Is there another Weisman sitting down right now?

[SpiderRico]

Fire Kirk I want a true leader that knows how to make tough decisions. And has "gamer" salesmen

You show me where I said to "Fire Kirk" in this thread. If you can find it, great. If not, the stfu. If you have something to add regarding the performance of the starters and whether there might be some Weisman stories sitting on the bench, then great. If not, then do us all a favor and go sit at the little boys table.

 

[JonDMiller]

You're absolutely right Jon. No arguments from me there.

On the other hand, as you have pointed out, Kirk essentially has a lifetime contract and the administration certainly isn't going to pay $35M to buy him out plus buy a new one. So why stay with the same starters and personnel that got beat by the 116th ranked team in the country? How are you building for the long haul by not giving backups any meaningful minutes? JM: I agree...and given his position of strength, if the backups were close, at some point play em and don't worry about W's this year because you are teflon. I would contend they are no where near ready, based on this fact. Supposedly they are our future starters. How do you think the 2002 offensive line got so good? Because they got their a$$es kicked for 3 years. Sometimes you just have to admit that this year ain't your year and start building for the future. He doesn't owe the seniors anything. If they aren't good enough to beat CMU, that's a them problem. They got 4 years of free college.

 

[hawkfarmer]

Of course they can. Stanzi made huge leaps after his third year in the program.

Sokol will only have 1 year in, and Rudock will have 3. You say they can make the strides and I know they can, but what if their strides are only that equal to Vandy quality right now? That's what scares me. As an Iowa fan, we haven't seen much development after year 1 as a starter, so if Rudock reached Vandy status and doesn't improve are we in for 3 more years of the same ole same ole?

 

[JonDMiller]

What the hell are the repercussions to the coaching staff?

Oh, I think the last three days on these boards is a good indicator.

 

[SpiderRico]

If that's the case, Jon, and the backups are so far back that the starters that got beat by 116th ranked CMU are the only chance we have, what does that say about our developmental program now and who is responsible for that? How can a program with 14 years under this coach plus a combined 33 years under 2 coaches be at this point? Unfortunately, the only man that should have to answer for that and feel the repercusions for his mismanagment of the program has a 10 year extension worth $20M.

We might be in worse trouble than I thought.

 

[hawkfan33]

Jon's in full spin mode right now, nothing to see here folks! Everything is fine!

 

[hawkfarmer]

Jon, next year when Iowa needs a starting QB, Sokol will have only been in the system for 1 year. When he starts his 3rd year in the system, and his final year, Rudock will be a junior and going into his 4th year in the system. presumably with Rudock will be more ready and polished and will start. However, my point was that unless they make leaps and bounds we will be in the same position next year.

 

[latrans]

If anyone wants to troll Miller now would probably be a good time.

 

[1hawkeye1]

I would imagine every team in the nation has someone sitting on the bench who performs better in games than practice. Unfortunately, there aren't enough snaps for them all to get on the field to see what they can do.
Therefore, coaches must go by what is seen in practice.

 

[SpiderRico]

I would imagine every team in the nation has someone sitting on the bench who performs better in games than practice. Unfortunately, there aren't enough snaps for them all to get on the field to see what they can do.
Therefore, coaches must go by what is seen in practice.

So the fact that we've sucked when it matters, has no bearing on possibly re-evaluating the starters or the allocated minutes? Because from where I sit, whatever they're doing in practice ain't translating into gametime success.

 

[Igothawked]

I understand it's great in theory, and that's all I have to go off of with them. However, as I said to Jon earlier, I have cold, hard data on the starters and what they're contributing and, frankly, that data blows. So you take Alvis out on 3rd downs as it's still apparent he's dealing with a bum knee and you put Spears in for a few obvious passing plays....what does that hurt? If he doesn't get to the QB, no biggie, Alvis hasn't either. Or you put Law in there and a WR/TE is open down the seam....no biggie, Donnatel has been doing that all year.

In all the years I've followed college football, I've never run across a staff that was as unwilling to play backups for meaningful snaps as this one. And people wonder why our wins run in cycles....it's because we end up playing guys until they drop dead (see 2010) and then have nothing behind them experience-wise when they graduate.

I haven't advocated anywhere in my posts for guys to take starting jobs.....what I am advocating for is getting others some reps.

