hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
<<So either use other rbs or use the passing game>>
Why not go all-out and suggest that when we DO use the passing game that we switch out RBs at that time?
You know, so we won't "telegraph" each pass play...er...
Rb problems are not just bad luck
- Thread starter OUTofTOWNHAWK
- Start date
<<So either use other rbs or use the passing game>>
Why not go all-out and suggest that when we DO use the passing game that we switch out RBs at that time?
You know, so we won't "telegraph" each pass play...er...
Did you watch the mo st game? Rbs were being rotated out during series.
You are all over the place and you keep going nowhere.
What is the magic carry number? If he gets hurt on carry 23 is that ok? how about 17? 9?
Complaining for the sake of complaining is what I see.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
He sprained an ankle last year tuba! He got rolled up on running into the endzone and suffered a high ankle sprain. That's something that could happen at any point this season. Limiting his carries would only slightly decrease the chance of that happening. However, it isn't like giving him more carries is weakening his ankles therefore increasing the chance of an ankle sprain. It's simply a matter of luck.
Of course they need to rotate RB's. My only argument is that when they are in close games Weisman needs to be the workhorse that he is. I have zero qualms about that. He gives Iowa the best chance to win. If that means slightly increasing the chance he may roll an ankle then so be it. It's a risk vs reward thing, and in this case the reward is well worth the risk.
OutofTouchHawk, just give it up. We get it. You don't like Ferentz. There are some valid points why someone might question his decisions: keeping Kaz as long as he did, not keeping up in the facilities arm race, clock management, etc. However, this is not one of them. If you haven't constructed a solid argument by page 7, you aren't going to do accomplish it on page 8.
Section136
Well-Known Member
That falls on Barta, not KF.
If coaches had any say in facility upgrades Alford would still be at Iowa.
The ultimate responsibility falls on the AD. However, a coach, especially a coach with leverage, can push the agenda among the fan base/donors. I think we can agree that Alford and Ferentz weren't similarly situated. Further, Ferentz himself said he "took his eye off the ball" when it came to facilities.
OUTofTOWNHAWK
Well-Known Member
No constantly using one rb till he cant go and then starting over is the argument that kirk has made. Im just pointing it out.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
Oh so no other running back has received carries this year now? Coulda fooled me. I thought Bullock, Canzeri, and Daniels have all received a few. Wonder what game I was watching...
Here you go again bending the truth to fit your agenda. I suppose R'icky Stanzi suffered a high ankle sprain against Northwestern a few years ago because he was getting too many reps as well huh?
News flash! Bullock and Canzeri have both been the starter for Iowa at one point or another. If Weisman goes down they won't be starting over. You're just blowing it out of proportion cuz you're a drama queen.
OUTofTOWNHAWK
Well-Known Member
Drama Queen said the guy who is supposed to have me on ignore? Did you miss me?
Okay thats fine then if Bullock and Canzeri are fine and trusted they should have been able to lighten the load. That way Weisman will last longer into the season. With what has happened with Iowa rbs I dont think its crazy that they should spread out the workload a little more.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
I still have you on ignore don't worry. I can still opt to view your posts if I'd like to. I do every once in awhile if it's relevant to the discussion I'm having.
I understand what you're saying. I still think it's ridiculous. If Weisman is 100% and it's a close game then he should be playing. It's that simple to me. He averages a full yard per carry more than the back-ups. That one yard is a big deal. Especially on first down runs. Lack of effective execution on first downs is what sets this offense back so much.
Now if Weisman suffered a knee or ankle sprain, or a hip flexor, or concussion then that's a different story entirely. You have to pick and choose when to give him carries. The fact is you can't prevent those injuries from happening to a D1 RB. If it happens it happens. As long as he's healthy and the game is on the line he should and will be playing. It's what most coaches in the country would do unless they have better options behind the starter.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Problem with that is you can't base personnel decisions on past injuries because of some mythical "anti-Iowa-RB" entity. Weisman is healthy now. USE him now. Not to the exclusion of other capable RBs, of course, but Weisman's running was what burned clock and kept drives alive.
