Is Stanley the future?
- Thread starter Mademyaccount4u
- Start date
I have a 'different' understanding of you now, PC...
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
If you weren't getting paid by the gov't would you waste other people's time as much as you do now?
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/s...tching-government-employees-who-cant-be-fired
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/s...tching-government-employees-who-cant-be-fired
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Totally disagree. KF and every football coach knows there isn't any such thing as a player who makes ZERO mistakes. KF chooses the player who gives them the best shot at winning that day, that week, that season. He doesn't penalize a kid who is better than another, because he just thinks that in some point in the future that player will pass the current starter.
If what you say is the case, please cite the examples of KF playing the guys who make "zero mistakes" over the playmakers. I mean if this is a conclusion that you have determined, I can only assume that you have multiple examples of this going on each and every year for the past 17 years.
I said he would rather. As in if he had a choice between the two he would pick the one who made zero mistakes. And every coach has a different opinion on what gives them the best chance to win. Kirk would obviously be choicing the one "he thought" gave him the best chance so of course he wouldn't be "penalizing" a kid.
For you to post what you just did means you think every coach would always choose the same kid when evaluating two players. Not every decision is black and white. If one coach would choose one player and another coach would choose the other player, most times neither would necessarily be wrong. I think Kirk is at the extreme end when it comes to choosing between play making ability and the player who is less likely to make mistakes. Because he is at the extreme end, there are times he's straight up wrong. While watching 2001 play out, it sure looked like that was one of those times. All my opinion of course. No absolutes here.
A couple weeks ago, a poster got on you for saying "never" when you clearly meant almost never. You responded by saying don't take things so literally. That's just what you did with my post. I clearly through out random numbers to make a point and you focused on the number zero. My point is he would give up a lot of big plays if it meant limiting a few mistakes. All my opinion.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
No absolutes. One would think though that when you say that he would rather have the player who makes less mistakes, over a playmaker that you should have a considerable number of examples of this over a 17 year coaching career. That is all. I think I might have touched a nerve, because your examples are Brad Banks, Stanzi, and CJ. I mean because you disagree with 3 of KF starter selections over 17 years, you think you can brand him like that?
I guess I think it is much more complicated than you do. The coaches get a million more pieces of data on a player than you do. You have no clue how hard they are working in the offseason, in the classroom, on the practice field, in the weight room, and in the film room. To assume that you can quantify all of these things without ever seeing any of that data is a bit presumptuous isn't it? I mean this is coming from a guy who was banging the drum for CJ since the Purdue game in '14. Yet I realize I don't get to see all the other things, and if I got all those other pieces of data, I might have made the exact same decision that KF was making.
That was a very well thought out and rational assertion...to us that are rational. The 'cretin' club on here will never understand...
I fully admit I'm talking like a fan. But in the 3 examples you gave, fans got to watch all 3 duels play out on the field and to me there was a night and day difference in all 3. Coincidentally (I don't really think it's a coincidence at all) in all 3 examples, the team got signifantly better after the switch was made.
I get that there is a saying that the backup qb is always the best player, but those 3 years were different. They were an entire fan base (not literally ) screaming like crazy over what they saw as obvious.
There is another saying. Sometimes you can be too close to the situation to see clearly. Maybe that applies here. Maybe it's not risk aversion that causes it. Maybe he's overly loyal. Maybe he is a strong believer that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Whatever it is, the team was worse off in 01, 08, and 14 because of his decisions. All in my opinion.
That was a very well thought out and rational assertion...to us that are rational. The 'cretin' club on here will never understand...
I agree it was well thought out and rational. But I believe mine was too. That's because my head isn't so far up my ass that my side is the only side I can see. I agree with my side more, but Dean's side makes sense too.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I knew this is more how you think about the situation, you just needed me to talk you back from the ledge of saying KF keeps the better players on the bench.
I will say that I don't agree that playing Banks in '01 leads to any more wins. That team was a year away. Same with '14, while I do think CJ should have been starting, I'm not convinced he was gonna beat Nebraska (special teams lost that game) or Wisconsin (Gordon won that game), and no QB was changing what Minny did to us. We did see that CJ wasn't going to be the difference in beating Tennessee as well. So while I think CJ should have started, Jake wasn't the crux of the problem in our losses.
Obviously it proved out that Iowa was much better in '08 with Stanzi than with Jake. Yet that was remedied after 3 games, so we might win 1 extra game. I guess the shorter answer is I don't know how many extra actual wins come from a different QB in '01, '14, and 3 games of '08.....but my guess is 1 or 2, hardly a decision that cost us some magical season.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
More commonly known as:
He can't see the forest for the trees.
KF is groovy cuz he knows he's not perfect. He would probably laugh at those on here who keep putting forth that narrative.
Last edited:
I knew this is more how you think about the situation, you just needed me to talk you back from the ledge of saying KF keeps the better players on the bench.
I will say that I don't agree that playing Banks in '01 leads to any more wins. That team was a year away. Same with '14, while I do think CJ should have been starting, I'm not convinced he was gonna beat Nebraska (special teams lost that game) or Wisconsin (Gordon won that game), and no QB was changing what Minny did to us. We did see that CJ wasn't going to be the difference in beating Tennessee as well. So while I think CJ should have started, Jake wasn't the crux of the problem in our losses.
