Epenesa Media Backlash. Oh the humanity...

[HawkleberryFinn]

There was nothing wrong with starting a discussion that addressed Kirk's tendency to play upperclassmen over talent. It's happened before. It doesn't happen every time, but the discussion is fair game--as are all the coaching practices of the $5 million man. As stated by many posters and pundits ad nauseam, Kirk's character is stellar--that's not up for debate (as far as I'm concerned). His coaching practices, however, can be questioned regardless of what side you take.

Eppy's comments were very classy and the exact sentiment a good parent should communicate--a refreshing deviation from the increasingly prevalent parent/player self-righteousness. However, had this been another player who didn't have a respected and vocal Iowa lineage, this discussion would never have risen to its present fervor.

Many respected media personalities (Morehouse, Dochtermann, and many others) have observed and questioned Kirk's history of favoring seniority over talent. For these same media folk to now denounce this discussion (especially when pertaining to a superstar-caliber player), calling it stupid and lambasting it publicly, is disingenuous at best.

The vaunted OnIowa podcast has many minutes of discussion questioning and debating Kirk’s history of sometimes playing seniority over talent. There was nothing wrong with the discussion then, and there is really no place for the same people who broached and belabored this subject to now “high horse” and call people “stupid” for bringing it up.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Kirk has always been known for favoring upperclassmen. While commendable and understandable, it's not always the smart play.

That said, I have seen a tendency the last 4 or 5 seasons to give the benefit of the doubt to the upperclassman initially, followed by a willingness to make a change early if it isn't working. In the past, Kirk would stubbornly stick with the upperclassmen regardless of performance, so he appears to be evolving somewhat.

I can't speak for the media, and I haven't listened to the discussions, but my guess is they are critical of the degree of the fan criticism, as opposed to the questioning of decisions per se. Also, I do think some of the media criticism in the past has been more related to playing less talented upperclassmen well into the season as opposed to this early juncture. Alston would be a good example.

 

[mopkins]

I can't believe I'm siding with the "media", but what makes it stupid is that AJ played quite a bit last year as a true freshman. So its really stupid for fans to believe he's not going to get even more snaps this year. Why do people care whether he's listed as a starter or not? He's going to play...a lot.

Besides, the whole " upperclassmen play ahead of talent" is just not a thing. See Josey Jewell, Nathan Stanley, Desmond King, Marvin McNutt, DJK....and on and on and on....

 

[HawkleberryFinn]

I can't believe I'm siding with the "media", but what makes it stupid is that AJ played quite a bit last year as a true freshman. So its really stupid for fans to believe he's not going to get even more snaps this year. Why do people care whether he's listed as a starter or not? He's going to play...a lot.

Besides, the whole " upperclassmen play ahead of talent" is just not a thing. See Josey Jewell, Nathan Stanley, Desmond King, Marvin McNutt, DJK....and on and on and on....

The fact certain media personalities are calling this discussion "stupid" when they have broached it many times is what I'm addressing here. That's just a fact. The discussion is fair game...people can "side with the media" and think this discussion is stupid, but the media has initiated it many times. Kirk has played upperclassmen over talent--that's also a fact--it doesn't happen every time, but it's happened. You may disagree with these facts, but that doesn't make them false. You may not like the discussion, but that doesn't make it impermissible. And of course AJ played as freshman--not putting him in would have been a mistake. Were AJ under another coaching staff with the same personnel, would his playing time be the same...last year and this year? That's the question--a fair question.

 

[peerok]

Does anyone else see the irony that Parker Hesse started as a sophomore? (Actually, he started as a freshman,I think, but that was only because Drew Ott got hurt.) I can't think of the names off the top of my head, but I'm sure there had to be some upper classmen on the roster who were behind Hesse on the depth chart.

 

[Xerxes]

I can't believe I'm siding with the "media", but what makes it stupid is that AJ played quite a bit last year as a true freshman. So its really stupid for fans to believe he's not going to get even more snaps this year. Why do people care whether he's listed as a starter or not? He's going to play...a lot.

Besides, the whole " upperclassmen play ahead of talent" is just not a thing. See Josey Jewell, Nathan Stanley, Desmond King, Marvin McNutt, DJK....and on and on and on....

This is the biggest misconception about Iowa football. Nothing is further from the truth. Its on equal footing when I hear "NBA players don't play defense". If you believe either statement to be true, its pretty obvious you're not paying attention at all or you simply don't watch period.

Several FR play under Ferentz, including guys who aren't necessarily the best athletes on the team at their position. How can this be? Its simple, Ferentz values knowledge of the playbook and fundamentals. If he doesn't trust that you know your assignments, or that you can't play with a level of discipline, you don't play. If you do know your assignments, he's shown he'll play guys who are of marginal talent for B1G level football, regardless of their age/experience.