Note that Canzeri and Bullock both had good runs on first down. Canzeri's follow-up was a near-clothesline no-gain/minimal loss. Chances are, Weisman converts that play, and the follow-up 3rd-down play isn't a 3rd-down play at all.
Our problem isn't our RB/RBs. Our problem is inconsistency with our WRs, whether it be making the catch or getting separation, or whatever. Once THOSE can be established--and I am actually confident both will improve to some degree--then the RBs have more open lanes, in which case Weisman isn't needed as often, be it converting a short 2nd or 3rd down, or establishing authority at the LOS.
GoHawks24
Well-Known Member
Ok, both of you have some good points and OOT may be acting a little over-dramatic, but do you not understand or agree that keeping Weisman at a 30+ carry workload has the potential to really wear him down and possibly injure him? It's science, brah.
Addition: And I'm just kind of dumbfounded as to why we didn't see Daniels get one carry (he's supposed to be the next coming of Shonn Greene, right? A bruiser?). If he's too young and can't be trusted, then why has he previously played? (idk.. maybe he fumbled a lot in practice the week before the game?) Especially if Kirk doesn't put any more emphasis on the ISU game vs. any other. His decision-making is just so feaking weird sometimes, and very hard to understand at points.
Last edited:
OUTofTOWNHAWK
Well-Known Member
You should read all my posts in a thread so you can understand.
This is not a topic in which Im say kirk should be fired or this makes him a horrible coach. I think that they would have success if they were to treat the rbs more like a manager uses his bullpen. He has used a primary back and then started over many times in the last 5 years.
Knowing that Iowa would go into ball control in the 2nd half I offered that they could have gave some early series to other backs not totally using up Weisman having him more for the 2nd half. That way you if you do have a fumble or a bad series you have time to make up for it(Weisman has some fumbles also). I also offered up that I think a passing play could have been a td late when everyone was in the box and Iowa had run 10 running plays in a row.
I understand that people think that whenever I post it has to be about firing kirk and that clouds their ability to read and post a response to what I am saying. Doesnt really matter its funny watching people get that bent out of shape over what they read on the interwebs.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
It's just the common trend of your posts that make people think that it's all about blaming KF.
I actually agree with the bolded part of your post. Well I don't entirely agree because I still feel like Weisman should get the majority of the carries as long as he's 100% healthy, however if they are going to split the workload up a bit in order to save his legs I'd prefer they do it more in the 1st half as you said. Weisman's running style becomes more effective as the game wears on because defenders get tired of trying to bring him down. That's why he needs to be running at full speed in the 4th quarter.
I'd like to see more of Daniels to be honest. I feel like we sort of know what Bullock and Canzeri bring to the table. Daniels has looked solid in the little amount of time we've seen him, but it hasn't been enough to really know what he has to offer. I'm hoping the Hawks can finally get a comfortable enough lead this Saturday to get him in the game and let him really get his feet wet. I'm well aware the chances of that happening are pretty slim though.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I'd like to see 8+ carries for him. Possibly blocking issues? I dunno...
DP5555
Well-Known Member
Darn fumbles. To be fair, Weisman had a key fumble against Northern Illinois so it isn't like it's not ever gonna happen with him. It's clear Ferentz has a lot more trust in him however.
Both of Daniels and Canzeri's fumbles today were on their first several carries of the game. I'm guessing nerves had something to do with it. I believe a lot of RB's would have fumbled the ball taking the hit Daniels took when he lost control of it. The defender put his body right through the ball, and Daniels momentum was already carrying him forward. Pretty difficult to hold onto the ball in that situation.
It was good for the game to be such a blowout because both of them were able to play quality reps, and return to the field after a turnover.
I agree that the Daniels fumble was more of a good hit with bad timing. I really don't think he should be blamed for that one.
