Reality: We are down to our 8th string RB

[KansasHawkeye]

IRe: Reality: We are down to our 8th string RB

I don't care who it is as long as they don't put the ball on the ground. The onus will be on the OL, which isn't new for us.

 

[PCHawk]

It's flawed logic to say Iowa is down to its 8th stringer. If Coker, Wegher, Robinson, and Hampton were all still here, Garmon (and Hill, for that matter) would likely be on a different campus this fall.

it doesn't matter if it was garmon or some random walk on. his point was the top 7 or so running backs are either hurt or off the team. therefore we are down to 8th string

 

[RocknRollface]

8th string?
1) Wegher
2) Hampton
3) Robinson
4) Coker
5) McCall
6) D'Andre Johnson
7) Greg Garmon

Maybe 7...but Garmon is better than some of these guys....maybe a lot of them. We'll see. McCall only carried the ball maybe 9 times.

Hampton would be out of eligibility but if not theres no way he would be behind Wegher.

If I had to pick one to start from scratch with Id take Garmon over everyone on that list other than Hampton and McCall.

 

[Golfer]

Perception is reality I guess. I remember watching "the catch" the year we rushed for a total of something like 400 yards.

The OL seems to be above average. There seems to be growth on the DL. Kicking game seems, to me at least, to be a bigger concern than rushing.

It plays out every year like it plays out, and I think we are acceptable this year, RB problems, or not.

 

[tm3308]

it doesn't matter if it was garmon or some random walk on. his point was the top 7 or so running backs are either hurt or off the team. therefore we are down to 8th string

Iowa has lost three backs from this years team: Canzeri, Johnson, and Hill. But it's ridiculous to call Garmon ( or any other back) the 8th stringer because of guys who have been out of the program for over a year. Move on.

 

[Golfer]

I think the journalist has a point.

 

[PCHawk]

it doesn't matter if it was garmon or some random walk on. his point was the top 7 or so running backs are either hurt or off the team. therefore we are down to 8th string

Iowa has lost three backs from this years team: Canzeri, Johnson, and Hill. But it's ridiculous to call Garmon ( or any other back) the 8th stringer because of guys who have been out of the program for over a year. Move on.

that may be so but it doesn't change the fact that your 1st arguement didn't make sense

 

[Golfer]

Young, journalism major going to school in IC? Cut him a break.

 

[1hawkeye1]

This is the answer to our running game, or lack thereof: CJ Fiedorowicz (plz, no spelling police)

 

[tm3308]

that may be so but it doesn't change the fact that your 1st arguement didn't make sense

How is it not flawed logic? You can't disagree with my first post and agree with the second one. I'm saying the same thing both times.

Is Nico Law our second team SS? Of course not. But he would be if Jordan Bernstine were still here.

Now you can argue that it's different, since Bernstine ran out of eligibility. But we're talking about completely changing history with hypotheticals (if these guys hadn't screwed up...). That's the exact opposite of reality.

 

[Sparky]

I'm having a hard time remembering the last time Iowa had a bad running game. From what I remember (which isn't much because I've been pounding beer for a good 3 hours now) that even when it's a no name we still get some good production out of them for some strange reason.

 

[PCHawk]

that may be so but it doesn't change the fact that your 1st arguement didn't make sense

How is it not flawed logic? You can't disagree with my first post and agree with the second one. I'm saying the same thing both times.Is Nico Law our second team SS? Of course not. But he would be if Jordan Bernstine were still here. Now you can argue that it's different, since Bernstine ran out of eligibility. But we're talking about completely changing history with hypotheticals (if these guys hadn't screwed up...). That's the exact opposite of reality.

the 1st post you argued that our new recruits wouldn't be here if our old ones wouldn't have left and the 2nd post you argued that its stupid to talk about players that aren't here any more.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Thats the facts. Garmon... Bullock... Those guys would be 8 deep on a normal depth chart.

I think the chances Rodgers sees significant carries just went way way up.

So a kid who's an incoming 4 **** recruit is 8th on our RB depth chart? (or anyone's for that matter) Right.

 

[MoseSchrute]

I'm having a hard time remembering the last time Iowa had a bad running game. From what I remember (which isn't much because I've been pounding beer for a good 3 hours now) that even when it's a no name we still get some good production out of them for some strange reason.

Worst rushing offense in the conference last year; and the guy who was able to do that is gone.

 

[DuffMan]

I'm having a hard time remembering the last time Iowa had a bad running game. From what I remember (which isn't much because I've been pounding beer for a good 3 hours now) that even when it's a no name we still get some good production out of them for some strange reason.

Worst rushing offense in the conference last year; and the guy who was able to do that is gone.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[tm3308]

the 1st post you argued that our new recruits wouldn't be here if our old ones wouldn't have left and the 2nd post you argued that its stupid to talk about players that aren't here any more.

If the old ones were still here, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, whether it's Garmon or a walk-on who's "eighth string".

 

[RADMAN]

Thats the facts. Garmon... Bullock... Those guys would be 8 deep on a normal depth chart.

I think the chances Rodgers sees significant carries just went way way up.

Is that like when we introduced Coker as our running back? Or maybe Robinson or whoever.
Garmon would not be an 8th deep on anyones depth chart, period.

We will be fine at running back and we will exceed all expectation this year. And the beauty is we will have almost everyone back the next two or three years.

So much for the doomsday gang.

 

[Sparky]

Worst rushing offense in the conference last year; and the guy who was able to do that is gone.

Oh yeah. I tried to put last season out of my mind. Sad day.

 

[burky247]

are you referring to him catching a pass? the play prior (9:50) shows him getting stuffed in the backfield. next play was the pass i referred to.

Yeah the pass where he leaked out of the backfield is the one I'm referring to(that's at 9:50). He did get blown up the play before, but he didn't really have a chance considering there were two defenders in the backfield with him as soon as he touched the ball.

 

[RocknRollface]

Worst rushing offense in the conference last year; and the guy who was able to do that is gone.

If the RB had any break away speed that ranking would not have been nearly as low.