Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits

[PCHawk]

Exactly, there is a strategy to taking risk. Anytime the reward outweighs the potential loss you should do it IMO, as statistically it will work out in your favor in the end.

Generally avoiding risk is just not a profitable strategy IMO. It will get you to 7 wins most years though.

Avoiding risk is one thing. Basing every single decision on what has the least amount of risk is another. I think the McCall situation is a perfect example of how kirk's conservative mind works.

He waits 3 weeks looking for the "right time" to put him in. The time he goes with is after we block a punt and get 1st and goal inside the 10. The kid is a true freshman who had 9 carries 2 months ago then spends that 2 months healing and listening to everyone talk about how awesome he is. Then he spends 3 weeks chomping at the bit hoping every possession that he finally is getting his chance only to have to wait. Then he finally gets his chance and his 1st carry back he is staring at the goal line dreaming of his 1st collegiate touchdown. Really hard to believe he fumbled there.

It really goes to show how conservative Kirk is tho. He could have sent Coker out to get the touchdown to put the game further out of reach. But he is more concerned about losing field position than scoring an almost for sure touchdown because a true freshmen fumbling at mid field is just to costly . To me that line of thinking is way to extreme and it shows in every decision he makes.

 

[hwk23]

Avoiding risk is one thing. Basing every single decision on what has the least amount of risk is another. I think the McCall situation is a perfect example of how kirk's conservative mind works.

He waits 3 weeks looking for the "right time" to put him in. The time he goes with is after we block a punt and get 1st and goal inside the 10. The kid is a true freshman who had 9 carries 2 months ago then spends that 2 months healing and listening to everyone talk about how awesome he is. Then he spends 3 weeks chomping at the bit hoping every possession that he finally is getting his chance only to have to wait. Then he finally gets his chance and his 1st carry back he is staring at the goal line dreaming of his 1st collegiate touchdown. Really hard to believe he fumbled there.

It really goes to show how conservative Kirk is tho. He could have sent Coker out to get the touchdown to put the game further out of reach. But he is more concerned about losing field position than scoring an almost for sure touchdown because a true freshmen fumbling at mid field is just to costly . To me that line of thinking is way to extreme and it shows in every decision he makes.

Not sure if that's what KF was thinking with McCall or not, but that's a helluva insight.

 

[hwk23]

to play on hwk23's point, all these rushing stats mean is that sokol moves around and still keeps his eyes downfield. rudock abandons quickly and is in running mode. sokol should be the starter

Well, yes, I had to reread that 3 times, but YES, pretty much.

 

[Hal9000]

Hwk23 loves him some Sokol.

Anybody who does other than Sokol's mom (hot btw) only can see stats and nothing else.

HIS MOTION SUCKS, he will be picked off non-stop in the big ten, it takes him forever to get the ball out of a horrid arm slot.

Rudock followed by Bethard were the best QB's on the team and the race is not even close. I am excited about Rudock running the offense, I am not excited about our scheme or passing concepts.

 

[PCHawk]

Not sure if that's what KF was thinking with McCall or not, but that's a helluva insight.

Going off of kirk's history of decision making, I'm pretty certain that's what he was thinking. At least if something happens we have em backed up.

 

[hwk23]

Anybody who does other than Sokol's mom (hot btw) only can see stats and nothing else.

HIS MOTION SUCKS, he will be picked off non-stop in the big ten, it takes him forever to get the ball out of a horrid arm slot.

Rudock followed by Bethard were the best QB's on the team and the race is not even close. I am excited about Rudock running the offense, I am not excited about our scheme or passing concepts.

His motion is fine. This isn't a beauty contest, pal. Have you ever seen TMart play at Nebraska? He happens to be the leading passer in Nebraska history, with almost 10,000 passing yards at year end. Sokol looks like Tom Brady compared to him. Chuck Long didn't have a text book motion either. There are tons of examples. Let me guess you'd bet on the preppy country club player against Lee Trevino, right?

 

[Seth53]

Please please Please Leshun....if you're going to burn a shirt, no running up and down the field a couple of times a game on kickoffs, etc.

If you're going to burn it, at least burn it contributing to your position.

End of rant.

 

[JonDMiller]

Good post. But I can't admit I'm wrong because we will never know for sure if an unready banks could have ran the team better than a ready McCann full time. I will admit that the people who Jon talked to have more info than me. But I also know that their opinions may be skewed buy how close they were to Kirk.

Ummm....nah, it's much simpler than that. They were actually in the practices, every single day, from summer through the Alamo Bowl, and saw it with their own eyes every single day that season.

 

[PhoenixHawk]

Ummm....nah, it's much simpler than that. They were actually in the practices, every single day, from summer through the Alamo Bowl, and saw it with their own eyes every single day that season.

Do you think KF should have pulled Banks out of the Michigan game, Jon?

 

[tm3308]

His motion is fine. This isn't a beauty contest, pal. Have you ever seen TMart play at Nebraska? He happens to be the leading passer in Nebraska history, with almost 10,000 passing yards at year end. Sokol looks like Tom Brady compared to him. Chuck Long didn't have a text book motion either. There are tons of examples. Let me guess you'd bet on the preppy country club player against Lee Trevino, right?

Martinez's accumulative stats are the result of starting from Day 1. He didn't become anything close to being a good passer until last season.

 

[JonDMiller]

Do you think KF should have pulled Banks out of the Michigan game, Jon?

We're going back 12 years now, arguing about a premise that is just a waste of time; that Kirk doesn't play the players who he believes gives Iowa the best chance to win. Since he is the one with more exposure to the things that actually take place every day, I trust that he knows what's best more than we do on the outside.

