Rb problems are not just bad luck

I think we can mostly agree we don't want Weisman taking 35 carries every game. But to correlate that to the attrition we've seen at RB is a stretch to say the least. To say that Weisman shouldn't have been in there trying to kill the clock is...well I've already commented on that.
 
doclee said:
Please explain for me what you mean by taking his foot off the gas...I really would like to read a couple of examples of this. Also, they actually were not in prevent defense...they blitzed continually in the second half and actually got burned for a TD because a LB blitzed right out of the underneath coverage on a slant route.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, I was watching the game, but I was so ****** I wasn't paying attention to the X's and O's. Especially since I was deflecting obnoxious ISU fans.
 
OUTofTOWNHAWK said:
So Fry had a problem keeping rbs?
Click to expand...

your first retort to me was that fry didn't have problems with backs getting hurt. that is what i responded to. of course fry had guys get hurt and leave the team for various reasons.

ferentz hasn't had a problem with guys leaving the team because they played too much, has he?

he's had problems with rbs liking the ladies when they necessarily didn't like him (coker pace), liking drugs more than football (hampton, robinson), liking the ladies more than going to school (wegher) a true freshman running back who apparently believed he was to be treated like a heavyweight champion of the world instead of a true freshman who was getting reps (mccall), a rb who thought that being arrested twice in 3 days was ok (d'andre johnson), a rb who liked the smoke better than going to class and is now trying his luck at juco (garmon). i can think of two recently who have had injury related departures, but they both are still on the team - hill and canzeri.

if you think that fry didn't have guys who flunked out, smoked out, got in trouble with the law, injured out, then i don't know what to tell you, other than you are trying too hard to find fault with other people. maybe time to look in the mirror.
 
I agree that Weisman is carrying the ball to much. Twenty five carries a game for him would be about right I think. I don't agree that Bullock is doing well. We are a run team first and Bullock has not imposed his will at any time. He needs to run through the arm tackles and seems to get tripped up to easily. I have high hopes for Daniels and now that his redshirt is burned we need to use him as our number two running back. Put Bullock and Canzeri in the slot. We can maximize their talents at that position. I also think we should target CJF fifteen to twenty yards down the field and that will open up the five to ten yard receptions for Bullock and Canzeri where they can then use their running ability to gain more yards after the catch.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
your first retort to me was that fry didn't have problems with backs getting hurt. that is what i responded to. of course fry had guys get hurt and leave the team for various reasons.

ferentz hasn't had a problem with guys leaving the team because they played too much, has he?

he's had problems with rbs liking the ladies when they necessarily didn't like him (coker pace), liking drugs more than football (hampton, robinson), liking the ladies more than going to school (wegher) a true freshman running back who apparently believed he was to be treated like a heavyweight champion of the world instead of a true freshman who was getting reps (mccall), a rb who thought that being arrested twice in 3 days was ok (d'andre johnson), a rb who liked the smoke better than going to class and is now trying his luck at juco (garmon). i can think of two recently who have had injury related departures, but they both are still on the team - hill and canzeri.

if you think that fry didn't have guys who flunked out, smoked out, got in trouble with the law, injured out, then i don't know what to tell you, other than you are trying too hard to find fault with other people. maybe time to look in the mirror.
Click to expand...


Your argument doesnt matter anyway you look at it. I understand you think Iowa is a place of bad luck and nobody with any talent wants to come to. Whatever. If you are trying to say that Fry and kirkster have had the same problems with rbs then whatever. Its not correct but it doesnt matter. It doesnt make running a kid too much any better. If the backups are not good enough to be on the field thats also on kirk.

However it took what to find Weisman? Injuries.

If Im always trying to find fault in people then how come I dont talk down about the players? Or the basketball program? In case you havent looked around Im not the only one that finds faults with kirk.
 
OUTofTOWNHAWK said:
I dont understand why they need to run Weisman soo much? Bullock looks very good and we are hearing good things about other backs. Bullock was having his way with ISU also so there was no reason he couldnt have taken the load in the 4th quarter.

I understand giving a rb 30+ carries if hes all you have but thats not the case.

This is not me saying the best player isnt on the field. Its me saying stop running one rb till he gets hurt every year and then transfers. This isnt bad luck anymore.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to see Daniels get Coker'd, but I don't mind them going with Weisman in the 4th. I realize that KF treats his young RB's like they've never valued the ball before (unless he has no choice), so it definitely didn't surprise me we didn't see Daniels after the 3rd quarter ended. What would have been nice is if they would have given a few of those Weisman carries to Daniels (both are big, downhill, physical backs) throughout the game. It gives Weisman an extra play or 2 as a breather and maybe even keeps him a little fresher in the 4th.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
I certainly don't want to see Daniels get Coker'd, but I don't mind them going with Weisman in the 4th. I realize that KF treats his young RB's like they've never valued the ball before (unless he has no choice), so it definitely didn't surprise me we didn't see Daniels after the 3rd quarter ended. What would have been nice is if they would have given a few of those Weisman carries to Daniels (both are big, downhill, physical backs) throughout the game. It gives Weisman an extra play or 2 as a breather and maybe even keeps him a little fresher in the 4th.
Click to expand...