Obviously it proved out that Iowa was much better in '08 with Stanzi than with Jake. Yet that was remedied after 3 games, so we might win 1 extra game. I guess the shorter answer is I don't know how many extra actual wins come from a different QB in '01, '14, and 3 games of '08.....but my guess is 1 or 2, hardly a decision that cost us some magical season.
Hey I never said Kirk keeps the best players on the bench. I said he's a little off on how he comes to the conclusion of who the best player is.
I completely disagree on 14 tho. We could have beat Nebraska despite Rudock constantly missing plays if we handled special teams better. But we also could have won despite special teams if our qb made some plays that were there for the taking. I fully think Beathard could have made some of those plays. Do you remember all the wide open receivers down field that Jake either didn't see or missed on? We needed one of those plays to win despite special teams.
In 14 against ISU, the game played out like it normally does against them, way too close for comfort. We ended up losing that game. The next year, the exact same game was playing out but our qb made plays and pulled out the game. Against Pitt, if Jake was our qb we could have said a blocked punt and the defense giving up a 4th and forever cost us the game. And it would have been true. But instead, our qb made plays and prevented our special teams and defense from being the reason we lost the game.
This is all my opinion and I'm fully aware there is no way to know for sure. For all we know, if CJ would have been named the starter in 14, he could have had a season ending injury on his first play. But minus injuries and flukey plays that could also happen, Banks in 01, Stanzi in early 08, and CJ in 14 would have given us a better chance to win each game.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
IMO in each of the time frames you mentioned Iowa gets at least one extra win with a change at QB. 8 - 10 - 8 sounds better than 7 - 9 - 7
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Tough to say a player is worth with X or Y number of wins as everything is different if they played. I mean if you would have told me we lose Drew Ott for the season last year I would have told you we lose 3 or 4 games. You just never know.
At least the time for If's and But's are nearly behind us, because we will have football to talk about in just a little over 2 weeks!
Not to nit pick here but what's the difference? I'm not so sure you can say the 2nd half of that and not have the first part be true. I understand you may not have said it but certainly it's the same thing is it not?
As far as Nebraska game goes in 14 I couldn't agree with you more. That game had multiple things that coulda shoulda happened to prevent OT. Coaches had to be pulling their hair out after that game.
I was quoting someone who was saying I thought kirk purposely kept the best players off the field. I highly doubt that's the case. He just ha's a warped vision of who the best players are in my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of D1 coaches who would agree with him and plenty of them that would agree with me. From the sounds of it, both O'Keeffe and Davis have disagreed with Kirk on who the best qb was so it's not like my thoughts are crazy.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
People have different opinions. Experts argue all the time. Football coaching isn't any different even when they have boatloads of evidence/information in front of them to sort through.
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said by everyone. I think the main point here is that Kirk has always started the guy whom he truly believed gave the team the best chance at winning. He didn't choose a guy because he's more conservative. He didn't choose a guy because he's safe. He made his decisions based upon his belief in who gave the team the best chance to win. A lot of factors go into that decision. Not just one or two things, and I'm sure there have been times when his staff disagreed with him. He's the head honcho though. He gets paid the big bucks to make the final decision, and he accepts the responsibility of that. In fact, I think it kills him a little bit inside when he hears how much flak his offensive coordinators have had to take.
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said by everyone. I think the main point here is that Kirk has always started the guy whom he truly believed gave the team the best chance at winning. He didn't choose a guy because he's more conservative. He didn't choose a guy because he's safe. He made his decisions based upon his belief in who gave the team the best chance to win. A lot of factors go into that decision. Not just one or two things, and I'm sure there have been times when his staff disagreed with him. He's the head honcho though. He gets paid the big bucks to make the final decision, and he accepts the responsibility of that. In fact, I think it kills him a little bit inside when he hears how much flak his offensive coordinators have had to take.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Just when I reel you in from the edge of the cliff, you go and take a flying leap over the edge anyway.
You do get that saying he has a "warped vision of who the best players are" is insanely condescending, right? My issue isn't that you disagree with KF on these 3 players, but I mean you have literally given 3 examples over an 17 year career for KF that you disagree with. Yet because of those 3 difference you have, you label him as having a "warped vision of who the best players are"? You are in essence saying you agree with 99% of his player choices, but these 3 examples makes his vision warped???
Warped as in he clearly hates mistakes. There is no denying that. He is extreme in that way. There are coaches out there that are way more "ok" with mistakes as long as production makes up for it. Do you really not agree with that?
I could write a book about personnel choices I didn't like at the time and using hindsight it looked like I was right. Clearly I wouldn't be right on all of them but seeing him get what I see as obvious choices wrong, and seeing his personality traits over 17 years, I've grown accustomed to assuming he will pick the safe (or known) player even if the talent gap is really wide.
After McCall was healthy, he ran Coker into the ground because he in his own words "couldn't find the right time to get him in". More proof that he is afraid to make a switch even if he knows it's a good idea too.
As far as the 3 examples go, of course it's mostly going to be a qb in that situation. That is the only position where only one player plays. 3 really bad (in my opinion) qb choices in 17 years is not a good resume for picking the best player. Especially since over that time there hasn't been many tough choices there.
