Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits

[RocknRollface]

Was Jake Christensen better against Pitt than Stanzi?

By no definition was he better.

He did not make the mistake of completing a risky pass at the end of the half though, so he played, Stanzi sat, and Iowa lost a game they had no business losing.

 

[deanvogs]

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.

Agreed, but if a player is just beat out, they usually see playing time, and then game performance is the key to who plays more. QB is that one exception where playing multiple players is more difficult.

 

[Billso]

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 Steel Jortz 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.

FIFY. Please make an effort to comply with board standards and use the generally-accepted ISU player names.

Thanks.

 

[RocknRollface]

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.

Bob Sanders got burned allot too early on.

 

[deanvogs]

Was Jake Christensen better against Pitt than Stanzi?

By no definition was he better.

He did not make the mistake of completing a risky pass at the end of the half though, so he played, Stanzi sat, and Iowa lost a game they had no business losing.

And who played the rest of the season? How in the world did the "safe" choice lose his job to the gunslinger who takes too many risks? According to you KF doesn't make that choice.....yet he did and did so recently in the last QB battle.

 

[RocknRollface]

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.

Although not proven I think its also an excepted idea that Kirk wanted to stick with Christensen and KOK had to convince him to go with the more talented but mistake prone Stanzi.

 

[deanvogs]

Bob Sanders got burned allot too early on.

Impossible. According to you Bob couldn't have seen the field since KF won't play talented players that get burned a lot.

 

[Billso]

Was Jake Christensen better against Pitt than Stanzi?

By no definition was he better.

He did not make the mistake of completing a risky pass at the end of the half though, so he played, Stanzi sat, and Iowa lost a game they had no business losing.

I know at least one guy who agrees with you completely.

 

[hwk23]

Although not proven I think its also an excepted idea that Kirk wanted to stick with Christensen and KOK had to convince him to go with the more talented but mistake prone Stanzi.

Actually if Jake Christensen's results were slightly better we probably would have been stuck with him through 2009 (and 2009 wouldn't have happened). Stanzi threw the most INTs in the Big Ten in 2009 (total and per attempt) so he wasn't exactly playing the style KF prefers.

 

[RocknRollface]

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.

Do you understand what an argument is? There is no argument stated in that post, let alone a straw man argument.

As far as Steele Jantz goes, thats a very extreme example in regards to amount of mistakes. Few playes would ever make that many costly mistakes yet ISU does not beat Iowa with out him that year.

 

[RocknRollface]

And who played the rest of the season? How in the world did the "safe" choice lose his job to the gunslinger who takes too many risks? According to you KF doesn't make that choice.....yet he did and did so recently in the last QB battle.

Now this is the exact definition of a straw man argument. You putting words in my mouth and then countering your own exaggerated argument as if it were mine.

There should never have been a question as to who should have been the starter, yet he was put back into the Pitt game and did terrible the whole time.

I think most accept the idea that it was KOK that got JC benched. Youll probably dissagree with that for the sake of argument but I couldnt care less.

 

[IowaTeddy]

I think this first play might be the 38 yarder to Powell

Iowa football practice Video 5 of 6 8/17/2013 HawkeyeDrive.com - YouTube

 

[hwk23]

I think this first play might be the 38 yarder to Powell

Iowa football practice Video 5 of 6 8/17/2013 HawkeyeDrive.com - YouTube

That's a good example of something Sokol does well. Just as the pocket was collapsing he quickly adjusted and kept his eyes downfield to find the WR. JVB would have been sacked there or he would have thrown it OB. Instead it was a nice gain.

 

[FreedComanche]

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.

Very valid post.

FreedComanche

 

[FreedComanche]

Was Jake Christensen better against Pitt than Stanzi?

By no definition was he better.

He did not make the mistake of completing a risky pass at the end of the half though, so he played, Stanzi sat, and Iowa lost a game they had no business losing.

This is probably one of the biggest wrong moves made by kf since he's been at Iowa. I have said this before, but after the game, Jon Miller open up Sound Off stating that JC should not be Iowa's starting QB. Do you remember that, Jon?

I don't think anybody thought kf was trying to lose the game, it was just a very dumb move for him to leave JC in. I said during the game that kf is losing this game by leaving him in, but I think that kf thought he could win the game by doing what he did. That's very telling.

FreedComanche

 

[deanvogs]

Now this is the exact definition of a straw man argument. You putting words in my mouth and then countering your own exaggerated argument as if it were mine.

There should never have been a question as to who should have been the starter, yet he was put back into the Pitt game and did terrible the whole time.

I think most accept the idea that it was KOK that got JC benched. Youll probably dissagree with that for the sake of argument but I couldnt care less.

This is what you said:

He did not make the mistake of completing a risky pass at the end of the half though, so he played, Stanzi sat, and Iowa lost a game they had no business losing.

I only asked that if what you said is true, then how is it that Stanzi started the rest of the season? How is that a "strawman" argument where I am putting words in your mouth? It is a simple question, and my guess is you don't like having to answer it, because KF went with the less experienced, guy who was prone to take chances, over the "safe" "risk averse" option.

 

[deanvogs]

This is probably one of the biggest wrong moves made by kf since he's been at Iowa. I have said this before, but after the game, Jon Miller open up Sound Off stating that JC should not be Iowa's starting QB. Do you remember that, Jon?

I don't think anybody thought kf was trying to lose the game, it was just a very dumb move for him to leave JC in. I said during the game that kf is losing this game by leaving him in, but I think that kf thought he could win the game by doing what he did. That's very telling.

FreedComanche

This is true, and I personally never understood why Stanzi didn't finish that game. All I am saying to RocknRoll is that KF then made a different decision on the starter, and it goes directly against everything he and many others say about him.

 

[hwk23]

This is probably one of the biggest wrong moves made by kf since he's been at Iowa. I have said this before, but after the game, Jon Miller open up Sound Off stating that JC should not be Iowa's starting QB. Do you remember that, Jon?

I don't think anybody thought kf was trying to lose the game, it was just a very dumb move for him to leave JC in. I said during the game that kf is losing this game by leaving him in, but I think that kf thought he could win the game by doing what he did. That's very telling.

FreedComanche

If you look at JC's stats, he had just 6 INTs in 2007 and 1 in 2008 (part year of course). He was one of the least likely QBs to throw a pick in the KF era. I'm sure in KF's mind Jake Christensen WAS the safe decision. However, the SAFE decision doesn't always give us the best chance to WIN.

 

[FreedComanche]

This is true, and I personally never understood why Stanzi didn't finish that game. All I am saying to RocknRoll is that KF then made a different decision on the starter, and it goes directly against everything he and many others say about him.

Are you feeling ok? You do realize that you are agreeing with me, right?

FreedComanche

 

[deanvogs]

Are you feeling ok? You do realize that you are agreeing with me, right?

FreedComanche

I agree with you more than you think. KF makes mistakes all the time, all coaches do. I guess I'm just not like a lot of poster who think that personnel decisions are easy. KF is going to make mistake on personnel, as do all coaches.