 

[mopkins]

The fact certain media personalities are calling this discussion "stupid" when they have broached it many times is what I'm addressing here. That's just a fact. The discussion is fair game...people can "side with the media" and think this discussion is stupid, but the media has initiated it many times. Kirk has played upperclassmen over talent--that's also a fact--it doesn't happen every time, but it's happened. You may disagree with these facts, but that doesn't make them false. You may not like the discussion, but that doesn't make impermissible. And of course AJ played as freshman--not putting him in would have been a mistake. Were AJ under another coaching staff with the same personnel, would his playing time be the same...last year and this year? That's the question--a fair question.

I thought his playing time was perfect last year so I'm the wrong person to ask. He got exposed in some situations. They know how talented he is but he had like 3 months to learn how to play defensive end at the Big Ten level. So they made it easy on him and sent him after the QB in obvious passing situations.

Even this fall I'd be completely fine having AJ in a 50/50 split with Parker Hesse. If Parker Hesse sucked then there'd be an argument, but he doesn't. Give Parker 1st down and short distance downs and give AJ 3rd down and passing situations. It makes a ton of sense.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Ah yes, America 2018: The culture of constant outrage

 

[4thngoal]

Something I've noticed and absolutely can not stand is the level of hypocritical people in this world.
This is a very bad thing as individuals and how it plays out in societal situations. Indeed it could be a major contributor to the current degradation of society. It is nothing short of lunacy, for the mind to reconize bad or evil in another, but is to weak to see or accept it within themselves. You can't fix a problem if you don't see one.

As for football, I would give the lean towards upper class men, same as I would towards hiring someone for a particular job. However, I tend to try and stay open minded, because history has shown that at any given moment a person can walk out of nowhere and far exceed expectations.
Experience is great, but it's not everything.

 

[tksirius]

Kirk's character is stellar--that's not up for debate (as far as I'm concerned).

Except for that time he hired that guy to help him not be such a jerk in press conferences.

 

[Fryowa]

Kirk has always been known for favoring upperclassmen. While commendable and understandable, it's not always the smart play.

It’s not commendable nor is it understandable.

Commendable by a football coach would be always putting the best eligible players on the field at all times. Which would then be understandable.

I don’t care about seniors being butthurt if a better player steps ahead of them. This whole thing is about winning games, not seniority or popularity.

 

[HawkleberryFinn]

It’s not commendable nor is it understandable.

Commendable by a football coach would be always putting the best eligible players on the field at all times. Which would then be understandable.

I don’t care about seniors being butthurt if a better player steps ahead of them. This whole thing is about winning games, not seniority or popularity.

Correct. This isn't pee wee (everyone gets a trophy) league. These players are getting a Big Ten free ride and have the potential to earn millions. Favoring seniority is neither the admirable thing to do, nor the fair thing to do. Players are told the best will play and that's what should happen in actuality. It also builds strong character to deal with more important things in life. You learn that you don't always win. You learn to persevere even if you're not the authority figure's favorite.

 

[4thngoal]

It’s not commendable nor is it understandable.

Commendable by a football coach would be always putting the best eligible players on the field at all times. Which would then be understandable.

I don’t care about seniors being butthurt if a better player steps ahead of them. This whole thing is about winning games, not seniority or popularity.

Which ironically, if one would look at it, maybe some upperclassmen (because I do think if you put in all that time, you should get to play) should play in the cupcake non cons and the most talented in the rest?
Maybe the view of the subject has always been looked at wrong? Where if you are a talented underclassmen you get your games in non cons and upperclassmen (regardless of talent) get the rest of the reps and games.
IDK, just pointing out a different view.
I can't say we have not played a bunch of new people though and I can't say that has hurt recruiting either, nor depth. So all in all I think they are doing fine with awarding play time.

 

[Knight78]

It’s not commendable nor is it understandable.

Commendable by a football coach would be always putting the best eligible players on the field at all times. Which would then be understandable.

I don’t care about seniors being butthurt if a better player steps ahead of them. This whole thing is about winning games, not seniority or popularity.

Would you concede that "always putting the best eligible players on the field" changes with each snap of the football and that what you or I or anyone else on this board (or Kirk or James or Phil or etc.) consider to be the "best eligible player" at one particular time is not always the same?

Would you also consider that we see these young men a total of about 15 times per year (including bowl games, spring "games") and that the coaches may have a better perspective on who the "best eligible player" is because they see them 15 times in the spring and a whole lot more during the season?

It's easy to say someone is a "gamer". But as a coach all you've got to go on is what is demonstrated in practice (which you hope is translated to games). If I see a kid who works his tail off in practice and shows me results, I'll play him before I play a kid I believe to be better but is slacking in practice and is showing the same results.

