Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits

[hawkdrummer1]

LOL. One of my favorite fan criticisms through the years....as if the best players who give Iowa a chance to win are not seeing the field.

I'd suggest there are many examples, but per policy I won't name names.

But the "who give Iowa a chance to win" line is the catch phrase. The "he's not ready" rationale for waiting on a guy with more raw talent is exactly what I'm referring to. Of course you don't want to play a guy who has no grasp of the playbook, but you can also wait too long for him to perfect everything.

I think we all know which one KFz is more likely to do. Manage Risk is always priority 1. Of course he always believes he's playing the guys who "give us the best chance to win". Whether his approach actually delivers that is certainly reasonable to debate.

This team needs talented players on the field. I'll take a mistake or two.

 

[JonDMiller]

Nobody on the outside knows if someone not playing gives the team the better chance to win than the guy playing. It goes back to the old Banks v McCann in 2001. Brad knew very few plays at that time. He was used in a fashion at the maximum he was capable of at that time. I've had several team members confirm that.

Fletcher turned out to be a better CB than Shada eventually but at that point he wasn't doing it in practice.

If a player is better than another consistently in practice he is playing in the games. And none of you has an insight on what takes place in practice. To assume otherwise would mean KF is intentionally trying to be less of a team than possible and that's pure tinfoil hat silliness

 

[2xer]

Well... the YAC was due to #36's decision not to tackle Powell (second time he engaged, after missing him the first time). Nothing against Powell at all, but this play tells us very little.

This almost looks like a hip touch drill for the Defense. Notice no one really tries to make a tackle but they are all touching both hips.

 

[Eda]

This almost looks like a hip touch drill for the Defense. Notice no one really tries to make a tackle but they are all touching both hips.

Exactly. Also, Alston (I believe) wasn't really running hard and stopped when he was only a couple yards away.
But it did show Powell make a couple shifty quick moves, which gets me excited to see what he will be able to do.

 

[EMik21]

I am just a bit concerned in hearing that Weisman has been nicked up throughout camp. If we really want to utilize Bullock and Canzeri being on the field with Weisman, we need him at 90%+. If he goes down, then our options become a bit more limited. This is why we are also seeing Daniels get a lot of reps as we need him to be up to speed, and fast. I don't want to see a repeat of our small rb's getting stuffed on the goal line as happened againt ISU last year. To that point, this is why we need Daniels to get reps and see some action early.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Nobody on the outside knows if someone not playing gives the team the better chance to win than the guy playing. It goes back to the old Banks v McCann in 2001. Brad knew very few plays at that time. He was used in a fashion at the maximum he was capable of at that time. I've had several team members confirm that.

Fletcher turned out to be a better CB than Shada eventually but at that point he wasn't doing it in
practice.



You had me agreeing right up until the tin foil crack. Jon...you're slipping into some bad poster habits.

Perhaps it comes down to this. Are you willing to play a guy who maybe isn't as perfect in practice, but has more raw talent that can manifest on game day. Practice execution is important (I'm no Allen Iverson) but sometimes guys play hot on game day. And I'd suggest when you're team...well...it's 4-8, I'll be nice... you need to be open to different ideas.

 

[deanvogs]

You had me agreeing right up until the tin foil crack. Jon...you're slipping into some bad poster habits.

Perhaps it comes down to this. Are you willing to play a guy who maybe isn't as perfect in practice, but has more raw talent that can manifest on game day. Practice execution is important (I'm no Allen Iverson) but sometimes guys play hot on game day. And I'd suggest when you're team...well...it's 4-8, I'll be nice... you need to be open to different ideas.

I addressed this in another thread, but the fact is I take work ethic and the person performing in practice over the talent. See the Chicago Cubs and Starlin Castro. All the talent in the world, but doesn't focus and makes mistakes all the time. If Chicago had any kind of viable option at SS he would be benched. Yesterday he let a batter get a sac fly on a pop up to him as SS. How does that even happen? It is because he lacks focus, even though he is very, very talented. In the end if they just had a solid fundamental player at SS they would be better off at this point, than all of his "talent" being on the field.

Not many times do players just all of a sudden perform on Saturdays if they aren't doing so every day during the week.

 

[Foval21]

Nobody on the outside knows if someone not playing gives the team the better chance to win than the guy playing. It goes back to the old Banks v McCann in 2001. Brad knew very few plays at that time. He was used in a fashion at the maximum he was capable of at that time. I've had several team members confirm that.

