Brad Rogers' health and tailback depth

[cmhawks99]

Brad Banks and Rick Stanzi might disagree with the "old wives tale" bit, but I was just saying I don't think that Rogers got the shot he earned at having more carries, especially considering his "superior" hands and blocking were cited by staff for his move to FB.

Brad Banks and Ricky are the poster children for that wives tale…..Ricky Stanzi as we later found out was a TO machine. It doesn’t take a very intelligent onlooker to see why the coaches were nervous about him. Brad Banks…..honestly if you are in the crowd that refuses to see the obvious opportunities the coaches gave him to cease that job then it would be fruitless to rehash with you here and now……

But let’s break this out in a logic train…….after 12 years times 24 starting spots times 12 or 13 games a year we have been able to nitpick what 2, 3, 4, 10 positions….seriously?!?! Ironically enuff in most of these cases (djk anyone) hindsight shows us it isn’t too difficult (if u aren’t wearing blinders) to look back and see the coaches clearly knew more than we did.

I’ll differ is my long winded point….

Chad

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I'm also not saying Rogers is better than Coker, but that Rogers hasn't seen enough action yet to sideline him. I've often felt that this staff has been historically quick to settle on a single starter at many positions historically, and having more younger backs rotating carries is better long term than going to a single player. (ie, I prefer how Wisconsin ran 3 backs all year last year to our running basically one <Robinson> and then having him get hurt and leaving us w/o a lot of experience)

This year will hopefully be different, but I see little downside in rotating 3-4 backs through early in the season to see how things shake out. The way we go through RBs, it would seem to be the safe way to go, and you'll only know how good a kid really is by seeing him perform under fire. I just think based on the ONLY game last year where Coker and Rogers saw carries against the same D, Rogers earned an equal shot to win the starter position, or at least the be the #2 off the bench.

I've often felt that fans tend to make sweeping statements about the Iowa coaches without really doing their homework.

'02: 2-headed monster - Russell and Lewis
'04: playing any healthy warm body available ... Brownlee, Simmons, Sims, Mickens
'05: Mostly Young with strong doses of Sims and Greene (when healthy)
'06: 2-man attack - Young and Sims + Greene (when healthy)
'07: 2-man attack - Young and Sims
'09: 2-man attack - Robinson and Wegher

I think that the precedent seems to point to a scenario where the coaches PREFER to rotate more guys at RB when our depth ALLOWS them! The problem is that guys need to prove that they're ready first! Furthermore, if a guy is going to receive more touches ... he's going to need to EARN them. As a terrific case in point ... Damian Sims really stepped up his game and made the most of every touch he got. As a result, he continued to snare more and more touches. It's only too bad that Iowa's OL wasn't better in '06 and '07 ... if we did, Young and Sims would have been able to put much more impressive numbers.

Lastly, back to the topic of Rogers ... we simply need him more at FB. FB is a very important position for the Hawks ... and, when healthy, Rogers proved that he was VERY good at the spot. His health issues are a pretty big blow to our O.

 

[PhoenixHawk]

I've often felt that fans tend to make sweeping statements about the Iowa coaches without really doing their homework.

'02: 2-headed monster - Russell and Lewis
'04: playing any healthy warm body available ... Brownlee, Simmons, Sims, Mickens
'05: Mostly Young with strong doses of Sims and Greene (when healthy)
'06: 2-man attack - Young and Sims + Greene (when healthy)
'07: 2-man attack - Young and Sims
'09: 2-man attack - Robinson and Wegher

I think that the precedent seems to point to a scenario where the coaches PREFER to rotate more guys at RB when our depth ALLOWS them! The problem is that guys need to prove that they're ready first! Furthermore, if a guy is going to receive more touches ... he's going to need to EARN them. As a terrific case in point ... Damian Sims really stepped up his game and made the most of every touch he got. As a result, he continued to snare more and more touches. It's only too bad that Iowa's OL wasn't better in '06 and '07 ... if we did, Young and Sims would have been able to put much more impressive numbers.

Lastly, back to the topic of Rogers ... we simply need him more at FB. FB is a very important position for the Hawks ... and, when healthy, Rogers proved that he was VERY good at the spot. His health issues are a pretty big blow to our O.

