2001 Brad Banks not remotely ready.. Really Jon?

[HawkeyeBA]

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.

Brad Banks is a class act and would say that because that is what you should say. He won't say that he was ready and that not starting him was the wrong thing to do.... this doesn't say much to me. Just sayin.

It really doesn't matter though, all situations are different.

 

[PCHawk]

The weird thing about the banks situation was how he was subbed in. Just like running backs now It's a series by series rotation. If you have a qb that has a skill set like banks did you think you would bring him in on specific situations when it was McCann's series. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation. I honestly don't think kirks mind works fast enough to do those kinds of things. That's why he has never been a good game day coach and that's definitely why he is so horrible at clock management.

 

[homes]

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.

Listening to many interviews of players, they all speak the company line, if they say anything beyond a string of cliches. Regardless, that was 11 years ago. We're not going to see Rudock in 2012, what makes anyone think they're going to see more of Banks in 2001?

 

[DuffMan]

Personally I never understood the propensity for so many people here to bash Mccann. He was a solid if not inspectacular QB who led Iowa to its first respectable season in many years.

He was a very accurate QB and was pretty efficient in moving the offense.

 

[UweBlab]

I wouldn't expect Rudock to come in and start lighting up the scoreboard. But he needs to get some experience, and 2 games have past where he should have got some playing time.

JVB is like Kirk in that they are good practice players/film watchers/developers. But they .do not excel at game day decision making.

Who knows, maybe Jake is a gamer just waiting for a chance.

 

[Travisam]

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?

Ron Paul

 

[BLKNGOLD48]

I'm beginning to think the reason KF didn't play JR on Saturday night was because he doesn't want a QB controversy. If Jake goes out a drives them, granted against the back up team then KF will have to answer those questions. Lot easier to say JVB is our QB and I'm sticking with him. I don't buy for one minute that we don't have a back-up that isn't ready, KF has had a history of making sure the next man in is ready. Oh well, we'll see what Saturay brings but IMHO if JVB goes out and performs like he has all year the next two games, time to make a change because JVB is not giving us the best chance to win.

 

[hoffahawk]

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.

That is pretty funny, now only if it were true. It was pretty clear to see in 01 that Banks had something special the problem was it was also pretty clear that he didn't know a ton of plays and wasn't ready to play the entire game. In 01 he was great at being that change of pace guy but we ran the same handful of plays out of the same formation every time he was in.

Look I think Rudock should have played vs. PSU but the Banks argument doesn't hold water.

 

[NickM]

That is pretty funny, now only if it were true. It was pretty clear to see in 01 that Banks had something special the problem was it was also pretty clear that he didn't know a ton of plays and wasn't ready to play the entire game. In 01 he was great at being that change of pace guy but we ran the same handful of plays out of the same formation every time he was in.

Look I think Rudock should have played vs. PSU but the Banks argument doesn't hold water.

I would agree when looking at Brad Banks purely in a vacuum he wasn't "ready" to be a full time starter in the Big 10 when the season started against Kent St. But you can't just look at Banks. You need to also look at McCann because that is who was playing in front of Banks. I don't intend to bash McCann, but you need to talk about his performance in order to have this conversation, because we are not comparing Banks against this undefined "not ready" standard. We are comparing him to McCann.

McCann played abysmal, just absolutely abysmal against Purdue, Mich. St., Mich, Wisconsin, and Iowa State - all losses. Anyone watching those games would conclude McCann is "not ready" - can't get it done against good competition. He did not play well against a bad PSU team at home and did not play well in the bowl game. He did make a nice pass to Hill on an out pass down the stretch where Hill's man fell down which helped Iowa get into field goal range, but Greving and the defense were the reasons Iowa was able to be in that position.

McCann played so poorly at Wisconsin that KF actually benched him for essentially the entire second half in favor of the "not ready" Banks. Apparently KF concluded McCann wasn't "ready" to play at Wisconsin. McCann's season stats were padded against Kent St., Miami of Ohio, Northwestern and Minnesota - even a half-ready Banks could have led Iowa to those wins. But the only way Iowa was going to beat Michigan, Mich. St., Purdue, Iowa State and Wisconsin was with an "as ready as we could get Banks". The "ultra ready McCann" didn't have the ability to win those games and it was obvious at the time. Whether Banks was ready or not, he was Iowa's only shot to win those games.

KF chose the "safe route" and left wins on the table IMO.

Hence the 2001 team went 7-5, but easily with good QB play could/should have been 9-3. That team underachieved compared to its talent. Again, I am not at all trying to bash McCann, but his performance is relevant to this discussion.

Banks may not have been "ready" - still waiting for someone to define that term for me - to start the opening game, but his talent was such that they should have given him the keys and let him learn on the job against Kent St. and Miami of Ohio.

For the revisionists and anyone who is interested in reliving past Hawkeye games, check out: Iowa Hawkeye football history | TheGazette. You can go back and read the stories from all of Iowa's contests from 30 years back. Please someone make their case that McCann was "ready" and included a definition of the term.

 

[hoffahawk]

OK.

Based on stats and your post I have concluded that McCann was more ready to play in 2001 than JVB is ready to play in 2012.

Fair?

 

[FML]

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.

Maybe Banks was not ready to start...but he should have played much more that year. That 2001 team was much better than their record indicated. And poor QB play from McCann was the main reason they underachieved.

 

[TheLorax]

They overachieved in 2001. They were just a bad team.

