HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
I don't like this new short career trend.
Hock only played 2 Years
- Thread starter HawkleberryFinn
- Start date
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
No guffus it does not.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
I love having players that are good enough to leave early. I hope we recruit more players that win national awards and are potential top 10 picks. I don't see the downfall. Would it have been better if he had ridden the bench the last 3 years and then have been a great TE for his 4th and 5th years?
People used to (and still do?) complain about being a developmental program where different players are finally good enough to play after 2 or 3 years with the program. Hockenson played 2 years early in his eligibility instead of late, like those "developmental" players.
People used to (and still do?) complain about being a developmental program where different players are finally good enough to play after 2 or 3 years with the program. Hockenson played 2 years early in his eligibility instead of late, like those "developmental" players.
Fryowa
Administrator
Would you rather some other team gets those players who are good enough to leave after two years?
You’re looking a gift horse in the mouth. It’s the way of college football in the 2000s and it’s not changing, so Iowa better roll with it.
Being able to show tons of people getting drafted early and having success in the NFL is one of the biggest recruiting advantages there is. No matter what you might think it only helps Iowa’s program.
The lesson for Iowa is if a player comes in with potential NFL type measureables and baseline talent, they may as well get them on the field playing. No point in red-shirting those types of players anymore.
There just aren't going to be a lot of Jewel and Wadley type players anymore where you have a guy who has proven himself to be a very good/great college player prior to his SR year who actually ends up staying through his SR year.
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
Wrong again Frau. Iowa didn't utilize Hock til his sophomore year. That's one point. Another is the borader trend--players leaving early. This doesn't fit Iowa's build em up culture.
I think it'd be cool if players could get paid like pros in their junior and senior seasons. This would reduce the number of players skipping out.
Fryowa
Administrator
What the hell are you talking about? How did you get that from what I posted?
Iowa's "build em up culture?"
Is that why we've had 5 guys leave early in the past two years and 3 more who will go next year?
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
You are defending the Iowa program's player management--I'm pointing out that management is flawed. So you don't think Iowa has a build em up (developmental) culture/framework? They explicitly say this--it's no secret.
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
I think giving players pro contracts in their junior and senior seasons would be a great way to preserve college football. No more skipping bowl games.
It’s hurts short term, but having an early entry top 10 draft pick will pay off long term. Sign me up.
Fryowa
Administrator
You're not making any sense.
You say you don't like having players leaving early. Ok...
In the NCAA in 2019, the best players all leave early. No matter what team. It's not just an elite team trend, and it isn't just an Iowa trend. It's everywhere.
Iowa will likely have a 3 year stretch where we have 8 players so good they get snatched up by the pros, and you're bitching? That's fucking ridiculous.
When you no longer have players leaving early it means you're now a bottom feeder and you aren't keeping up with the Joneses.
You can say you don't like the idea overall, but to say it isn't good for the Hawkeyes is completely stupid. We have to stay as a "build em up" team (to use your term) for what reason? We can't have some of both and it has to be one or the other? Back to the drawing board.
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
Yes, but this trend hurts Iowa more because Iowa doesn't have as many elite players flowing in game-ready as other schools. We don't reload with a bucket full of blue chips. We expect our players to peak during their final years. The exodus of our best players hurts more because we don't have all the game-ready 4 and 5 star underclassmen waiting in the wings.
I agree there's no reason we need to market ourselves as a developmental team--as Ferentz has marketed Iowa over the years. Fry didn't pull the "ah shucks we're little ole Iowa" routine. But that's what we are at the moment, and as long as we are, my assessment is valid. Others have noted this--it's pretty obvious.
This is pretty accurate except for teams in the B1G West. Iowa is the only team in the West that is losing players early in large numbers.
HawkleberryFinn
Well-Known Member
Yes, we lose them at an exceptionally high rate for a school of our caliber...this is why it's going to be more difficult on Iowa.
I'd argue it's an indicator of improved recruiting. I and others contend that 2016 marks the beginning of an upward trend in Iowa's recruiting
Hock, Hooker, and Fant we're each a part of that class.
As long as we keep evaluating and recruiting at this level, we'll be okay.
Hock, Hooker, and Fant we're each a part of that class.
As long as we keep evaluating and recruiting at this level, we'll be okay.
I don't think it hurts us worse. It only hurts if the ones you had to build up just aren't panning out.
That has nothing to do with blue chips or stars.
I just read Nebraska just had another lb bail on them and I think he was a 4star who never saw any pt, even on special teams.
But it always hurts when kids just don't come along for whatever reason like you had hoped.
Last edited:
^^^^
This. You guys sound like politicians, as though it can only be one way or the other. I hate it from a nostalgic point of view, in that I love watching guys grow here and chase the record books. I love it from the standpoint of being something that looks good to recruits. We can embrace the trend and still be a developmental team because we are never going to bring in a top 5 recruiting class year after year and need to keep the developmental structure. At the same time, get guys on the field as soon as they're ready. This only hurts us if we don't keep it going. The pressure will be higher to win more consistently, which isn't a bad thing. But a bad year or two could kill us if it leads to players at that level not considering us.
homes
Well-Known Member
My guess is that Hockenson developed a lot faster than the coaches thought he would. That's not a bad thing, but if they had foreseen his development, he likely would have played as a true freshman. I also think that is why there are more freshmen playing now than 5-10 years ago. Get them out there now, because in 3 years, there is an increased chance they'll be gone. The 4 game rule is a good one for Iowa.
