2001 Brad Banks not remotely ready.. Really Jon?

HawkPrdatr40

HawkPrdatr40

Well-Known Member
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by HawkPrdatr40
How did you come to that conclusion from those comments



Kirk Ferentz said: In 2008, went back and forth til settled on Ricky, can we assume gap wider between James and guy behind

Anytime you see players rotate there at that position, its close and reason why you do it
-----------------

Jon Miller wrote: That's why. I have my masters in Kirk speak. I've listed to 99% of his pressers since he has been there. I've interviewed him one on one 20+ times, been around him at IClub functions 40+ times.

He said when its close, you rotate. Sans rotation, or another player coming in, it's not.
JonDMiller said:
I love the Banks v McCann 2001 stuff. Because I'm sure that you all have talked with more than a dozen players from that team who back up your assertion that Banks was the better quarterback that year or was remotely ready to take all the snaps.

I have, and they are all unanimous; he wasn't. But that doesn't fit into your box of hate, so you'll punt it.
Click to expand...

So then why did Banks rotate in if he wasn't remotely close to being ready???
 
Wasn't one thread on this enough?

What exactly do you think calling out Jon is going to prove?
 
I didn't mean to double post I was editing it and it posted twice. My bad.. Jon loves to tell us how Brad Banks wasn't close to being ready. What KF says today says differently..


Oh by the way sparky are you Jon's watch dog??
 
Yeah commander Kurt is in denial. I still don't understand why you are behind 31 and don't play your back-up. And his excuse/explanation is that he thought he'd keep the offense out there. Let's face it he didn't do that for the TEAM he did that to aswage his own ego because he was getting his ARSE beat. He thought if he put Ruddock in something bad, like a TO, might happen and we would give up more points. Hell at that point who cares! And keeping JVB in isn't a confidence booster for him...he knows he isn't doing what he needs to do.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
I didn't mean to double post I was editing it and it posted twice. My bad.. Jon loves to tell us how Brad Banks wasn't close to being ready. What KF says today says differently..


Oh by the way sparky are you Jon's watch dog??
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm just the guy with common sense that knows there is no point in calling him out on something so trivial. You wouldn't understand that though, would you?
 
I know the players I've talked with on this. He wasn't ready to be the starting QB in 2001.

PS: one of the ppl I talked with was Brad himself. Next.
 
JonDMiller said:
I know the players I've talked with on this. He wasn't ready to be the starting QB in 2001.

PS: one of the ppl I talked with was Brad himself. Next.
Click to expand...

I suppose he could have been humble and what not but that's a pretty awesome rebuttal.
 
It is what it is. We can't change it. I guess we're playing Northwestern on Saturday. Much like a business, or an election, it always about the next one, never the last one.
 
JonDMiller said:
I know the players I've talked with on this. He wasn't ready to be the starting QB in 2001.

PS: one of the ppl I talked with was Brad himself. Next.
Click to expand...

So lets go back to 2001. Iowa is facing Michigan, Wisconsin, MSU, Texas Tech, whoever

Iowa is down by 6, 5:00 left on the clock, 75 yards to go, plenty of time to run the regular offense. Bottom line, Iowa needs a TD or they're done. You got your life savings, Iowa's bowl game hopes, or anything else of legit value on the table. You're Iowa's HC.

Who do you send in to get that winning TD? Banks or McCann?
 
Xerxes said:
So lets go back to 2001. Iowa is facing Michigan, Wisconsin, MSU, Texas Tech, whoever

Iowa is down by 6, 5:00 left on the clock, 75 yards to go, plenty of time to run the regular offense. Bottom line, Iowa needs a TD or they're done. You got your life savings, Iowa's bowl game hopes, or anything else of legit value on the table. You're Iowa's HC.

Who do you send in to get that winning TD? Banks or McCann?
Click to expand...


Banks :)
 
bcl20 said:
I suppose he could have been humble and what not but that's a pretty awesome rebuttal.
Click to expand...

