hwkwyld
Well-Known Member
Although I thing a strong case could be made for Gallery, I voted of Nate. In my mind when you talk "Greatest Player" you have to include consistency as well as numbers and Nate was lights out. Let me explain
While Tate's numbers were great, the dude was a headcase and nowhere close to a leader. A QB must have those qualities to be great. In addition he peaked in his sophomore season (Cap One) and didn't really do anything great from there.
Banks had an outstanding 2002 season, but I remember sitting in Kinnick in 2001 and watching him make some bonehead plays. I understand that all players go through this but 2001 was the season that I was introduced to Iowa Football so I remember it clearly and in my mind he was not the "Greatest" of the Decade.
If Greene had returned this season and posted the same numbers as he did last season he would have been the clear choice for the decade's greatest... as well as the 2009 Heisman. Unfortunately for us he didn't and as far as I'm concerned he'll simply be known as a great "one-hit-wonder". And I mean that in a good way.
While Tate's numbers were great, the dude was a headcase and nowhere close to a leader. A QB must have those qualities to be great. In addition he peaked in his sophomore season (Cap One) and didn't really do anything great from there.
Banks had an outstanding 2002 season, but I remember sitting in Kinnick in 2001 and watching him make some bonehead plays. I understand that all players go through this but 2001 was the season that I was introduced to Iowa Football so I remember it clearly and in my mind he was not the "Greatest" of the Decade.
If Greene had returned this season and posted the same numbers as he did last season he would have been the clear choice for the decade's greatest... as well as the 2009 Heisman. Unfortunately for us he didn't and as far as I'm concerned he'll simply be known as a great "one-hit-wonder". And I mean that in a good way.