Beau Corrales

kameltoez102 said:
To be honest was Tavian that much better than Shaw? Looking back at some of the tape there is a reason why Shaw is the all-time leading rusher. Tavian was great no doubt about it but as a TOTAL BACK I would have a tough time believing Tavian was head and shoulders above Shaw.
Click to expand...


Shaw was definitely a better between the tackles runner...Banks was the home run hitter that Shaw wasn't.
 
I believe that The way that Beau handled his decommitment was respectful to Iowa. He said he wanted to take more visits because he was
Unsure and didn't want to do it behind the coaching staff's back (like people accused Eno). He wanted to be 100% sure before getting 100% committed. This is what many people on here are praising Martin for doing (tho the way I'm reading that situation is different) He burned no bridges and if he wants to come to Iowa, I would gladly take him. Gavin burned the bridges
 
trj said:
Shaw was definitely a better between the tackles runner...Banks was the home run hitter that Shaw wasn't.
Click to expand...

Daniels / Wadley. Similar comparison. Wadley was clearly more gifted, I would have liked to see him get 3-5 of Daniels carries/game. That said, the combo of them together is what made them both better, imo.
 
Getting back to the original topic. I wish that Beau hadn't hitched his wagon to the Eno train. I do think that him decommitting was the right thing to do based on the policy that KF has. If he wasn't sure that Iowa was the best spot for him then he should take visits. I don't think its right that because he did, the coaching staff should have moved on like they did. Nothing wrong with keeping a line of communication out there for a kid who was at least transparent in the fact that he wanted to take other visits. Better that than sneaking around and trying to do it secretly and getting caught.
 
PCHawk said:
Wadley is the best or second best back of the Ferentz era and he was second string to a back that probably falls somewhere between 10th and 15th. Not that I needed another example of how bad Kirk evaluates talent, but it's a good example.
Click to expand...

Wadley got more touches in all of the high-leverage games. Just because you don't start, that does not necessarily make you second string. Also recall that he got banged up at the end of the ISU game, and perhaps the coaches were more careful with their usage of him from there, understanding how important he was to the team.

Now if you want to talk about Wadley not getting enough carries the 2 years prior to that, I can get behind that more. Two years ago I don't think the coaches yet trusted him (perhaps an error in judgement), and last year there were some injury issues along with some other really effective backs (Canzieri and Daniels).
 
StanzisLettuce said:
Getting back to the original topic. I wish that Beau hadn't hitched his wagon to the Eno train. I do think that him decommitting was the right thing to do based on the policy that KF has. If he wasn't sure that Iowa was the best spot for him then he should take visits. I don't think its right that because he did, the coaching staff should have moved on like they did. Nothing wrong with keeping a line of communication out there for a kid who was at least transparent in the fact that he wanted to take other visits. Better that than sneaking around and trying to do it secretly and getting caught.
Click to expand...

Agree. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if he came back, and at this point I think he would. But at this point and I agree with other posters, that ship has probably already sailed.
 
CP87 said:
Wadley got more touches in all of the high-leverage games. Just because you don't start, that does not necessarily make you second string. Also recall that he got banged up at the end of the ISU game, and perhaps the coaches were more careful with their usage of him from there, understanding how important he was to the team.

Now if you want to talk about Wadley not getting enough carries the 2 years prior to that, I can get behind that more. Two years ago I don't think the coaches yet trusted him (perhaps an error in judgement), and last year there were some injury issues along with some other really effective backs (Canzieri and Daniels).
Click to expand...


If there weren't so many other examples, I could believe the coaches were "keeping their best back fresh". But I don't think for a second that's what the coaches intentions were. Based off comments Kirk has made about Wadley and thinking of past examples of position battles going to the less talented player, I think the coaches played Wadley less because of his personality and reluctance to gain weight.
 
We're sitting at 14 commits with a goal of at least 20 and there don't seem to be any recruits banging on the door to commit so why would we not welcome back Beau? He was someone we wanted and we don't have anyone else interested apparently.
 
Stanzi said:
We're sitting at 14 commits with a goal of at least 20 and there don't seem to be any recruits banging on the door to commit so why would we not welcome back Beau? He was someone we wanted and we don't have anyone else interested apparently.
Click to expand...

The dead period just ended 15 hours ago. Let's at least give it some time before we jump to conclusions about where things stand on the recruiting front.
 
PCHawk said:
If there weren't so many other examples, I could believe the coaches were "keeping their best back fresh". But I don't think for a second that's what the coaches intentions were. Based off comments Kirk has made about Wadley and thinking of past examples of position battles going to the less talented player, I think the coaches played Wadley less because of his personality and reluctance to gain weight.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they sure leaned on him when it came to big games (see Michigan and Florida as examples). It would be pretty crappy to short-change him playing time for those reasons, and then to ask him to carry a larger burden when your win-loss record was on the line. But I am sure coaches have done crappy things before.

