Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits

[Eda]

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.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. None of us are in practice, or all the scrimmages, or the meetings, the conversations with the players and/or coaches, or have studied all the film.

In addition, we don't exactly know what the gameplan/direction for the week or season will be. So how can any of us gauge the skill set of each QB, and have any sort of accuracy as to what's needed?

Calling out the coaches for the decisions they make is incredibly stupid, and strips you of much of your credibility.

And FWIW, I laughed heartily at the Barbie analogy.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Harbaugh didn't play Kaepernick till Smith got dinged. If Smith never got dinged Kaepernick wouldn't have been given the practice reps to even be given the chance to outplay Smith to take the job. Now is the time reps are given out to all the backups. Once the season starts the reps the #2 qb gets with the 1st unit in regards to prepping for the next game are very few. I'm sure Harbaugh knew Kaep was going to be good. But even he would say not yet. Smith had been playing really efficient football. He struggled with making that move when he did. But would Ferentz make the same decision is where we debate. Apples to oranges with it being the pros and college obviously.

But who of us are in practice and know day in and day out how these kids are performing? To suggest that Ferentz isn't deciding the depth chart based off of who is the best is a pretty tough thing to do for arm chair qbs. I would say the best barometer for that would be the players themselves after their careers and what they'd have to say about it. We all know that the football players have the utmost confidence in themselves and they all want to play. Yet they do know when they are being out played head to head day in and day out in practice too. If whispers from players amongst themselves about this were to be going around not many more things would divide a locker room faster (See UNI and how they played Farleys kid at MLB over 2 other better kids one LB transfered and their position coach quit over it) I never heard of any of this last year going on at Iowa it seemed to me that the locker room was in tact. At least pretty well considering the season they had.

 

[Billso]

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

Not sure about "exactly", as he wasn't full-time, but 41-of-68 (60.3%) for 582 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 145.7 rating, 151 yds rushing is not chopped liver. However, 2001 McCann was 148-226 (65.5%) for 1867 yds, 16 TD, 11 INT, 148.5 rating. Pretty hard for ANY coach to bench that QB, and it hardly proves we were "a better team" with Banks on the field full-time. Maybe yes, maybe no. He benefited from being a "change-of-pace" guy that year and his limited playbook might have hurt him as a full-timer. That is the view of at least some of his teammates from that year.

I'd recommend taking your own advice: "Deciding who plays isn't as black and white as people pretend. Sometimes its not an easy decision."

 

[Eda]

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?

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't work. You first say the "less talented" guy is making zero mistakes, while the "more athletic" guy is making the 1 mistake. Then you ask if you'd rather have a guy who makes mistakes or a guy who makes mistakes.

Why not the guy who is fundamentally sound and doesn't make the mistakes? That's the guy I'd go with.

 

[trj]

If McCann was the full-time starter in '02 Iowa would still have been 11-2, maybe you flip-flop the ISU/Purdue game(beat ISU lose to Purdue).

McCann was highly effective with the QB draw it just did not look as pretty as when Banks did it.

2001 Michigan game, Banks steps out of bounds without knowing down and distance to some that was indictator that Banks wasn't quite ready to be the full-time starter.

i do not believe Banks played at all in that '01 Alamo bowl.

 

[PCHawk]

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't work. You first say the "less talented" guy is making zero mistakes, while the "more athletic" guy is making the 1 mistake. Then you ask if you'd rather have a guy who makes mistakes or a guy who makes mistakes.

Why not the guy who is fundamentally sound and doesn't make the mistakes? That's the guy I'd go with.

You must have mis read it. I specified mental and physical mistakes. As for your last sentence, we don't always have one of those guys to chose from.

All I'm really saying is that the people who say coaches always make the right choice are just as wrong as the people who always call for the backup. Maybe its just a frustration thing.

 

[NCHawker]

the coaches are always wrong because iowa sucked last year and because KF makes so much money. Therefore any decision on the QB is flawed and no matter what, the wrong player will get the nod. The better player will always be on the bench because KF does not want to win.

 

[Hal9000]

If one had eyes and were at the scrimmage yesterday they would know EXACTLY why Rudock is the starter. HIS FUNDAMENTALS ARE LEAGUES ABOVE all other QB's. His arm slot, release point and compact throwing motion wastes no energy and the ball comes out quickly.

Sokol's motion reminds me of Russel Branyan's swing. It is TOO LONG, his arm flails way outside of his axis and as a result big ten safeties will pick this guy left and right.

C.J.B. Is an exact clone of Rudock, but is not there yet, he locks on to one option and does not play the game as fast as Rudock YET. He will prolly be better than Rudock next year when he loses his happy feet.

I would grade yesterday's scrimmage

Rudock B+
Bethard B-
Sokol B-/C+


Rudock needs to pull the trigger at the end of his drop, he does not get through the progressions quickly enough, otherwise his grade would be A.

 

[Eda]

You must have mis read it. I specified mental and physical mistakes. As for your last sentence, we don't always have one of those guys to chose from.