Ignorant post.

Very convient leaving '10 out of there, isn't it? We lose Hampton and Wegher early, and our coaches respond by giving Coker & Rogers a handful of carries in the early games. The only depth problems we had last year at RB was because our coaching brantrust created it! They could have kept running Coker and Rogers in rotation with Robinson all season. As you pointed out, they exclusively ran 2 freshmen in '09 and it didn't collapse our offense. And guess what, if they would have, Robinson would have been a lot less likely to get concussed running between the tackles against MSU in garbage time. That's a fine example of our coaching staff creating both the cause (not giving the 2 back-ups experience) and the result (getting your solid starter hurt) of lack of depth!

Talk about an ignorant post. "when our depth ALLOWS them" indeed! Don't you understand that our staff creates a lack of depth all the time? How come Vandy didn't get more reps last year in the 3-4 games that we had under control by the fourth quarter? If our coaches had played him some before the NU game in '09, we may still have won that one, even with Stanzi's injury, and he might have been more prepared to face OSU's blitzes the following week. Here's something for you to keep in mind: depth isn't something that magically appears, you only get it by giving additional players experience.

Lastly, on on the FB position. Now, somebody like Morse had a different skillset than someone like Robinson. But what I'm looking at is how Rogers skillset is so different from Coker that they're going to shuffle him to FB. They have the same size and speed and running ability. The coaches say that Rogers has better hands and blocking skills. All I'm I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that it makes sense in this case to automatically label one a TB and give give him 25 carries a game, and one a FB with maybe 1-2 carries and a throw his way. To me, I'd do away with the FB label, since all it really accomplishes is telling the D that the next play is 99% pass. Instead, I'd give my A back 16-20 carries, and my B back 6-10 carries, while keeping my B back in there for 70% of the obvious passing downs for his hands and blocking, which would keep the D guessing a lot more than they have in the pass. And all along I'd definitely try to give my #3 and #4 backs at least a few carries or a series a game, just to help out the staff with that pesky "depth" problem they keep creating.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Ignorant post.

Very convient leaving '10 out of there, isn't it? We lose Hampton and Wegher early, and our coaches respond by giving Coker & Rogers a handful of carries in the early games. The only depth problems we had last year at RB was because our coaching brantrust created it! They could have kept running Coker and Rogers in rotation with Robinson all season. As you pointed out, they exclusively ran 2 freshmen in '09 and it didn't collapse our offense. And guess what, if they would have, Robinson would have been a lot less likely to get concussed running between the tackles against MSU in garbage time. That's a fine example of our coaching staff creating both the cause (not giving the 2 back-ups experience) and the result (getting your solid starter hurt) of lack of depth!

Talk about an ignorant post. "when our depth ALLOWS them" indeed! Don't you understand that our staff creates a lack of depth all the time? How come Vandy didn't get more reps last year in the 3-4 games that we had under control by the fourth quarter? If our coaches had played him some before the NU game in '09, we may still have won that one, even with Stanzi's injury, and he might have been more prepared to face OSU's blitzes the following week. Here's something for you to keep in mind: depth isn't something that magically appears, you only get it by giving additional players experience.

Lastly, on on the FB position. Now, somebody like Morse had a different skillset than someone like Robinson. But what I'm looking at is how Rogers skillset is so different from Coker that they're going to shuffle him to FB. They have the same size and speed and running ability. The coaches say that Rogers has better hands and blocking skills. All I'm I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that it makes sense in this case to automatically label one a TB and give give him 25 carries a game, and one a FB with maybe 1-2 carries and a throw his way. To me, I'd do away with the FB label, since all it really accomplishes is telling the D that the next play is 99% pass. Instead, I'd give my A back 16-20 carries, and my B back 6-10 carries, while keeping my B back in there for 70% of the obvious passing downs for his hands and blocking, which would keep the D guessing a lot more than they have in the pass. And all along I'd definitely try to give my #3 and #4 backs at least a few carries or a series a game, just to help out the staff with that pesky "depth" problem they keep creating.

