Drew Tate was hurt the whole year in 2006 and didn't have any receivers. He had a true freshman (Dom Douglas) as his best receiver. 2006 was down year because of the team not Tate.
Best of the Decade: Offensive Player (VOTE!)
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Drew Tate was hurt the whole year in 2006 and didn't have any receivers. He had a true freshman (Dom Douglas) as his best receiver. 2006 was down year because of the team not Tate.
Drew Tate put the offense on his back in 2004 and won a B10 title as a true sophomore. He had even better stats in 2005 and was hurt all of 2006.
QB is the hardest position to play so it has to go to him.
For Defensive player there won't even be two choices will there? Bob Sanders...nuf said.
QB is the hardest position to play so it has to go to him.
For Defensive player there won't even be two choices will there? Bob Sanders...nuf said.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
I think if Tate were in Mizzou's system, or KU's, he would have had the same kind of career numbers that Daniels or Reesing had...heck, in Iowa's system he threw for over 8000 yards and 61 touchdowns.
kchawkeye24
Member
For me it came down between Shonn Greene and Drew Tate. I chose Drew Tate. I just think his body of work over this decade couldn't be denied. He was our Chuck Long of this decade. He carried us while we were on our 6th RB (I lost count) and led us to victories over teams like LSU (bowl game), Ohio State (very convincing win at home), Penn State (on the road), etc. and just Drew's overall will to win.
6secondsofhell
Well-Known Member
Tough choice, but had to go with Drew.
If Greene would have been the starter for more than one year, I definitely would have voted for him.
I agree that QB is the toughest position on the field and some of the things Tate did (especially in 2004) were simply magical. He had better arm strength than given credit for and was very accurate most of the time. He did a good job reading defenses and had a never-say-die attitude.
He was extremely fun to watch.
If Greene would have been the starter for more than one year, I definitely would have voted for him.
I agree that QB is the toughest position on the field and some of the things Tate did (especially in 2004) were simply magical. He had better arm strength than given credit for and was very accurate most of the time. He did a good job reading defenses and had a never-say-die attitude.
He was extremely fun to watch.
6secondsofhell
Well-Known Member
Tough choice, but had to go with Drew.
If Greene would have been the starter for more than one year, I definitely would have voted for him.
I agree that QB is the toughest position on the field and some of the things Tate did (especially in 2004) were simply magical. He had better arm strength than given credit for and was very accurate most of the time. He did a good job reading defenses and had a never-say-die attitude.
He was extremely fun to watch.
If Greene would have been the starter for more than one year, I definitely would have voted for him.
I agree that QB is the toughest position on the field and some of the things Tate did (especially in 2004) were simply magical. He had better arm strength than given credit for and was very accurate most of the time. He did a good job reading defenses and had a never-say-die attitude.
He was extremely fun to watch.
D
DDThompson
Guest
1. Drew Tate for all the reasons mentioned. Plus, the guy loved winning and hated losing.
2. Gallery.
3 and 4. I dunno. Both Banks and Greene had unexpected years. I expected Greene to be good; I didn't expect him to be great and carry the offense. Banks was unbelievable. Period. However, they didn't have multi-year success to be counted as player of the decade.
Clark should definitely be on the list -- not Kaeding. C'mon people! The best Iowa player of one of the best decades of Iowa football is . . . a kicker . . . ? Man, other sites will have fun with that.
2. Gallery.
3 and 4. I dunno. Both Banks and Greene had unexpected years. I expected Greene to be good; I didn't expect him to be great and carry the offense. Banks was unbelievable. Period. However, they didn't have multi-year success to be counted as player of the decade.
Clark should definitely be on the list -- not Kaeding. C'mon people! The best Iowa player of one of the best decades of Iowa football is . . . a kicker . . . ? Man, other sites will have fun with that.
This is a tough question, because it puts two "one year wonder" type players up against three multi-year contributers. I think Banks was the best QB we had in the decade, but between him and Tate I would have to give the nod to Tate because he single-handedly carried the offense for a year and led us to a great season despite having less talented support than Banks and dealing with a multitude of injuries, and also having two other statistically solid years. Kaeding was great but its hard to give the nod to a kicker, even if he was the best we've ever had. Greene was amazing and arguably the most dominant player in the country for a season, but in the end I voted for Gallery. Not only was he a multi-year contributer, but unlike Tate he was dominant in every season he played in. He was the best player in the country at his position and I personally think that consistent excellence has to get the nod over one great season.
