When he was on the field he sure looked better tho. Some coaches would start a guy like that and live with the mental mistakes. Kirk isn't one of those coaches.
Is Stanley the future?
- Thread starter Mademyaccount4u
- Start date
When he was on the field he sure looked better tho. Some coaches would start a guy like that and live with the mental mistakes. Kirk isn't one of those coaches.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
Yeah and I agree with you. However, I know for a fact that I listened to a podcast that had a former play on (can't seem to remember who it was right now) who discussed this topic and he said it was obvious to everyone that Banks wasn't ready that year. Because of that I'm not sure it's fair to put it on Ferentz.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
This is just waaaay to funny. Hawks ICKE and PC, both expertsgoing at it. Where is Dean? Soooo many perfect experts.
I'm here, and I'm still an expert.
I say let bygones be bygones, I'm sure we will disagree in the future and we can have another "spat" about it then.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree that he was lost. I was crazy enough back then to chart the scores. Banks got about 1/3 of the snaps and the offense scored 2/3 of their points when he was in. For playing lost, he was pretty good. I got frustrated and started doing the charting, going back to the beginning. No way to know if he would have put those numbers up as a starter, but when he'd take off and leave the pocket...(I"m sure to KF's frustration).....
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
Agree with your insight. But disagree that McCann with playbook knowledge is better than Banks with playground knowledge. I guess what I'm saying is, Banks was a freak talent. Give him an entire game in 2001 where you just say, "Okay, play to the best of your ability." He might fock-up some play calls, but like Terrell Pryor, he could find a way to make plays. I still have nightmares about Pryor against Iowa with 4th and 10. I knew that focker would get a first down with his feet.
Banks natural instincts (and athletic ability) on the field could overcome whatever playbook deficiencies he had. Of course, when you combine playbook mastery with his talents you get 2002. JMO, obviously without a time machine and different coaching choices we'll never know the answer. Really this whole discussion goes back to a different thread where myself and PC and some others were talking about the downside of being too focused on risk aversion at the expense of rolling the dice with athletes possessing elite talent.
Last edited:
I've always said (this is just my opinion) kirk would rather have a kid who makes zero mistakes and zero big plays over a kid who makes one mistake and 5 big plays. There comes a point where a huge magority of people would pick the playmaker who makes some mistakes and I think the Banks situation falls in that catagory. If it's true that he scored twice the points in half the attempt then I feel even stronger about it. I think Kirk has a pretty good grasp on how much mistakes hurt the team but I think he struggles bad with his grasp on how much a playmaker helps the team. Again this is just my opinion. None of what I said is absolutes. (Man it sucks having to spend time typing out the obvious for one person to understand).
But if one lacks an understanding of a good chunk of the playbook, it is not just about big plays vs. mistakes. In order to play that person, the TEAM has to change what it wants to do in order to accommodate the INDIVIDUAL. If the individual has transcendent talent, perhaps it is competitively advantageous to modify what the team does to allow this person to be successful. Certainly some coaches take this approach. But it is possible that bending over backward for a player who doesn't have a full grasp of what is going on could damage the team ethos. Certain players could resent the implication that some get special treatment. In this case, you could certainly justify ONLY using such a talent with a scaled-back playbook under certain circumstances. Also, the more exposure opponents got to this player, the more they would realize the shallowness of the playbook with which he was working, and the more they would exploit him.
On the flip side, players can also resent what they perceive as a more talented player sitting on the bench. But every coaching staff has expectations that must be met in order for a player to earn playing time: it is likely easier to keep the team together by sticking to those expectations than it is by making exceptions.
On the flip side, players can also resent what they perceive as a more talented player sitting on the bench. But every coaching staff has expectations that must be met in order for a player to earn playing time: it is likely easier to keep the team together by sticking to those expectations than it is by making exceptions.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
It is true. What we don't know is how much inserting BB was difficult for defenses to adjust with. In essence, would he have had the same results if the defenses assumed he was the QB from the start. Sometimes I hate it when an opposing QB gets hurt as (my opinion) KF doesn't adjust for the new QB.....
That said, it is my opinion that Iowa would have been playing for #1 for 2 years in a row if BB had been QB all the way through. His scoring stats were staggering. What he did differently than similar QBs was to instinctually read openings. CJ has the same ability to read, but his skill set is completely different (Obvious). Under both QBs Iowa is a threat to score on almost ever play especially when Wadley is in with CJ. Would be nice to have a backup with the same mojo. I don't think that mojo ability is there behind him or we'd be hearing about it, like with CJ.