 

[blubberhawk]

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.

You have to be kidding about the 10 plays, right??

Any high school qb can pick up more offense than that in pre-season practices.

Another convenient excuse..

 

[ThunderHawk]

I was at the Michigan game where Banks was PWNing the Dreaded Maize et Bleu. For not being even remotely ready to play, Banks sure was making fools out of the premier progam in the history of college football.

Had Banks remained in that game, Iowa would have won by at least 10 points. I've never fully trusted Ferentz after that fiasco.

I know what I saw, so did everyone else who witnessed that game. Let's not revise history to excuse Kurt's obstinate nature.

 

[NickM]

They overachieved in 2001. They were just a bad team.

The 2001 team had an senior runningback that started in the NFL. It also had a senior fullback that spent some time in the NFL, along with a senior receiver that spent time in the NFL. The entire offensive line was loaded with upperclassmen which the following year turned into the best line in school history and probably the best o-line in the nation. It also had a future all-american tightend in Dallas Clark. It underachieved. It surely beats MSU with decent QB play (lost by 3 despite 4 picks), probably hangs on to beat Michigan and I'd like to think beats a fairly pedestrian Iowa State team at the end of the year when Ferentz teams supposedly peak. The prevailing thought going into the final game against ISU was that Iowa needed the win to get into the Alamo Bowl. Iowa proceeded to lay an egg, but managed to get the invite anyway. 2 more regular season wins separates 8-3 from 6-5, which are miles apart in terms of evaluating the success of a season.

 

[PCHawk]

I would agree when looking at Brad Banks purely in a vacuum he wasn't "ready" to be a full time starter in the Big 10 when the season started against Kent St. But you can't just look at Banks. You need to also look at McCann because that is who was playing in front of Banks. I don't intend to bash McCann, but you need to talk about his performance in order to have this conversation, because we are not comparing Banks against this undefined "not ready" standard. We are comparing him to McCann.

McCann played abysmal, just absolutely abysmal against Purdue, Mich. St., Mich, Wisconsin, and Iowa State - all losses. Anyone watching those games would conclude McCann is "not ready" - can't get it done against good competition. He did not play well against a bad PSU team at home and did not play well in the bowl game. He did make a nice pass to Hill on an out pass down the stretch where Hill's man fell down which helped Iowa get into field goal range, but Greving and the defense were the reasons Iowa was able to be in that position.

McCann played so poorly at Wisconsin that KF actually benched him for essentially the entire second half in favor of the "not ready" Banks. Apparently KF concluded McCann wasn't "ready" to play at Wisconsin. McCann's season stats were padded against Kent St., Miami of Ohio, Northwestern and Minnesota - even a half-ready Banks could have led Iowa to those wins. But the only way Iowa was going to beat Michigan, Mich. St., Purdue, Iowa State and Wisconsin was with an "as ready as we could get Banks". The "ultra ready McCann" didn't have the ability to win those games and it was obvious at the time. Whether Banks was ready or not, he was Iowa's only shot to win those games.

KF chose the "safe route" and left wins on the table IMO.

Hence the 2001 team went 7-5, but easily with good QB play could/should have been 9-3. That team underachieved compared to its talent. Again, I am not at all trying to bash McCann, but his performance is relevant to this discussion.

Banks may not have been "ready" - still waiting for someone to define that term for me - to start the opening game, but his talent was such that they should have given him the keys and let him learn on the job against Kent St. and Miami of Ohio.

For the revisionists and anyone who is interested in reliving past Hawkeye games, check out: Iowa Hawkeye football history | TheGazette. You can go back and read the stories from all of Iowa's contests from 30 years back. Please someone make their case that McCann was "ready" and included a definition of the term.

Seems like every time i read a really good post i look to see who wrote it and it's you, good job man.

what you said about comparing "ready" to your competition goes for Rudock too. Of course he's not "ready" right now. How many QB's come into their 1st game "ready" tho? Most come in and struggle at first then get better with experience. However "unready" Banks was then and Rudock is now doesn't really matter. What matters is the extremely poor play of the player in front of them. There is no doubt we would have been better off in 01 if we started the year with Banks (we might have been better in 02 also) and JVB's play has gotten so bad that there is little chance we would be worse off with Rudock right now.

 

[PCHawk]

I was at the Michigan game where Banks was PWNing the Dreaded Maize et Bleu. For not being even remotely ready to play, Banks sure was making fools out of the premier progam in the history of college football.

Had Banks remained in that game, Iowa would have won by at least 10 points. I've never fully trusted Ferentz after that fiasco.

I know what I saw, so did everyone else who witnessed that game. Let's not revise history to excuse Kurt's obstinate nature.

When he ran out of bounds short of the 1st i knew that play just cost us the game. Not because it killed one drive, it was because I knew he was done for the day. The butt chewing Kirk met him with on the sideline was something I don't think I've ever seen again from him. Funny how 10 years later that's the play to prove how unready he was. No one remembers the fact that McCann would have been sacked on that play.

 

[ThunderHawk]

When he ran out of bounds short of the 1st i knew that play just cost us the game. Not because it killed one drive, it was because I knew he was done for the day. The butt chewing Kirk met him with on the sideline was something I don't think I've ever seen again from him. Funny how 10 years later that's the play to prove how unready he was. No one remembers the fact that McCann would have been sacked on that play.

I recall it exactly that way.