Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
'Some' are not former national coaches of the years, 'some' have never coached a game beyond the PS3 or XBox dynasties and 'Some' can't spell spiral let alone throw one
It doesn't matter what 'some' think here...they are on the outside. Suggesting that Kirk isn't doing all he can do to win games is a farce.
Come on Jon, how can you even type that last line? People are saying that they think the way Kirk analyzes data is flawed. I don't believe for a second that your reading comprehension is so bad that you think we are saying that kirk's not trying to win.
Do you really think that every head coach out there would have played Banks the exact same amount of time in '01?
I believe that he wasn't completely ready, I just think to much stock was put into that fact. If that was the reason he would have slowly played more and more as the year went on. Then he would have had 4 weeks to get ready for the bowl game. Does anyone remember for sure if that's the way it played out?
I think I remember reading somewhere about stanzi and JC.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
First of all, regarding the part of your post I bolded... It's pretty well known around here that some have actually tried claiming Kirk isn't trying to win. So yes it's not a stretch for Jon to assume you're claiming that.
Second of all, take a step back and look at the big picture here. You keep claiming that in your opinion Banks should have played more in 2001. Jon specifcally said in his posts he has talked to several players who were on that team about the Banks/McCann situation and they simply laughed at the idea that Banks should have played more in 2001. Are you sure Jon is the one with the reading comprehension problems or do you simply think your outside opinion is more meaningful than players who were in practice day in and day out?
Once again, you're trying to insinuate that your opinion is more knowledgable than those with first hand accounts of the situation and how it went down. This is exactly like the whole Ferentz is only starting Rudock because it's the "safe bet". Why not wait until we see an actual game before we assume things that we don't really know?
The fact is that there are examples of playing the wrong guy (in every program). If people don't buy the Banks example, because of their own opinion or someone else's that they talked to, that's fine. But to really think Kirk (or any other coach) gets it right every single time is crazy.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
And in that example it was an open competition between the two, until Stanzi won out after the Pitt game. It wasn't like KF trotted out JC all year long.....
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with this. It is just the people who think that KF has no interest or cares if Iowa wins, unless it is "his way" that bother me.
All coaches make mistakes, it doesn't mean they don't care about winning.
I think someone should read a post and decide from that what the person is saying instead of from something someone has said on here before. The truth is we will never know what would have happened if Banks played more because he didn't. My opinion, which most people agree with, is we looked better when Banks was out there. Most people won't argue with that part.
The part where people argue about is how much he should have played due to how ready he was. The fact that he could handle entire drives and look really good doing it is enough for me to assume he could handle the next drive too. And like I said earlier, I'm sure other coaches would come to that same conclusion.
OLWPAORWWM
Banned
Sometimes I think people forget how scary Rick Stanzi was before his senior season.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
I think that's a classic myth about Ferentz critics; that they accuse him of "not wanting to win" or that he "doesn't care about winning".
I'd suggest that the real criticism is that he plays it safe...way too much. And that gives the appearance that he's satisfied with being close. "Going for it" looks a heck of a lot more like you're hungry and willing to try anything to get the "W".
It's KFz's "play it safe" approach that gives the impression... that he isn't real passionate about getting the "W". Waiting for your opponent to make a mistake...instead of attacking.
I'd suggest that the real criticism is that he plays it safe...way too much. And that gives the appearance that he's satisfied with being close. "Going for it" looks a heck of a lot more like you're hungry and willing to try anything to get the "W".
It's KFz's "play it safe" approach that gives the impression... that he isn't real passionate about getting the "W". Waiting for your opponent to make a mistake...instead of attacking.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
Also I'm not trying to insinuate that my opinion is more knowledgeable then anyone else's, I'm just simply stating my opinion. I'm pretty sure I came to the right place for that[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with you here... you did come to the right place
I get that there are many examples of the better player not always playing, however it's very difficult for someone outside of the program(s) to get a grasp on exactly why that is. Sometimes it's not as easy as it seems for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that the coach was just being stubborn or conservative unless you know for a fact that is the case.
I think kirk tries to make sure that one of his decisions doesn't cost them the game. If he puts Banks in and he screws up Kirk blames himself. If McCann screws up then that's football.
One might say that we have a player who was not good enough to take a single snap to a player who after two weeks of practice can take them all
kicker22
Well-Known Member
I see it the completely opposite way. While I definitely agree with you that it could easily be how people get their opinion of KF, I see it in an enitrely different light. I see it as disciplined and willing to stikc to the game plan. To me it seems as though he knows his players ability and what they are capapble of and as a result stays true to that style of play. IMO the coaches that change their game plans or tend to "go for it" may not have the confidence in their game plan or players to stay within that plan. They may find themselves taking more "risks" or "chances down field" because they simply don't feel comfortable with their game plan or their personnel to stay with in the plan.
I understand what people are saying about how KF does things, but IMO if he were to completely go against what he's done all this time I think would be a greater display of the true state of the program or what he truly feels of the talent he has in front of him.
Also I'm not trying to insinuate that my opinion is more knowledgeable then anyone else's, I'm just simply stating my opinion. I'm pretty sure I came to the right place for that
I completely agree with you here... you did come to the right place
I get that there are many examples of the better player not always playing, however it's very difficult for someone outside of the program(s) to get a grasp on exactly why that is. Sometimes it's not as easy as it seems for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that the coach was just being stubborn or conservative unless you know for a fact that is the case.
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.
The only way Banks would have been unable to play the whole game would have been fatigue which obviously wasn't the case. So its a fact that he could have played the whole game. It's opinion whether we would have been better with banks running a limited playbook or McCann running the whole playbook. There is no way to know for sure if other defenses could have stopped banks if he was just doing more of the same.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Good thoughts, so I'll reply. Being disciplined is not the same as playing it safe. It takes as much discipline and focus to execute a more aggressive game plan as a conservative one. (some would suggest it takes even MORE).
But within your comments, I see another myth that usually finds its way into the "style of play" discussion. It seems that many people think about a long pass or a more aggressive play and immediately think that means sandlot football...drawing plays in the dirt and just throwing the ball up for grabs. Bullocks, I say. You can play aggressively with focus and discipline...it just looks different.
As for "sticking to the plan"... there are many terms for people who refuse to grow in their work. Among them are "obsolete", "ineffective" and "fired". And the reason why, is usually among these..."lack of motivation", "stubbornness", "denial" and "ego". How much any of those apply to this topic...is open to debate.
You don't need to throw out your foundation. Build on your strengths and successes. But you sure as heck better grow and adjust. The rest of the world isn't sitting still.
Last edited:
Makavelihawk
Well-Known Member
I'll take RS as a Jr. over as a Sr. any day of the week. I prefer my quarterbacks pre-neutered.
FreedComanche
Banned
Funny. I think that's why some of us want Sokol to start even though we don't know much other than what we read. When I hear of a qb that is a play maker, I am apt to want him. What I've heard about JR makes me think he's too Mccannish. If ya get my drift.