Fletcher turned out to be a better CB than Shada eventually but at that point he wasn't doing it in
practice.



You had me agreeing right up until the tin foil crack. Jon...you're slipping into some bad poster habits.

Perhaps it comes down to this. Are you willing to play a guy who maybe isn't as perfect in practice, but has more raw talent that can manifest on game day. Practice execution is important (I'm no Allen Iverson) but sometimes guys play hot on game day. And I'd suggest when you're team...well...it's 4-8, I'll be nice... you need to be open to different ideas.

Everyone was all about nico law but when he has played with all that raw talent he has consistently gotten burned for big plays. Best isn't always most talented...sometimes it is the guy who is more well rounded, sometimes it is the guy that hurts you the least, sometimes it is the more fundamentally sound player, sometimes it is the smartest, or hardest worker, or many other and combinations of those things. Playing Sokol or rudock could just as easily (or more so) mean a 3 or 2 win season instead of 4 as it could a 5 or 6 win. That is why you practice to make those decisions. For people that don't see practice question this is just sad.

 

[PCHawk]

Nobody on the outside knows if someone not playing gives the team the better chance to win than the guy playing. It goes back to the old Banks v McCann in 2001. Brad knew very few plays at that time. He was used in a fashion at the maximum he was capable of at that time. I've had several team members confirm that.

Fletcher turned out to be a better CB than Shada eventually but at that point he wasn't doing it in practice.

If a player is better than another consistently in practice he is playing in the games. And none of you has an insight on what takes place in practice. To assume otherwise would mean KF is intentionally trying to be less of a team than possible and that's pure tinfoil hat silliness

McCann Banks is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Even if Banks wasn't ready we were still a better team with him on the field. Some coaches would have chosen to play him full time and live with his short comings. Kirk is not one of those coaches.

Deciding who plays isn't as black and white as people pretend. Sometimes its not an easy decision. 2 different coaches can have different opinions on who the better player is and why. Some people think the way Kirk comes to his decision is flawed.

 

[PCHawk]

Hell Jim Harbaugh might be the best coach in the world and he was starting the wrong qb for awhile.

 

[deanvogs]

Hell Jim Harbaugh might be the best coach in the world and he was starting the wrong qb for awhile.

Or maybe Harbaugh made the perfect decision.....maybe he wasn't ready before, but was when he started him. You can sometimes hurt a players development if you throw them to the wolves too early

 

[tm3308]

McCann Banks is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Even if Banks wasn't ready we were still a better team with him on the field. Some coaches would have chosen to play him full time and live with his short comings. Kirk is not one of those coaches.

Deciding who plays isn't as black and white as people pretend. Sometimes its not an easy decision. 2 different coaches can have different opinions on who the better player is and why. Some people think the way Kirk comes to his decision is flawed.

The word was that Banks really didn't have a good grip on the playbook, limiting him to packaged plays. Was he the more talented player? Clearly. But you don't put a guy on the field if he's nowhere near mentally ready to play. Period.

 

[tm3308]

Or maybe Harbaugh made the perfect decision.....maybe he wasn't ready before, but was when he started him. You can sometimes hurt a players development if you throw them to the wolves too early

See: Harrington, Joey

I still believe Harrington could have been a good NFL quarterback, but he had every last ounce of his ability beaten out of him because they Lions had no offensive line.

 

[deanvogs]

See: Harrington, Joey

I still believe Harrington could have been a good NFL quarterback, but he had every last ounce of his ability beaten out of him because they Lions had no offensive line.

It isn't a perfect science. Watching Aikman his 1st year he looked awful, but in the end trial by fire worked. It is just funny to me that some people thing that if a Sr has a good year, that they would have been equally as good his So or Jr year.

 

[DP5555]

McCann Banks is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Even if Banks wasn't ready we were still a better team with him on the field. Some coaches would have chosen to play him full time and live with his short comings. Kirk is not one of those coaches.

Deciding who plays isn't as black and white as people pretend. Sometimes its not an easy decision. 2 different coaches can have different opinions on who the better player is and why. Some people think the way Kirk comes to his decision is flawed.

How do you KNOW the Hawks would have been better that year with Banks on the field instead of McCann? You don't know how much of the offense he was comfortable with at that point. Now he was certainly the better athlete, and I'm sure he would have made some plays that McCann could not have made. However, he also could have looked lost and made a lot of mistakes that McCann would not make.

