HawkGold
Well-Known Member
That was below the belt...
KF Responds to Ed Cunningham Comments
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
That was below the belt...
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Strap on the pads. It's football season!
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
So how many other players get to make personnel decisions? Should we get rid of our coaches and put a trained monkey on the sideline dressed in a Hawkeye cheerleader outfit and let the players vote on who the starters will be and which players need to rotate in & out of the game?
CJB is an insane competitor and why we luv him. But the HC has an allegiance to the team first, and to the team's future second. Individual needs factor in way down the list. At some point in that blowout loss you have to play for the future.
And now for a 65 minute rant on Bearkiller in 2012 with a Juco AA; Prepstar AA plus 2 future NFL QBs sitting on the bench. This whole, "I have to obey the wishes of my QB even though I am the HC" nonsense has givin us the McCann/Banks controversy - the JC/Stanzi controversy - the Bearkiller controversy - the Rudock/CJB controversy. ENUFF! You're paid like a HC to make the tough calls Kirk, now MAKE THEM!!!!
Last edited:
As was engrained into my head as a child... Two wrongs or multiple wrongs don't make a right... I don't think KF maliciously does anything to intentionally hurt a kid either. Football isn't a game for pansies don't get me wrong. There's a fine line there to a point. But what went on with CJ most would say along with other examples you listed there as well was just too far over it.
The only time it's a jerk move is when you leave an injured player in because you care more about the win than you do about the player. That wasn't the case here. In fact, we probably had a slightly better chance to win with Stanley than we did with Beathard.
I was a little annoyed he left him in at the time because a coach should put winning over loyalty and in this case Kirk gave any small chance of winning away to be loyal to a player in his last game. I was over it the next day.
I was a little annoyed he left him in at the time because a coach should put winning over loyalty and in this case Kirk gave any small chance of winning away to be loyal to a player in his last game. I was over it the next day.
Did CJ get pulled when Penn State ran over us? I don't recall Stanley going into that one when the ending was not in question. Why did no one complain as loudly then?
guffus
Well-Known Member
Multiple issues are getting mixed up here
1) was there long term health issues that could have made CJ's hamstring injury worse by keeping CJ in the game?
2) could the fact that CJ could not run have exposed him to more potential hits and additional injuries?
3) why was CJ left in the game when it was obvious he was hurting Iowa's chances to score by remaining in the game.
4) why was CJ left in the game once it was obvious Iowa had no chance to win the game?
Not sure KF really addressed any of these questions but I guess KF does not really have to since these decisions did not screw up CJ or Iowa in the long run. No harm. No problem.
1) was there long term health issues that could have made CJ's hamstring injury worse by keeping CJ in the game?
2) could the fact that CJ could not run have exposed him to more potential hits and additional injuries?
3) why was CJ left in the game when it was obvious he was hurting Iowa's chances to score by remaining in the game.
4) why was CJ left in the game once it was obvious Iowa had no chance to win the game?
Not sure KF really addressed any of these questions but I guess KF does not really have to since these decisions did not screw up CJ or Iowa in the long run. No harm. No problem.
So how many other players get to make personnel decisions? Should we get rid of our coaches and put a trained monkey on the sideline dressed in a Hawkeye cheerleader outfit and let the players vote on who the starters will be and which players need to rotate in & out of the game?
CJB is an insane competitor and why we luv him. But the HC has an allegiance to the team first, and to the team's future second. Individual needs factor in way down the list. At some point in that blowout loss you have to play for the future.
And now for a 65 minute rant on Bearkiller in 2012 with a Juco AA; Prepstar AA plus 2 future NFL QBs sitting on the bench. This whole, "I have to obey the wishes of my QB even though I am the HC" nonsense has givin us the McCann/Banks controversy - the JC/Stanzi controversy - the Bearkiller controversy - the Rudock/CJB controversy. ENUFF! You're paid like a HC to make the tough calls Kirk, now MAKE THEM!!!!
I agree with most of this post. But to answer your question, a select few on every team get to make the decision, and CJ was one of the ones on that team that could.
As far as this thread goes, it's more about whether Kirk screwed up and left an injured player in too long because he risked further injury. It sounds like you (and me) think he screwed up because he chose to help one player over helping the whole team. That's kinda a different topic really.
In the context of this OP, I don't think Kirk was wrong. In the context of your post, I think he was.
Motigerhawk
Well-Known Member
I think I did.
KF needs to change his policy.
Why was Wadley in at the end of the Wyoming game?
There are plenty of guys that need to see game time. And we have opportunities to get them in.
I dont get it.
The Big LeHAWKski
Well-Known Member
Anyone who has ever played football at the HS level or beyond knows the diff between playing with pain and unable to play. Often a coach will jump in and help the player make the tough call to not go back in, but I never saw nor heard of any coach forcing a clearly injured player to get back in the game against the player's wishes.
Especially in today's world where everything is on video for the whole world to see and the hyper-sense of awareness these days towards concussions.
Especially in today's world where everything is on video for the whole world to see and the hyper-sense of awareness these days towards concussions.
homes
Well-Known Member
Issue conflation is not a barrier to internet discussion. Agree with your points.
Cunningham was projecting what could have happened, but didn't. It sounds like Kirk was dealing with the medical condition at hand, which did not present itself as further injury to that existing medical condition. The "what if" to CJB, i.e., his lack of mobility could have led to a different injury, did not appear to be addressed or fully contemplated (but that's conjecture on my part). I suppose in light of the Rhabdo incident, the UI Football program is more acutely aware of issues concerning the health of the players, and perhaps more prickly when someone questions their sensitivity to a player's health. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the staff that they were acting in good faith, and not believing they were putting CJB's future at risk.
In that sense, both have points to make. No harm, no foul, but maybe also a bit of the dodging of the bullet, too. From my expert seat, on my couch, it seemed like he should have come out, for no other reason than to give Stanley some more game experience in a game Iowa had no chance to win (but also because it appeared that CJB was moving with all the nimbleness of a tortoise in the middle of the desert in August).
Fryowa
Administrator
Babe, I thought we agreed not to do this in public???
And next you PM me pics make sure you finish the manscaping. I know those man boobs are hard to see under but you have a mirror.
-------He played the CYA, scapegoat card when he used "medically cleared" as a bullshit excuse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100% dead nutz on point
I am the first one to yell "rub some dirt on it" when someone gets hurt that I really want to see stay in the game....but last years game even made a pr*** like me say "this is PAINFUL to watch and VERY wrong!!!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100% dead nutz on point
I am the first one to yell "rub some dirt on it" when someone gets hurt that I really want to see stay in the game....but last years game even made a pr*** like me say "this is PAINFUL to watch and VERY wrong!!!"
mopkins
King Kong
So CJ Beathard was so badly hurt in that January bowl game that there's no way he could possibly have shined at the combine in March and had an NFL team trade up to take him in the 3rd round in April.
Right?
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
Well, uh, the point is that kirk left CJ in even after our assess were fully whipped and CJ was obviously injured. So, you know, there's that.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
Do you know who wasn't obviously injured, at a point in the game where we'd already been fully kicked in the teeth? Our backup qb's. They weren't injured.
mopkins
King Kong
Beathard was the starter. He earned the right to stay in if healthy. He coulda pulled himself out at any point.
Hell UCLA came back down 34 to Texas A&M on Saturday. Was Iowa going to do that? Of course not. But athletes aren't wired to just give up
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
And a coach can say "you're injured, and I don't want to risk you getting injured worse. Thank you for your dedication and I respect what you've done for our program. I want to give the young guys a chance in a bowl game so they can use this experience to help the team next season".