This I agree with. I don't understand why they don't do this. I like the idea of trying to get some speed on the edge in passing situations. If you notice nearly NFL team does this on 3rd and long plays. I don't see what it can hurt. I mean for the most part you are talking about players who are seeing the field on special teams. It seems like a waste to me to play a guy for a year on special teams but give him no actual snaps especially when he is a guy you will be relying on in the future.
The backup QB issue is a little different deal. At this point I think you have to stick with Vandy until they start 0-2 or 0-3 in the B1G. At that point, some sort of move has to be attempted. It doesn't mean start Ruddock or Sokol, but they have to get snaps if for nothing other than the future.

 

[bighawkeyedaddy]

Oh, I think the last three days on these boards is a good indicator.

LOL, some guys on a message board get mad at him?

The losses aren't all on the QB, but he makes 1 play in either of those games they win, and they are easy plays that have to be made by a 5th senior QB. On the 4th down play, my 13 year old son who is an 8th grade QB new the blitz was going and that KMM would be wide open. We didn't even look to that side of the field. If that is a play call where he has no option and has to throw to one receiver, then our coaches really have no confidence at all in his ability to read a defense.

On the roll out that Davis came back and made a great catch on, he had 2 other targets on that same side of the field wide open at different layers and just locked on. I don't see that being an issue that is going to magically fix itself in the next 8 games if it hasn't been fixed the last 4+ years. If we are struggling to move the ball Saturday and JVB has the tunnel vision and poor performance again, we will get to see how the coaches handle a stadium of 70k booing them.

 

[homes]

Do you realize how easy it is for you to say that, since there are no repercussions on you if it gets much worse and significantly limits the team's chance to win? This isn't EA Sports XBox Dynasty mode.

I am assuming most people don't want this to happen, but if the Hawks lose the next 3 or 4, Rudock (or Sokol whoever is next in line) should get some time on the field. It only makes long term sense. At that point, I think the repercussions in doing this would be no worse than staying with JVB. Not that either is better than JVB, but they need some live bullets flying at them before either one is designated to take over the reigns full time next year. I'd prefer the Hawks turn it around and make a run at the title, and we'll collectively worry about next year, next year. But, if that doesn't happen, while it may not be ideal, it could be their reality, so I'd think they'd be prepared to embrace that contingency if it unfolds.

 

[BSpringsteen]

I am going to say this right now...

If the drop off between JVB and Ruddock is that big, we are in HUGE trouble next year.

If JVB is that much better than the next guy, than the next guy will be the worst QB in the B1G, because we probably have that now.

 

[AHawk1]

Why wonder. All's I've ever read is that this staff knows how to evaluate talent. Whar that guy come from. Who was that guy out there today.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Every, single guy who we've had at RB this season has had success. I don't think Weisman is that talented.

 

[CAARHawk]

Jon, next year when Iowa needs a starting QB, Sokol will have only been in the system for 1 year. When he starts his 3rd year in the system, and his final year, Rudock will be a junior and going into his 4th year in the system. presumably with Rudock will be more ready and polished and will start. However, my point was that unless they make leaps and bounds we will be in the same position next year.

Beathard is going to pull a Stanzi and pass them both. However, it might not happen until mid-season.

 

[WhitUp]

So the fact that we've sucked when it matters, has no bearing on possibly re-evaluating the starters or the allocated minutes? Because from where I sit, whatever they're doing in practice ain't translating into gametime success.

Didn't Weisman drop the go ahead td pass against Iowa State? Isn't that sucking when it matters? But instead of benching him he took a look at him at RB. I mean Weisman was a walk on sophomore that nobody else wanted. He started him at FB the first game in a hawkeye uniform and then switched to RB where he's excelling. Your response is what other Weisman are there sitting on the bench. Giving KF no credit what so ever and he never even sat him on the bench.

Do you seriously want to flush the season before the big ten even starts? Vandy best QB on the team, and benching him in game 3 of the season is the wrong move period. As far as some of the other young guys, how do you know Nico or Spears or whoever you think is so good isn't going to play more Saturday. This play young guys argument is for week 9 when we are 3-6 or whatever. KF and everyone on this team don't believe the season is over like most of the fans do. They still believe they can compete in the big ten. And I fully expect KF to play the best players(as he sees it) till at least a bowl game is out of the question as he should.

 

[WhitUp]

Every, single guy who we've had at RB this season has had success. I don't think Weisman is that talented.

I agree somewhat with this, there was some big holes last week and some of the outside runs nobody even touched him. Bullock would of broke for 70 yard TDs rather then 15 and be caught from behind like Weisman did. That being said Weisman should be starter and get majority of the carries.

 

[BSpringsteen]

Every, single guy who we've had at RB this season has had success. I don't think Weisman is that talented.

Except for Canzeri who rushed for a whopping 2.5 YPC last year in the bowl game, and incidently, the one player everyone is orgasming over.