Good lord ... how old are you? Do you realize what the word "ignorant" means?

Here are a few quick counterpoints -

1. Because Leppert left Iowa, the Hawks needed depth at FB. Given the hits that Morse absorbed ... we needed another quality guys there.

2. While Iowa lost Wegher early in fall-camp and then Coker got hit with the clavicle injury ... overall depth at RB definitely appeared to be a little bit of a concern. However, having a duo like ARob and Hampton was still very promising.

3. Iowa didn't lose Hampton until he got injured in the Arizona game ... that was already effectively a QUARTER of the way through the season. Despite that, Iowa still quickly moved Rodgers to RB.

4. Iowa didn't have Wisky's '10 OL ... instead we had to deal with the fact that we returned only 2 starters ... and one of our more promising guys (Gettis) was injured early in the season. The point here being that Iowa definitely needed a RB in the backfield who could block ... because the OL was still in a stage in their development where they weren't going to be able to do it all on their own.

5. You quickly forget how GREAT ARob was playing. Furthermore, ARob could block! Who do you risk ... your star SR QB ... or your SO RB? You gotta pick your poison. Playing Rogers and/or Coker more early could have been a liability to the team.

6. At the same juncture where you're suggesting that Rogers should have been getting more reps at RB ... Morse goes down to injury and we end up needing Rogers to step up and START at FB for us. To the great credit of Rogers, he does an absolutely terrific job at FB.

7. Last and not least ... the coaches get to see how the RBs are progressing with great frequency. If Coker is ahead of Rogers at RB ... then I'm inclined to believe that he EARNED that distinction in practice. Fans often foolishly forget how important film from practice is when it comes to scoring out our players. If Rogers were to play more ... it would have implied that he score out higher. He didn't.

 

[RADMAN]

Good lord ... how old are you? Do you realize what the word "ignorant" means?

Here are a few quick counterpoints -

1. Because Leppert left Iowa, the Hawks needed depth at FB. Given the hits that Morse absorbed ... we needed another quality guys there.

2. While Iowa lost Wegher early in fall-camp and then Coker got hit with the clavicle injury ... overall depth at RB definitely appeared to be a little bit of a concern. However, having a duo like ARob and Hampton was still very promising.

3. Iowa didn't lose Hampton until he got injured in the Arizona game ... that was already effectively a QUARTER of the way through the season. Despite that, Iowa still quickly moved Rodgers to RB.

4. Iowa didn't have Wisky's '10 OL ... instead we had to deal with the fact that we returned only 2 starters ... and one of our more promising guys (Gettis) was injured early in the season. The point here being that Iowa definitely needed a RB in the backfield who could block ... because the OL was still in a stage in their development where they weren't going to be able to do it all on their own.

5. You quickly forget how GREAT ARob was playing. Furthermore, ARob could block! Who do you risk ... your star SR QB ... or your SO RB? You gotta pick your poison. Playing Rogers and/or Coker more early could have been a liability to the team.

6. At the same juncture where you're suggesting that Rogers should have been getting more reps at RB ... Morse goes down to injury and we end up needing Rogers to step up and START at FB for us. To the great credit of Rogers, he does an absolutely terrific job at FB.

7. Last and not least ... the coaches get to see how the RBs are progressing with great frequency. If Coker is ahead of Rogers at RB ... then I'm inclined to believe that he EARNED that distinction in practice. Fans often foolishly forget how important film from practice is when it comes to scoring out our players. If Rogers were to play more ... it would have implied that he score out higher. He didn't.

Thanks Homer, you rock. I always appreciate you knowledge and understanding of the game.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Ignorant post.

Very convient leaving '10 out of there, isn't it? We lose Hampton and Wegher early, and our coaches respond by giving Coker & Rogers a handful of carries in the early games. The only depth problems we had last year at RB was because our coaching brantrust created it! They could have kept running Coker and Rogers in rotation with Robinson all season. As you pointed out, they exclusively ran 2 freshmen in '09 and it didn't collapse our offense. And guess what, if they would have, Robinson would have been a lot less likely to get concussed running between the tackles against MSU in garbage time. That's a fine example of our coaching staff creating both the cause (not giving the 2 back-ups experience) and the result (getting your solid starter hurt) of lack of depth!