Thats what Im saying. If he is who you want to bring it home with then you need to run some other rbs earlier in the game.

I dont think it suprised anyone that kirk was going to run the ball most of the 2nd half. Well maybe it suprised kirk but that doesnt take much.
 
I really don't think that the odds of getting hurt moves up all that much having 35 carries instead of 25. I also don't think that our running back issues have anything to do with giving them to many carries a game. McCall got hurt on his 9th carry and allot of our backs got hurt in practice over the years.
 
Maybe Ferentz was simply putting the run game on display for all of those young O-Linemen in the wings who will be recruited very soon.
 
PCHawk said:
I really don't think that the odds of getting hurt moves up all that much having 35 carries instead of 25. I also don't think that our running back issues have anything to do with giving them to many carries a game. McCall got hurt on his 9th carry and allot of our backs got hurt in practice over the years.
Click to expand...

Nah.. its gotta be KF is killing these guys "sites Robinson as example cause its the only valid example but had nothing to do with number of carries".

I got no problem with many critiques of the staff...but every single thing...cmon fellas..Cmon.
 
I feel the same way but weisman was so damn hot in the iowa st game I don't think I would have took him out ither. But it would have probably been the smart thing to do
 
This thread was a good read. OOTH and HomerChampless just fell on their own knife. This thread perfectly explains their thought process:

Facts be damned. Stop making valid points fellas. No matter what you say we are bound and determined to find something to blame on Kirk Ferentz! Even if it shows our true colors. Even if it proves we have very little football knowledge. Everything bad that happens on the gridiron is Kirk's fault, and everything good that happens has nothing to do with him.
 
You know, one could also get the impression from this thread and the resultant posts that there are lots of KF lovers who couldn't care less about Iowa football. I hope the style of offense used against ISU gets more wins for Iowa later on in the schedule.... or Iowa's defense gets better... <P> I'm just tired of 'arguing' with Ferentz lovers, I want to 'argue' with Iowa lovers...
 
Last edited:
docholihawk said:
I agree that Weisman is carrying the ball to much. Twenty five carries a game for him would be about right I think. I don't agree that Bullock is doing well. We are a run team first and Bullock has not imposed his will at any time. He needs to run through the arm tackles and seems to get tripped up to easily. I have high hopes for Daniels and now that his redshirt is burned we need to use him as our number two running back. Put Bullock and Canzeri in the slot. We can maximize their talents at that position. I also think we should target CJF fifteen to twenty yards down the field and that will open up the five to ten yard receptions for Bullock and Canzeri where they can then use their running ability to gain more yards after the catch.
Click to expand...

CJF had two drive-killing drops. And he was whine-y when Rudock kept the ball for the TD against Missouri State. CJF needs to hold onto the ball before we start throwing to him 20 yards downfield.

Our problem isn't our RB or RBs "plural". Our problem is inconsistent WRs.
 
HomerChampless said:
You know, one could also get the impression from this thread and the resultant posts that there are lots of KF lovers who couldn't care less about Iowa football. I hope the style of offense used against ISU gets more wins for Iowa later on in the schedule.... or Iowa's defense gets better... <P> I'm just tired of 'arguing' with Ferentz lovers, I want to 'argue' with Iowa lovers...
Click to expand...

I'm just tired of reading you try to "argue" at all. You're not..not..you're not good at it. At all.
 
HomerChampless said:
You know, one could also get the impression from this thread and the resultant posts that there are lots of KF lovers who couldn't care less about Iowa football. I hope the style of offense used against ISU gets more wins for Iowa later on in the schedule.... or Iowa's defense gets better... <P> I'm just tired of 'arguing' with Ferentz lovers, I want to 'argue' with Iowa lovers...
Click to expand...

Iowa lover here. I loved Iowa with Fry as coach, I love Iowa with KF as coach, and I will love Iowa when KF gets fired or leaves. It seems there is very little about this team, both coaches and players that you love.
 
deanvogs said:
Iowa lover here. I loved Iowa with Fry as coach, I love Iowa with KF as coach, and I will love Iowa when KF gets fired or leaves. It seems there is very little about this team, both coaches and players that you love.
Click to expand...

Yup. There you go, Deanvogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top