An interesting thought though... after the turnaround we had last season and what he meant to the team this year... couldn't another great season put Stanzi at the top of this debate? He was the QB during last year's amazing run and was the heart and soul of this year's offense and orchestrated a couple of the better comebacks in our recent history this year on our was to an Orange Bowl berth. If one great year and a BCS game was enough for Banks to make the list of finalists, wouldn't one more good year put Rick right in the same category? I know its all hypothetical, but I think its worth noting that even though he hasn't been the most consistent QB, he has a chance with one more good year to give us two BCS games and finish as the second winningest QB in Iowa history. I know next year isn't technically part of this decade, but he played the majority of his career in the 2000's and I think that if we have a good season next year, when people look back on this stretch ten years from now, its quite possible that the guy who could be remembered as the best player isn't even in the debate right now.
An interesting thought though... after the turnaround we had last season and what he meant to the team this year... couldn't another great season put Stanzi at the top of this debate? He was the QB during last year's amazing run and was the heart and soul of this year's offense and orchestrated a couple of the better comebacks in our recent history this year on our was to an Orange Bowl berth. If one great year and a BCS game was enough for Banks to make the list of finalists, wouldn't one more good year put Rick right in the same category? I know its all hypothetical, but I think its worth noting that even though he hasn't been the most consistent QB, he has a chance with one more good year to give us two BCS games and finish as the second winningest QB in Iowa history. I know next year isn't technically part of this decade, but he played the majority of his career in the 2000's and I think that if we have a good season next year, when people look back on this stretch ten years from now, its quite possible that the guy who could be remembered as the best player isn't even in the debate right now.
Herminator
Well-Known Member
Drew Tate....did more with less. Love all the players on the list, but Greene/Banks were essentially one and done. Gallery and Kaeding couldn't have done it without a great supporting cast.
Tate put the team on his back for a year and carried us to victories...and possibly the greatest play in Iowa Football history (The Catch)
Tate put the team on his back for a year and carried us to victories...and possibly the greatest play in Iowa Football history (The Catch)
hawkest1974
Well-Known Member
Had to go with Nate, because of all the close games he won for us when we trying to get the program back on track.
egami
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Gallery and Kaeding both actually could have and did. Kaeding being a Kicker really next to QB maybe has the most singular control over their legacy. You don't just replace kickers much like you don't just replace QB's. Kaeding was a dominant kicker.
Gallery is arguably one of the most dominant college LT's in B10 history. Jake Long at Michigan had an impressive resume. Gave up like 2 sacks and had like 2 penalties in 4 years at Michigan. But even as a Michigan fan I would have maybe taken Gallery over him just because of his play. As a college LT he was great...and it wasn't just because he was surrounded by good OL. He was a physical, powerful and dominant LT.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
Hard to be a 3 year starter when you're only at a school for two years. I'm going to go with Banks. I know he only had one season as the starter and had great talent on that team, but he was runner up for the Heisman, AP player of the year, and was the leader of the team that really put Kirk and the Hawks on the map.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
Yeah the Big 10 was horrible that season, it's not like the national champ came out of the conference or anything. Or that the conference had four teams in the top 15 in the final polls. Good point.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
what does his lack of an NFL career have to do with anything? When Tim Tebow doesnt play in the NFL should we just say because of that he wasnt a great player? And your comment about the Big 10 being bad that year is just unreal
busabus114
Well-Known Member
+ 1 million
Cyclones17
Well-Known Member
Did you guys play the National Champion that year? Oh you didn't? Ok. Michigan and Penn St had 7 losses between them. They weren't very good that year at all.
What has Banks done in the CFL? He barely plays. All I am saying is if he is as talented as Jon Miller says he is then he would be playing somewhere. He's not
Without Drew, that '04 teams gets 5 wins at best. If Kaeding, Banks or Gallery had been on that '04 team they still wouldn't have gotten past 7 wins. the difference Shonn would have made is more debatable. Also, I love Brad, but with a seasoned Drew on the '02 team, they would have been undefeated.
By the way, I fully admit to being a Drew homer, but I also think he earned it.
By the way, I fully admit to being a Drew homer, but I also think he earned it.