All I'm really saying is that the people who say coaches always make the right choice are just as wrong as the people who always call for the backup. Maybe its just a frustration thing.

Agreed with the last part. And that's why we're arm chair QB's, right? *chuckle chuckle*

I do think the fundamentally sound player will make up for his shortcomings better than an athletically gifted one. The athletically gifted one will have the mentality that they can make up for a mental mistake, where as a fundamentally sound player will compensate for lack of talent (ie. take a deeper drop/not allow a rec to get behind him).

 

[PhoenixHawk]

If McCann was the full-time starter in '02 Iowa would still have been 11-2, maybe you flip-flop the ISU/Purdue game(beat ISU lose to Purdue).

McCann was highly effective with the QB draw it just did not look as pretty as when Banks did it.

2001 Michigan game, Banks steps out of bounds without knowing down and distance to some that was indictator that Banks wasn't quite ready to be the full-time starter.

i do not believe Banks played at all in that '01 Alamo bowl.

Banks mistook the LOS marker for the 1st down marker. One of those dumb mistakes that happen when you don't play very much.

That was in the famous Michigan game. McCann was doing *nothing* in that game, and they put Banks in. Iowa immediately took off and put Michigan back on their heels. After KF benched Banks and put McCann back in, Michigan went back to dominating the rest of the game. Afterwards, all the Mich fans were saying thank you for pulling Banks, as their D couldn't do anything to stop him. Banks stays in, we win that game.

 

[PCHawk]

It is starting to seem more and more like we will have better qb play then last year.

 

[PCHawk]

Agreed with the last part. And that's why we're arm chair QB's, right? *chuckle chuckle*

I do think the fundamentally sound player will make up for his shortcomings better than an athletically gifted one. The athletically gifted one will have the mentality that they can make up for a mental mistake, where as a fundamentally sound player will compensate for lack of talent (ie. take a deeper drop/not allow a rec to get behind him).

Maybe you're right on the last paragraph but even that's not right every single time. Also the farther you drop back to make up for your lack of athletic ability, the more you open up the field in front of you.

 

[Section136]

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

Beat post evah from you, JD.

But some buttholes, whose names shall remain anonymous, are so obsessed with blaming everything on KF that they are convinced he is intentionally sinking the program.

 

[RocknRollface]

Kirk. i don't give a damn what position it is...where the kid is from...what his name is... or what year he is. PLAY THE MOST TALENTED PLAYERS!!! Let them make a mistake or two. They sure as hell won't learn sitting on the bench.

PLAY TO WIN! Not to manage risk.

Id rather have a talented guy who only knows half the plays than a average risk manager.

 

[eveningnewsteam]

I think the only thing standing in LeShun's way is going to be blocking and receiving. He seems ready from a pure running standpoint. I kinda feel bad for Barkley Hill. With his injury last year and Malloy and Daniels coming on, it seems like he's most likely to be the odd man out.

I have nothing against Barkley Hill, but if he is ever the feature back at Iowa, they are in serious trouble.

 

[RocknRollface]

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.

What gives the team the best chance to win is the question.

Some seem to think experience and some other factors may be weighted a bit to heavily vs raw talent in the mind of the coach.

Some seem to think that not taking risks is the way to win, others would argue its the opposite.

 

[hwk23]

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

I think it's a myth that we need so many plays to be successful. PSU's offense last year featured 20 passing plays and 5 rushing plays and that's it. Bill O'Brien taylored a limited number of plays to the strengths of his players. That's a clever way to look at it. I'd rather have talent on the field and match a limited number of plays to the talent.

 

[PCHawk]

As far as "not doing it in practice" goes, just because a player gets beat out doesn't mean he's not doing it. It just means he's not doing it quite as good as the other guy. It doesn't mean he's lazy or has a bad work ethic.

Now say someone beats someone out by the slimmest of margins. If he plays worse under pressure and the other guy plays better under pressure, then the guy who got beat out in practice gives the team a better chance to win. The reason the other guy got picked is completely understandable but in that situation its the wrong decision. The only way to figure that out is hindsight after the other guy gets his chance but it happens all the time with every team in every sport, and to think otherwise is foolish.

 

[RocknRollface]

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

And what is better is the question.

Is consistently average without mistakes better or is making plays mixed in with some big mistakes better?

 

[deanvogs]

What gives the team the best chance to win is the question.

Some seem to think experience and some other factors may be weighted a bit to heavily vs raw talent in the mind of the coach.

Some seem to think that not taking risks is the way to win, others would argue its the opposite.

Way to set up a strawman arguement. Who said the player not taking risks is winning the job? It is usually the more talented player keeping himself off the field, because they keep making simple and stupid mistakes. See Steele Jantz for ISU. The coaches saw the talent and kept playing him. He kept making stupid mistake after stupid mistake until they were forced to pull him. He had way more upside than any other ISU QB, as Iowa saw first hand. Problem is he kept taking UNWARRENTED risks and those always come back to bite you.