Question For Ferentz Haters

[Sparky]

There are certainly issues with continually trying to run MW East & West, but you completely lost all credibility with that comment.

I recommend on Saturday that you turn the game on and watch him closely. He spends a lot of time running into the back of his lineman and then falling down.

 

[FranklinHawk]

I recommend on Saturday that you turn the game on and watch him closely. He spends a lot of time running into the back of his lineman and then falling down.

Your perspective (which seems to generally be negative where this team is concerned anyway). You could probably find 30 .gif's out there of Weisman running through/over/carrying defenders after initial contact, find me 5 for any other RB on this team.

He has his faults and I think a healthy Canzeri and hopefully Daniels at some point are good/better options, but you saying he "is as bad" going down on first contact as any other back on this team is nothing but hating on MW.

 

[Sparky]

Your perspective (which seems to generally be negative where this team is concerned anyway). You could probably find 30 .gif's out there of Weisman running through/over/carrying defenders after initial contact, find me 5 for any other RB on this team.

He has his faults and I think a healthy Canzeri and hopefully Daniels at some point are good/better options, but you saying he "is as bad" going down on first contact as any other back on this team is nothing but hating on MW.

I haven't seen a whole lot of reasons to be positive so far this year except for CJ on Saturday. You must be watching a different team that I've been watching.

 

[FranklinHawk]

I haven't seen a whole lot of reasons to be positive so far this year except for CJ on Saturday. You must be watching a different team that I've been watching.

Watching the same team, but obviously with a different filter than you are. You didn't see anything positive other than CJ on Saturday? In addition to CJB playing very well (which he absolutely did), I saw:

• Going deep more often to stretch the field (yes, even in the first half)
• More I formation and running between the tackles
• More play action than I've seen yet this year
• Excellent defensive adjustments at the half to slow down Pitt's running game
• Absolutely stellar CB play on Pitt's last series to seal the deal

Nope, you just saw CJB......... Or are you one of those that thinks CJB was responsible for all of the above?

 

[Sparky]

Watching the same team, but obviously with a different filter than you are. You didn't see anything positive other than CJ on Saturday? In addition to CJB playing very well (which he absolutely did), I saw:

• Going deep more often to stretch the field (yes, even in the first half)
• More I formation and running between the tackles
• More play action than I've seen yet this year
• Excellent defensive adjustments at the half to slow down Pitt's running game
• Absolutely stellar CB play on Pitt's last series to seal the deal

Nope, you just saw CJB......... Or are you one of those that thinks CJB was responsible for all of the above?

Reading. Comprehension.

I didn't say CJ was the only positive. I said I haven't seen a whole lot of positives. A whole lot means "many". So, if I use many instead of a whole lot it says this. I haven't seen many positives. This still means I've seen positives, just not many of them.

Next time you need a first grade refresher send me a message.

 

[FranklinHawk]

Reading. Comprehension.

I didn't say CJ was the only positive. I said I haven't seen a whole lot of positives. A whole lot means "many". So, if I use many instead of a whole lot it says this. I haven't seen many positives. This still means I've seen positives, just not many of them.

Next time you need a first grade refresher send me a message.

How many is "many"? I listed 5 others and didn't include a nice 52 yard FG from a kicker that had been struggling... Is 6 enough, or are you shooting for double digits.

I get it, you're mad.............and never wrong.

 

[Sparky]

How many is "many"? I listed 5 others and didn't include a nice 52 yard FG from a kicker that had been struggling... Is 6 enough, or are you shooting for double digits.

I get it, you're mad.............and never wrong.

What is there to be mad about? I'm on a message board with a bunch of people I'll never meet and that don't really matter outside of here.

I get that you're impressed with the second half Saturday and Those are good things you listed, but hardly enough to change my opinion that this team has a long way to go.

 

[Knight78]

First, your question is irrelevant because JR wasn't involved in the 2nd half so CJB gets the credit. If you listened to Jon's reaction after the game he nailed it...I mean nailed it. JR just doesn't run the offense with the same pace and he doesn't throw a good deep ball despite the 1 BALL he threw that Powell should've caught. No I think the way our D has played so far this year it is unlikely that regardless of QB we would not have gotten blown out.

