worth the risk? Every offensive drive comes with TL, KF, and PP taking the defense into consideration. They manage all the spots in which scoring is not the priority, that you have called, "situational".

But if not prioritizing scoring seems too situational for you, let me tell you what is fundamental. Punting. How "primary" can scoring be to offense, when the majority of offensive possessions end up with an offensive down literally being forfeited, for the sake of the defense?

This literal forfeiture of the ability to even try for offensive production, is so fundamental to the game, that it's part of how a sport that rarely sees the ball touch a foot, got named "football"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MeetTheFerentzes
Hawkeye Report

Latest

  1. 01 Hawkeye Report Live from Iowa Football Kids Day
  2. 02 Hawkeye Report PHOTO GALLERY: Iowa Football Media Day
  3. 03 Hawkeye Report FALL CAMP SPECIAL: Get 75% off subscription to Hawkeye Report
  4. 04 Hawkeye Report Cael Winter in the mix for starting spot
  5. 05 Hawkeye Report Kenneth Merrieweather leading Iowa's defensive line