That said, it doesn't mean he's beyond reproach for say leaving ARob in the game in the 4th Q of a blowout at home v MSU in 2010...or clock mismanagement...but intentionally not playing the players who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win, based on his thousands of practice rep observations and tape reviews per month? This is just pure silliness.

 

[smbhawk1]

We're going back 12 years now, arguing about a premise that is just a waste of time; that Kirk doesn't play the players who he believes gives Iowa the best chance to win. Since he is the one with more exposure to the things that actually take place every day, I trust that he knows what's best more than we do on the outside.

That said, it doesn't mean he's beyond reproach for say leaving ARob in the game in the 4th Q of a blowout at home v MSU in 2010...or clock mismanagement...but intentionally not playing the players who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win, based on his thousands of practice rep observations and tape reviews per month? This is just pure silliness.

Iowa lost the Michigan game when Matt Stockdale went out with an injury. Not because of Kyle McCann

 

[DP5555]

We're going back 12 years now, arguing about a premise that is just a waste of time; that Kirk doesn't play the players who he believes gives Iowa the best chance to win. Since he is the one with more exposure to the things that actually take place every day, I trust that he knows what's best more than we do on the outside.

That said, it doesn't mean he's beyond reproach for say leaving ARob in the game in the 4th Q of a blowout at home v MSU in 2010...or clock mismanagement...but intentionally not playing the players who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win, based on his thousands of practice rep observations and tape reviews per month? This is just pure silliness.

It never ceases to amaze me the depths some Hawk fans will go to in order to try and pin blame on KF. They look so deep and come up with wild accusations when in reality the answer is right on the surface because it's plain old common sense. It's to the point it is just getting ridiculous.

Thank the lord the season is right around the corner. At least then we'll get to see hwk23 put his spin on meaningful stats.

 

[PCHawk]

Ummm....nah, it's much simpler than that. They were actually in the practices, every single day, from summer through the Alamo Bowl, and saw it with their own eyes every single day that season.

Saw what with their own eyes tho? Serious question. I thought you said that they said that the reason he didn't play more was because he didn't know enough of the playbook. If that was all that was stopping him and other than that he was the better choice, he should have gotten more and more play time as the year went on. In the guys you talked to's opinion, Banks limited playbook knowledge would not have worked against opposing defenses full time. How do you take that as fact that they knew without a doubt that he could not have success running the same handful of plays for an entire game? If that was really what was holding back, you don't think there is a single respectable head coach out there that would go with a player with Bank's ability and give him all the 1st teams snaps to quicken his learning curve? Maybe the following week he could know 2 more plays and really dominate the game.

Look how much he improved as the year went on the following year. Do you really think the Banks at the end of 02 would have lost to isu, or almost lose to Purdue? If his learning curve in '02 would have happened full time in '01, not only would we have beaten isu in '02, but we would have probably finished stronger in '01. If that happens maybe we start '02 higher in the polls, go undefeated, and play for a national championship.

That's allot of ifs but I still don't get how its fact that we would have been worse off running a limited package with Banks full time than we would have been with McCann.

 

[JonDMiller]

Saw what with their own eyes tho? Serious question. I thought you said that they said that the reason he didn't play more was because he didn't know enough of the playbook.

Saw with their own eyes why his playbook was not long. I'm done with this man, I don't have anything more to add than what I have added, over and over and over. If you want to keep going, here you go:

 

[PCHawk]

We're going back 12 years now, arguing about a premise that is just a waste of time; that Kirk doesn't play the players who he believes gives Iowa the best chance to win. Since he is the one with more exposure to the things that actually take place every day, I trust that he knows what's best more than we do on the outside.

That said, it doesn't mean he's beyond reproach for say leaving ARob in the game in the 4th Q of a blowout at home v MSU in 2010...or clock mismanagement...but intentionally not playing the players who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win, based on his thousands of practice rep observations and tape reviews per month? This is just pure silliness.

Do you think that if you brought in the top 10 college coaches in America that they would all decide to start the same 22 guy as Kirk would every single year? Of course they wouldn't because everyone analyzes data differently. Some coaches would make better decisions than Kirk and some would make worse. I'm of the opinion that more would pick better.

 

[PCHawk]

Sorry I typed that last one before I saw you were done. If anyone else has an opinion on whether every coach would come to the same conclusion on every player I would like to hear it. Don't want to **** anyone off, just a fun debate.

 

[tm3308]

Sorry I typed that last one before I saw you were done. If anyone else has an opinion on whether every coach would come to the same conclusion on every player I would like to hear it. Don't want to **** anyone off, just a fun debate.

Sure, other coaches might pick their starters differently. Doesn't mean the on-field results would prove those coaches ultimately made a better choice. Nico Law certainly didn't look good once he stepped into the lineup.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

The choice will not only be Kirk's, it will be made with the coaches in question. If Kirk disagrees with their choice they may have to prove it. But in the end it's a decision by committee.

 

[herkyattack]

Here's some more stats for you;

Sokol - 8 for 14 for 145 yards, 10.35 ypa (10.2 ypa Spring game)
Beathard - 8 for 12 for 88 yards, 7.33 ypa (5.0 ypa Spring game)
Rudock - 8 for 18 for 85 yards, 4.72 ypa (6.0 ypa Spring game)

Yes, Rudock played 1st team D the other night but those stats must improve, looking at both the Spring game and the other night. Sokol was better statistically in both scrimmages including the Spring game where they split 1st team snaps.

Stats can be deceiving. The majority of Sokol's yardage came on two pass plays where the receiver made something happen after the completion. Personally, I am all in on the Beathard train, but Rudock would be my second choice. Nothing against Sokol, but nothing I have seen from him shows me that he is better or has more potential than either Rudock or Beathard.