Talk about an ignorant post. "when our depth ALLOWS them" indeed! Don't you understand that our staff creates a lack of depth all the time? How come Vandy didn't get more reps last year in the 3-4 games that we had under control by the fourth quarter? If our coaches had played him some before the NU game in '09, we may still have won that one, even with Stanzi's injury, and he might have been more prepared to face OSU's blitzes the following week. Here's something for you to keep in mind: depth isn't something that magically appears, you only get it by giving additional players experience.

Lastly, on on the FB position. Now, somebody like Morse had a different skillset than someone like Robinson. But what I'm looking at is how Rogers skillset is so different from Coker that they're going to shuffle him to FB. They have the same size and speed and running ability. The coaches say that Rogers has better hands and blocking skills. All I'm I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that it makes sense in this case to automatically label one a TB and give give him 25 carries a game, and one a FB with maybe 1-2 carries and a throw his way. To me, I'd do away with the FB label, since all it really accomplishes is telling the D that the next play is 99% pass. Instead, I'd give my A back 16-20 carries, and my B back 6-10 carries, while keeping my B back in there for 70% of the obvious passing downs for his hands and blocking, which would keep the D guessing a lot more than they have in the pass. And all along I'd definitely try to give my #3 and #4 backs at least a few carries or a series a game, just to help out the staff with that pesky "depth" problem they keep creating.

Uh...Coker had a broken collarbone in camp last year. That hardly warrants lots of carries. If he goes down (again) early, no Coker...or Robinson...or Rogers...et. al....for the Insight Bowl.

And did you even WATCH the 2009 season? Exactly what early games would we have used JVB? Good God, we were down 10 to UNI in the second half. We didn't blow ANYbody out in 2009. And, as it is, QB is not exactly a position with which you conduct in-game experiments.

There was an ignorant post in this thread. It just wasn't Homer's...

 

[RocketHawk]

I always enjoy your analysis Homer. Kind of suprised to see someone trying to call you out.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Uh...Coker had a broken collarbone in camp last year. That hardly warrants lots of carries. If he goes down (again) early, no Coker...or Robinson...or Rogers...et. al....for the Insight Bowl.

And did you even WATCH the 2009 season? Exactly what early games would we have used JVB? Good God, we were down 10 to UNI in the second half. We didn't blow ANYbody out in 2009. And, as it is, QB is not exactly a position with which you conduct in-game experiments.

There was an ignorant post in this thread. It just wasn't Homer's...

There were a lot of close games in '10 too. And early in the season when we were blowing out a few teams, just as you pointed out, Coker was injured.

Of course, some might argue that we should have given Rogers more reps in the first few games ... however, those same folks must have forgotten that we needed to work Jewel Hampton back into form too.

Frankly, we gave Rogers quality reps as soon as we could ... which as against Ball State.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Talk about an ignorant post. "when our depth ALLOWS them" indeed! Don't you understand that our staff creates a lack of depth all the time? How come Vandy didn't get more reps last year in the 3-4 games that we had under control by the fourth quarter? If our coaches had played him some before the NU game in '09, we may still have won that one, even with Stanzi's injury, and he might have been more prepared to face OSU's blitzes the following week. Here's something for you to keep in mind: depth isn't something that magically appears, you only get it by giving additional players experience.

Why didn't Vandenberg play more early in the '10 season?

Here are a few reasons ....

- Iowa had, by and large, a very "new" OL. It was thus very useful and important for the O to get used to playing together as a unit. The more reps that they got together with Stanzi ... the better the O would likely execute. And, through the first two-thirds of the season ... that's exactly what we observed.

- Stanzi himself needed to take steps in his development. He needed to be able to see a lot of early tape so that he could make sure that he had implemented changes in his game that would ensure fewer turnovers.

- Iowa played too many close games in '09 ... and it was the goal of the '10 squad to place a little more emphasis on putting away opponents. Again, they were making progress to that end early in the season ... however, once injuries struck and the morale of the team went downhill ... obviously the team went backwards in that regard.