He would be a pretty big dick to say he should have been playing but it was a good rebuttal. I'm sure he wasn't ready to be as good as he was in 02 but he was still clearly better then McCann.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by HawkPrdatr40
How did you come to that conclusion from those comments



Kirk Ferentz said: In 2008, went back and forth til settled on Ricky, can we assume gap wider between James and guy behind

Anytime you see players rotate there at that position, its close and reason why you do it
-----------------

Jon Miller wrote: That's why. I have my masters in Kirk speak. I've listed to 99% of his pressers since he has been there. I've interviewed him one on one 20+ times, been around him at IClub functions 40+ times.

He said when its close, you rotate. Sans rotation, or another player coming in, it's not.




So then why did Banks rotate in if he wasn't remotely close to being ready???
Click to expand...


Let me understand, here. People constantly post that KF apologists cite "distant past" seasons for KFs competence as a coach...then cite 2001 QB "controversy"?

Does ANYone believe the 2001 team goes 8-3 or 9-2 vs. 6-5 (pre-bowl game)?

And as to "building for the future", you don't do that to THIS year's team, at least not while we are still in the Legends race and/or fighting for bowl eligibility.

That said, I can't believe we stuck with McCann in 2001, Chandler in 2003, Tate in 2005-2006, or Jake C in 2007. And after OSU in 2009, Stanzi should never have taken another snap! (saracasm, of course).
 
PCHawk said:
He would be a pretty big dick to say he should have been playing but it was a good rebuttal. I'm sure he wasn't ready to be as good as he was in 02 but he was still clearly better then McCann.
Click to expand...

You would think so. It's not too common for a guy to go from not able to start on a D-1 team to second in the Heisman voting (I'm sure there will be a bunch of people telling me a bunch of examples or something, well I'm giving my preemptive strike against this. You're a nerd and I don't care)
 
bcl20 said:
You would think so. It's not too common for a guy to go from not able to start on a D-1 team to second in the Heisman voting (I'm sure there will be a bunch of people telling me a bunch of examples or something, well I'm giving my preemptive strike against this. You're a nerd and I don't care)
Click to expand...

Bingo!!
 
Banks was mechanically ready, but did not have the playbook down his Jr year. Too athletic to keep off the field (playmaker) but too restricting from a playcalling perspective to justify himself as an every down player. I'm guessing Ruddock is basically a JVB clone (i.e. pocket passer) - if he's even a 1% drop off from JVB (and you would have to trust the coaches on that assessment), you have to keep JVB in there.
 
528646 said:
Banks was mechanically ready, but did not have the playbook down his Jr year. Too athletic to keep off the field (playmaker) but too restricting from a playcalling perspective to justify himself as an every down player. I'm guessing Ruddock is basically a JVB clone (i.e. pocket passer) - if he's even a 1% drop off from JVB (and you would have to trust the coaches on that assessment), you have to keep JVB in there.
Click to expand...

What if he is a big drop off but since JVB has become a head case he might actually play better? Then who do you play?
 
528646 said:
Banks was mechanically ready, but did not have the playbook down his Jr year. Too athletic to keep off the field (playmaker) but too restricting from a playcalling perspective to justify himself as an every down player. I'm guessing Ruddock is basically a JVB clone (i.e. pocket passer) - if he's even a 1% drop off from JVB (and you would have to trust the coaches on that assessment), you have to keep JVB in there.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As Jon previously said, Banks only knew 10 plays in 2001, he wasn't near ready for the starting job. In 2002, Banks knew 12 plays, that's two whole plays more. At that point, he was ready to go.
 
hawkfan33 said:
Exactly. As Jon previously said, Banks only knew 10 plays in 2001, he wasn't near ready for the starting job. In 2002, Banks knew 12 plays, that's two whole plays more. At that point, he was ready to go.
Click to expand...

This is where I always go. It's not like our offense in 2002 was comparable to splitting atoms or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top