Jon's 2014 comparison to 2001 Banks/McCann

ferentz4life

Well-Known Member
The last couple days Jon has said it doesn't make sense to rotate CJB and JR because unlike McCann/Banks, "they aren't different enough for a two QB system."

The conclusion not to rotate in 2014 is correct, but the analysis is wrong. 2001 Banks was indeed "different" than McCann, and by different I mean a lot better. Banks could run, but he also showed his passing ability when given his (limited) opportunities. Banks should have played much more-if not started-in 2001, and we may have won the Michigan game (and others) had he played the last couple series in that game.

If anyone disagrees with this, ask yourself this question: should there have been a QB rotation-or even a debate-in 2002 if McCann had another year of eligibility?

Who knows how 2002 would have finished if that happened, but I'm pretty confident we wouldn't have gone 8-0 in the B1G with a Heisman runner-up. After this year, I think history will also tell us that CJB should have been the starter from the beginning of this season. This year's small sample size tells us he at least deserved a shot in the second half of the ISU game.
 


Banks was also black, the majority of two QB systems feature a white and black QB. But yes both Banks and Rudock shouldn't have had to share time with the other QB's.
 


The last couple days Jon has said it doesn't make sense to rotate CJB and JR because unlike McCann/Banks, "they aren't different enough for a two QB system."

The conclusion not to rotate in 2014 is correct, but the analysis is wrong. 2001 Banks was indeed "different" than McCann, and by different I mean a lot better. Banks could run, but he also showed his passing ability when given his (limited) opportunities. Banks should have played much more-if not started-in 2001, and we may have won the Michigan game (and others) had he played the last couple series in that game.

If anyone disagrees with this, ask yourself this question: should there have been a QB rotation-or even a debate-in 2002 if McCann had another year of eligibility?

Who knows how 2002 would have finished if that happened, but I'm pretty confident we wouldn't have gone 8-0 in the B1G with a Heisman runner-up. After this year, I think history will also tell us that CJB should have been the starter from the beginning of this season. This year's small sample size tells us he at least deserved a shot in the second half of the ISU game.

Interesting point about what would've happened if McCann had another year of eligibility in 2002. The Ferentz we know would've started McCann. No doubt about it!
 


If McCann would have had another year of eligibility he would have almost no doubt been the starter in '02. We would have probably went 8-4ish.

If Banks would have started the last half or so of the '01 season we would have probably been rolling early the following year, went undefeated, and played Miami for a National Championship.
 


If McCann would have had another year of eligibility he would have almost no doubt been the starter in '02. We would have probably went 8-4ish.

If Banks would have started the last half or so of the '01 season we would have probably been rolling early the following year, went undefeated, and played Miami for a National Championship.

Disagree. They would have been 11-2. McCann would have beat ISU, but would have lost the Purdue game.
 


Banks was also black, the majority of two QB systems feature a white and black QB. But yes both Banks and Rudock shouldn't have had to share time with the other QB's.

ehh, Usually I am not a fan of the QB rotation, but it was needed Banks showed potential; however, he made enough mental errors that '01 season that you needed McCann around.
 




I strongly disagree.

Brah, I could have been the QB on that '02 team. Don't get me wrong, Banks was great, but other than that 44 yd. run against Purdue, McCann would have given you the exact same thing.
 


Brah, I could have been the QB on that '02 team. Don't get me wrong, Banks was great, but other than that 44 yd. run against Purdue, McCann would have given you the exact same thing.

Now you are just being silly.
 


Brah, I could have been the QB on that '02 team. Don't get me wrong, Banks was great, but other than that 44 yd. run against Purdue, McCann would have given you the exact same thing.

A big reason we were so good on offense was extraordinary qb play. We probably lose to Penn State and the last half of the season where we were killing everyone would have been close games. We would have found a way to lose a couple of them. If Banks would have been a starter with a half year of starting experience in '03,'04,'09, and maybe even '10, we would have had a great chance to go undefeated. I don't think you understand the difference between good qb play and great qb play.
 