 

[Northside Hawk]

It's a similar situation to Matt Roth many years ago. Kirk put him at linebacker his first year and picked his spots to unleash him. I think we had two seniors, Steen and Barr maybe, ahead of him.
He still didn't start full time at the beginning of his sophomore year, but when the BIG started Ferentz shifted him to defensive end and the rest was history all the way to the NFL.

Hawkeye Nation did a WATN feature on Matt a while ago. Sounds like he is back in the Chicago area working a fitting job or something? Roth was one of my favorite Hawkeyes and I hope he gets to spend the rest of his life doing what he wants, but wouldn't you LOVE to see him get into coaching? That intensity? How would you like to be a fly on the wall when he is cranking a team up before a big game. Better yet, how would you like to be one when he rips into a player not giving a solid effort.

How would you like to be the player?

 

[4thngoal]

Would you concede that "always putting the best eligible players on the field" changes with each snap of the football and that what you or I or anyone else on this board (or Kirk or James or Phil or etc.) consider to be the "best eligible player" at one particular time is not always the same?

Would you also consider that we see these young men a total of about 15 times per year (including bowl games, spring "games") and that the coaches may have a better perspective on who the "best eligible player" is because they see them 15 times in the spring and a whole lot more during the season?

It's easy to say someone is a "gamer". But as a coach all you've got to go on is what is demonstrated in practice (which you hope is translated to games). If I see a kid who works his tail off in practice and shows me results, I'll play him before I play a kid I believe to be better but is slacking in practice and is showing the same results.

You didn't ask me, but I would concede this if you would in turn consider that just because you see a roofer working his butt off is no guarantee that the finished product will be better than one who just has a natural flow and rhythm to his daily work.

 

[mopkins]

It’s not commendable nor is it understandable.

Commendable by a football coach would be always putting the best eligible players on the field at all times. Which would then be understandable.

I don’t care about seniors being butthurt if a better player steps ahead of them. This whole thing is about winning games, not seniority or popularity.

I agree with the premise, but the problem is the whole argument is completely subjective. Do we know for a fact that Sophomore Josh Jackson should have started at corner over Senior Greg Mabin? No, we don't. Josh Jackson was a low 3-star coming out of high school and probably wasn't ready yet and benefited from redshirting and spending time under Desmond King.

Also, if you look at the depth chart right now, there are 5 seniors listed as starters. I don't have a calculator handy but I believe there are 22 starting positions. That means that 77% of the starters are not seniors. It kind of destroys the whole "Ferentz prefers seniors" argument.

 

[4thngoal]

I agree with the premise, but the problem is the whole argument is completely subjective. Do we know for a fact that Sophomore Josh Jackson should have started at corner over Senior Greg Mabin? No, we don't. Josh Jackson was a low 3-star coming out of high school and probably wasn't ready yet and benefited from redshirting and spending time under Desmond King.

Also, if you look at the depth chart right now, there are 5 seniors listed as starters. I don't have a calculator handy but I believe there are 22 starting positions. That means that 77% of the starters are not seniors. It kind of destroys the whole "Ferentz prefers seniors" argument.

Exactly. It's really not even a discussion is it?
You can't go off just class as we might have a small SR class. The whole thing is can you honestly pitch the words that " you have the opportunity to come in and compete for play time right away"? I would say they have adhered to that very well and that is honorable.

 

[HawkleberryFinn]

I agree with the premise, but the problem is the whole argument is completely subjective. Do we know for a fact that Sophomore Josh Jackson should have started at corner over Senior Greg Mabin? No, we don't. Josh Jackson was a low 3-star coming out of high school and probably wasn't ready yet and benefited from redshirting and spending time under Desmond King.

Also, if you look at the depth chart right now, there are 5 seniors listed as starters. I don't have a calculator handy but I believe there are 22 starting positions. That means that 77% of the starters are not seniors. It kind of destroys the whole "Ferentz prefers seniors" argument.

Did we know for a fact CJ Beathard should have been starting over Jake Rudock mid-way through the 2014 season? Yes we did. Even Kirk's sister knew...Kirk's sister.

 

[Fryowa]

I agree with the premise, but the problem is the whole argument is completely subjective. Do we know for a fact that Sophomore Josh Jackson should have started at corner over Senior Greg Mabin? No, we don't. Josh Jackson was a low 3-star coming out of high school and probably wasn't ready yet and benefited from redshirting and spending time under Desmond King.

Also, if you look at the depth chart right now, there are 5 seniors listed as starters. I don't have a calculator handy but I believe there are 22 starting positions. That means that 77% of the starters are not seniors. It kind of destroys the whole "Ferentz prefers seniors" argument.

I'm not arguing that I know who is better. I don't go to Iowa practices and I'm not a football coach. I do participate in conjecture on this board, but I'm always the first one to admit that it's uneducated conjecture.

My point was that it's not commendable to play anyone but the best players who give you the best chance to win, whether it's a sophomore or senior.