To the larger point about Ferentz playing less talented players over better options, there are certainly some prime examples we can point to. But since I think you are one of the most reasonable and balanced posters on here, I think you would be willing to consider this: talent is part of these decisions, but the coaches are also dealing with human beings. Human beings who might need the proper stick or carrot to achieve their full potential, depending upon a given situation. Human beings who make up a collective team whose chemistry is impacted if a deserving veteran is passed up by someone younger not based upon production, but on potential. This aspect makes the decisions much more difficult. Perhaps it is true that Ferentz bungles them more than his peers, but there might also be more to the situation than we sometimes see.
 
CP87 said:
Perhaps, but they sure leaned on him when it came to big games (see Michigan and Florida as examples). It would be pretty crappy to short-change him playing time for those reasons, and then to ask him to carry a larger burden when your win-loss record was on the line. But I am sure coaches have done crappy things before.

To the larger point about Ferentz playing less talented players over better options, there are certainly some prime examples we can point to. But since I think you are one of the most reasonable and balanced posters on here, I think you would be willing to consider this: talent is part of these decisions, but the coaches are also dealing with human beings. Human beings who might need the proper stick or carrot to achieve their full potential, depending upon a given situation. Human beings who make up a collective team whose chemistry is impacted if a deserving veteran is passed up by someone younger not based upon production, but on potential. This aspect makes the decisions much more difficult. Perhaps it is true that Ferentz bungles them more than his peers, but there might also be more to the situation than we sometimes see.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is more to each situation than we know. All we see is the talent on game day. To some coaches, that is the most important part. To others, it's less so important. It seems like Kirk is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Coaches are human too tho, so of course personalities of players can shape a coaches view of them for better or worse.
 
HawkeyeWalker said:
Daniels / Wadley. Similar comparison. Wadley was clearly more gifted, I would have liked to see him get 3-5 of Daniels carries/game. That said, the combo of them together is what made them both better, imo.
Click to expand...

Even though I think Wadley is a better between the tackles runner than Banks. I agree the thunder and lightning approach is the best. I am guessing that they will take the same approach next year with whoever takes over Daniels.

I am getting old. I can't remember if Hayden went with the hot hand with Shaw/Banks or did he work both guys in? Similar to the way KF did with Wadley/Daniels. I do remember Banks got his yardage in bunches........he was the Dave Kingman of Iowa runningbacks.
 
PCHawk said:
Wadley is the best or second best back of the Ferentz era and he was second string to a back that probably falls somewhere between 10th and 15th. Not that I needed another example of how bad Kirk evaluates talent, but it's a good example.
Click to expand...
Uh, didnt this terrible back have 1000 yards? Yes Wadley is more dynamic and talented, but a 1000 yard back is a good back.
 
Last edited:
PCHawk said:
The better player sits behind a lesser player all the time in sports. That's why it's so weird how defensive some people get on here when personnel choices get questioned. That said, Kirk seems to make bad choices more than most coaches. Maybe that's just because I pay more attention to Iowa tho.
Click to expand...
So the guy makes all of these terrible choices with inferior talent but is still top 30 program during his tenure? Where is the magic fairy dust? Ghost of nile kinnick? Pink locker rooms? People bag on KF way too much for being a successful coach. Lol.
 
kameltoez102 said:
To be honest was Tavian that much better than Shaw? Looking back at some of the tape there is a reason why Shaw is the all-time leading rusher. Tavian was great no doubt about it but as a TOTAL BACK I would have a tough time believing Tavian was head and shoulders above Shaw.
Click to expand...
Give me Sedrick Shaw. Less speed, more power. But still NFL type speed.
 
trj said:
Even though I think Wadley is a better between the tackles runner than Banks. I agree the thunder and lightning approach is the best. I am guessing that they will take the same approach next year with whoever takes over Daniels.

I am getting old. I can't remember if Hayden went with the hot hand with Shaw/Banks or did he work both guys in? Similar to the way KF did with Wadley/Daniels. I do remember Banks got his yardage in bunches........he was the Dave Kingman of Iowa runningbacks.
Click to expand...

Shaw had just over twice as many touches in '96 as Banks (310 to 152). Rush attempts were in Shaw's favor as well, 204-131. Now think about this.... Shaw missed a game due to injury in '96 so you can pretty much bet on him not being at 100% for one or two games after that injury. Shaw had 90 more rushing attempts his junior year than his senior year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top