This is the problem I have with opinions like this. You think you know the backup would be better, but the fact is you don't really know. It's ultimately a risk vs reward decision, and we all know Ferentz is going to play the guy who is the most consistent performer. At least Ferentz is there watching every single practice and consulting with the other coaches. He has real live data to base his decisions on. None of us really have a clue aside from hunches and a few random highlight videos.

Maybe Beathard or Sokol will end up being the next Stanzi. Maybe one of them will get a chance and run with it. However, if they aren't performing at a higher level than Rudock consistently in practice then it would be the wrong decision to give them the start. If Rudock has separated himself he deserves the chance to make this his team.

When you're speaking from a purely uninformed perspective, counting Rudock out and labeling him as the safe pick simply because you "wanna see someone more flashy" just makes you seem like a bitter 4 year old little girl who didn't get to buy another Barbi while Mom was in Wal-Mart.

Let's give Rudock a chance. If he slips up and opens the door back up for competition then I'll be just as excited as everyone else to see what young Beathard has to offer.

 

[Billso]

It isn't a perfect science. Watching Aikman his 1st year he looked awful, but in the end trial by fire worked. It is just funny to me that some people thing that if a Sr has a good year, that they would have been equally as good his So or Jr year.

Exactly.

2001 Banks != 2002 Banks

 

[Billso]

[ syll. les-hun, le-sh-un ] The name Leshun is pronounced LEH-SHUWN †. Leshun is of English-American origin. Leshun is a variation of Leshawn.

So how do I pronounce LEH-SHUWN?

 

[PCHawk]

How do you KNOW the Hawks would have been better that year with Banks on the field instead of McCann? You don't know how much of the offense he was comfortable with at that point. Now he was certainly the better athlete, and I'm sure he would have made some plays that McCann could not have made. However, he also could have looked lost and made a lot of mistakes that McCann would not make.

This is the problem I have with opinions like this. You think you know the backup would be better, but the fact is you don't really know. It's ultimately a risk vs reward decision, and we all know Ferentz is going to play the guy who is the most consistent performer. At least Ferentz is there watching every single practice and consulting with the other coaches. He has real live data to base his decisions on. None of us really have a clue aside from hunches and a few random highlight videos.

Maybe Beathard or Sokol will end up being the next Stanzi. Maybe one of them will get a chance and run with it. However, if they aren't performing at a higher level than Rudock consistently in practice then it would be the wrong decision to give them the start. If Rudock has separated himself he deserves the chance to make this his team.

When you're speaking from a purely uninformed perspective, counting Rudock out and labeling him as the safe pick simply because you "wanna see someone more flashy" just makes you seem like a bitter 4 year old little girl who didn't get to buy another Barbi while Mom was in Wal-Mart.

Let's give Rudock a chance. If he slips up and opens the door back up for competition then I'll be just as excited as everyone else to see what young Beathard has to offer.

The reason I KNOW Iowa was better with Banks is because we actually saw them both play. McCann would come in and we struggled then Banks would come in and we would do noticeably better. If he would come in for random plays every so often I could buy the "he wasn't ready" bit. But he came in and ran entire drives. I don't see how you are capable of running 4 drives a game but not 8.

I think Kirk would take a guy that makes zero good plays and zero mental mistakes over a guy who makes 10 good plays and 1 mental mistakes. Even if the guy who made zero mental mistakes was making more costly physical mistakes. If you get burned deep does it really matter if it was because you bit on play action or were just to slow to keep up?

 

[PCHawk]

Exactly.

2001 Banks != 2002 Banks

It seems like people are forgetting that Banks actually played in '01. We know exactly how good he was.

 

[tm3308]

The reason I KNOW Iowa was better with Banks is because we actually saw them both play. McCann would come in and we struggled then Banks would come in and we would do noticeably better. If he would come in for random plays every so often I could buy the "he wasn't ready" bit. But he came in and ran entire drives. I don't see how you are capable of running 4 drives a game but not 8.

I think Kirk would take a guy that makes zero good plays and zero mental mistakes over a guy who makes 10 good plays and 1 mental mistakes. Even if the guy who made zero mental mistakes was making more costly physical mistakes. If you get burned deep does it really matter if it was because you bit on play action or were just to slow to keep up?

No, you saw Banks play while using a set of plays that he could handle at the time. There's a big difference between that and being ready to be a full-time starter.