Adjustments? Minor ones and very little on offense we ran the same plays we were running in the first half. CJB just made some really good plays I"m not sure Jake makes...fact plain and simple.

While the coaches get paid WHY they ran the ball on 3rd and 9 setting up the 52 yd FG was a stupid play and you don't need to pay me to know that. How many yds did we get on that play 00000000. Similar to the Bullock draw last week when we had 3rd and 7. While I don't know all the X's and O's like the coaches do I know the smell of crap when I smell it.

So it wasn't Jake that threw the 44 yd completion to VandeBerg? OK....

And the biggest adjustment may have been the fact that Lomax could not play in the first half? Losing a starter in a young secondary is huge, especially one who can hit like Lomax.

 

[Hawkcrush]

First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.

Well, for the Ferentz lovers here is a rebute. Of course they made adjustments. 1. Don't let the other team score so much. 2. Score more points. You can deduce why we scored more points, however the offensive game plan looked pretty much the same. We just made some more plays.

 

[LutherHawk]

Dude, I was playing sports while you were still crapping your diapers. Okay, correction, I wasn't playing sports last month.

YES, I played sports. NO, I don't want fickle players who "favor" one teammate over another. This isn't the NBA, sport.

If you REALLY believe it created "extra pep", you, by extension, players SHOULD take a play or two off if they don't like who else is on the field or what play is called.

Seriously?

Sir,
I played sports all my life, including 5 years of collegiate football at a big boy level. There are certain players that have an intensity factor when they hit the field that elevates the play of those around them. If you are unaware of this phenomenon, I can't help you. And clearly, you were not one of those players. We actually have a word for this in the English vernacular - 'Charisma'. It's a real thing. It's not like Sasquatch, the Lochness Monster, or vampires. Charisma exists and in sports it can elevate players and a team. In fact, it can even elevate the play of the other team. I played with guys like this. Their mere presence on the field elevates everyone. Bob Sanders had it. Stanzi had it. Roth had it.
Additionally, the players are not 'favoring' one player over another. I am sure that JR is a swell guy who treats his teammates with respect. And they probably respect him. But players know who is better and who can best help the team win. It showed on Saturday and it has showed with CJB at other times.
I would ask this: don't we WANT the QB to be the type of guy that can inspire and create more intensity for the team? Don't we WANT him to be a dynamic, game-changing leader? Why fight it, if the potential exists to have a transcendant game day QB.

 

[PCHawk]

Sir,
I played sports all my life, including 5 years of collegiate football at a big boy level. There are certain players that have an intensity factor when they hit the field that elevates the play of those around them. If you are unaware of this phenomenon, I can't help you. And clearly, you were not one of those players. We actually have a word for this in the English vernacular - 'Charisma'. It's a real thing. It's not like Sasquatch, the Lochness Monster, or vampires. Charisma exists and in sports it can elevate players and a team. In fact, it can even elevate the play of the other team. I played with guys like this. Their mere presence on the field elevates everyone. Bob Sanders had it. Stanzi had it. Roth had it.
Additionally, the players are not 'favoring' one player over another. I am sure that JR is a swell guy who treats his teammates with respect. And they probably respect him. But players know who is better and who can best help the team win. It showed on Saturday and it has showed with CJB at other times.
I would ask this: don't we WANT the QB to be the type of guy that can inspire and create more intensity for the team? Don't we WANT him to be a dynamic, game-changing leader? Why fight it, if the potential exists to have a transcendant game day QB.

You've clearly never seen the Jack Link's Beef Jerky commercials.

 

[hockalot]

First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.

One thing KF could do, is get rid of that awful pink paint in the visitors locker room. It just infuriates the opposing team. ISU would not have won without it.

 

[doclee]

I recommend on Saturday that you turn the game on and watch him closely. He spends a lot of time running into the back of his lineman and then falling down.

Boy. Our linemen must have been a long ways down field last year when he ran into them, since he gained just short of 1,000 yards. Ever seen a football game, "sparky"?

 

[Sparky]

Boy. Our linemen must have been a long ways down field last year when he ran into them, since he gained just short of 1,000 yards. Ever seen a football game, "sparky"?

Maybe you should try tuning into the 2014 games and realize he hasn't done very well this year so far.