Good points CP and gold. The thing that gets me is from what I've heard is he got less play time towards the end of the year. Especially in the bowl game. Not sure if that's true but if it is it makes no sense. Someone who is only being held out because of playboy knowledge should have been getting more and more time as the year went on. By the end of the year he should have been pretty much the full time starter you would think.
Alts? Lol..^^^That's what paranoia looks like, lol. Me and my alts are out to get you!!! I know you're just teasing me, Josh ol buddy, so I take no offense, especially now that I realize you have some 'issues'...........
I have a problem when people assume that a player SHOULD have been starting a year earlier because they had great stats the next year. I have talked to numerous people who said Brad B was NOT ready to play his first year at Iowa and the only reason he was so good was he learned and improved the year he didn't start.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
I won't debate your points because of the subjectivity of this topic. I will say there are some coaches who would give a game to Banks and give a game to McCann and then use the results to make a determination. I believe (and I respect your differing view) that Banks would've proven he had more upside in the near term. I recall Fry was stuck with a tough choice in 1987. IIRC Poholsky - (super-recruit) McGwire - and Hartlieb were all vying for the starter position that year.
Someone on here needs to chime in on what happened?? I want to say each of them got a shot to be starter and then Fry made his call after seeing the results.
EDIT: I found this and thought it was a fun read ---
Q. What are some of the things you'll look for since you don't have that game experience to evaluate?
COACH FERENTZ: Who moves the team, who reacts under pressure, who is accurate throwing the football, and who has leadership capabilities? All of those kinds of things. There is a lot that goes into it. I think all three of the guys are eager to compete. I'll go back to 1987. Only thing I was sure at the end of spring practice that year was Hartlieb was not our starter. I was sure it was McGwire or Poholsky. And we had seen Poholsky as the player of the game in '86 against Michigan State. We saw him play well in Big Ten competition. That is ABC Chevy Player of the Game, back in the old days when ABC was the only thing that televised. Dating myself. And McGwire was the top guy out of California, and an eventual first round draft pick. And lo and behold, Chuck Hartlieb, the guy nobody knew about or cared about, ended up being our leader of the team and is still in the record books. That is the neat thing about all of this stuff. It is pretty interesting to see how it goes. If you had asked me in April, I would have said okay, I know who is third. I'm not sure who one and two are, I know who third is. So that is the fun part about all of this stuff. They had a good year that year too. That was '87, right? Yeah, Vlasic was '86 and '87. We did okay.
http://www.hawkeyesports.com/news/2...ress_Conference_Transcript.aspx?path=football
Last edited:
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
You certainly have a right to disagree. I don't know there is anything you can do about someone having a different "opinion" than yours. I consider message boards a place where people can debate their differing opinions.
BTW, I personally am not using 2002 exclusively to justify my logic. I think Banks was a better football athlete, with more football upside than McCann his entire life. Not just in 2001.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
You nailed it!!!!!!!!!!!! Kirk saw him studying Playboy one day when he should've been studying the playbook. Doghouse young man.
You nailed it!!!!!!!!!!!! Kirk saw him studying Playboy one day when he should've been studying the playbook. Doghouse young man.
Ha my subconscious knows what it wants!
I didn't use 02 to think he should have started. I thought he was better during 01. I was pissed when he ran out of bounds short of the marker against Michigan because I knew he was done playing and we were going to be a worse team because of it.
BigD
Well-Known Member
Thanks Rob for the information.
I agree that other coaches have certainly done things differently, and to positive effect in some cases. I am just throwing the idea out that there can be considerations of team chemistry in addition to considerations of individual abilities. And this really gets down to the idea of core coaching philosophies. Perhaps if Coach Ferentz had a different core philosophy with regards to how you earn your way onto the field, certain athletes would have been more successful at Iowa than they were. It is also possible that if he had a different philosophy in this regard that he never would have developed ANY team with the type of cohesion necessary to accomplish great things (e.g. win a conference championship, finish top 10 nationally, etc.). There is no way to know for sure how this philosophy has influenced Iowa over the years (positively or negatively), but from observation it sure seems like it is something he feels strongly about and has stood by.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
You got me good! But what you didn't know is I got a picture of you at Kids day!A gal from your sorority called and left a message for you vvvvvvvvvvvvv