Brah, I could have been the QB on that '02 team. Don't get me wrong, Banks was great, but other than that 44 yd. run against Purdue, McCann would have given you the exact same thing.


Sure. And McCann would have won the Heisman too, instead of just coming in second in the voting like Banks did.

*chortle*
 


It almost feels as though KF has a "s c r I p t" that he expects his qb's to follow. No adlibbing, allowed. If you adlib, you're making a mistake, you're being too risky. CJ didn't look like either of those. CJ looked like he'd been the qb the whole time. I'd be willing to bet that there is a part of KF that would have preferred CJ not throw that 3rd down pass while backpedalling. Rather, he would have preferred to throw it away and punt. That is what makes KF so conservative.
 
Last edited:


Brah, I could have been the QB on that '02 team. Don't get me wrong, Banks was great, but other than that 44 yd. run against Purdue, McCann would have given you the exact same thing.

This is just plain stupid....and is obviously being contrarian for contrarian's sake. However, you realize that one of the big reasons we were so successful on offense was because you couldn't just key on one thing with Banks. He could beat you with designed runs, scrambles, accuracy on short passes and threw a great, catchable deep ball. McCann could manage the game and had a good completion %...sound familiar?

This is why MSU has done so well with Cook while changing nothing else except the QB. It completely changes how the defense has to play and you can't just key on one thing. We have the potential to do the same thing if we make the right choice...which means we probably won't...
 


I got another interesting what if.

What if Jake Christensen would have stuck around for his senior season in 2009?

I say Iowa loses to indiana because Stanzi would have been pulled after throwing 5 interceptions.

But iowa would have beat NW and OSU. End result 11-1. Big Ten Champs. Rose Bowl.
 




A big reason we were so good on offense was extraordinary qb play. We probably lose to Penn State and the last half of the season where we were killing everyone would have been close games. We would have found a way to lose a couple of them. If Banks would have been a starter with a half year of starting experience in '03,'04,'09, and maybe even '10, we would have had a great chance to go undefeated. I don't think you understand the difference between good qb play and great qb play.

I understand.....Banks was good, but he wasn't that good.
 


Sure. And McCann would have won the Heisman too, instead of just coming in second in the voting like Banks did.

*chortle*

He wouldn't of finish 2nd in the heisman, but he was good enough for Iowa to go 11-2 in '02.
 


I got another interesting what if.

What if Jake Christensen would have stuck around for his senior season in 2009?

I say Iowa loses to indiana because Stanzi would have been pulled after throwing 5 interceptions.

But iowa would have beat NW and OSU. End result 11-1. Big Ten Champs. Rose Bowl.

I don't think Jc bests NW or OSU.

NW was a typical JC performance from JVB but with less sacks and dirt balls and OSU was one of Vandys 2 or 3 best games. Even though people want to bring up dropped ints, he threw some strikes for TDs that JC couldn't. Should have had one more but Terry Stross dropped it.
 
Last edited:


JC couldn't beat Western Michigan. No way he wins in the shoe. I also doubt Stanzi gets pulled after his int's but i might be wrong.
 


This is just plain stupid....and is obviously being contrarian for contrarian's sake. However, you realize that one of the big reasons we were so successful on offense was because you couldn't just key on one thing with Banks. He could beat you with designed runs, scrambles, accuracy on short passes and threw a great, catchable deep ball. McCann could manage the game and had a good completion %...sound familiar?

This is why MSU has done so well with Cook while changing nothing else except the QB. It completely changes how the defense has to play and you can't just key on one thing. We have the potential to do the same thing if we make the right choice...which means we probably won't...

'01 Team avg. 32 pts. a game with that qb rotation.

How difficult can it be throwing bubble screens to Jones, Hinkel and Brown? McCann spent his whole Iowa career throwing that bubble screen. PA waggle and a short pass to DC on a drag route and then watch him turn the corner on people. Not too difficult.

Long Ball? There was no long ball Clark,Brown,Hinkel and Jones had huge YAC yardage.

Fred Russell avg. 5 yds. a carry.

Best o-line in school history.

Banks completed 59.7% of his passes that year which is decent not great.
 




Top