Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits

[tm3308]

That might be true for NW (I haven't looked) but GDs offenses are best around 8 ypa. 2010 and 2012 were the two bad offenses GD has had in 10+ years, and both of those averaged 6.0 ypa or less (Jvb 5.8 ypa and Gilbert 6.0 ypa). Colt McCoy and Vince Young each averaged about 8.0 ypa for their career at Texas and Applewhite was just below 8.0 ypa for his career at Texas.

If you look at the NFL, QBs that extend the play like RGIII (1st) and Cam Newton were towards the top in ypa so the stat tends to favor the QB that can extend the play. I think it's because it's easier for the WR to run for yards after the play breaks down, but not sure. (Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning were also in the top 5 in the category.) The point is though GD's offense seems to require about 8.0 ypa to be successful.

That doesn't usually reflect the performance of the quarterback, though, at least not in Davis' offense. His offense is dependent on short passes and letting receivers pick up YAC. When you're throwing to Limas Sweed, Quan Cosby, Jordan Shipley, etc., it's pretty easy to have a respectable YAC in that offense. When the good receivers left, Gilbert struggled with the leftovers who couldn't make things happen after the catch. Iowa definitely didn't have the kind of speed on the outside to make this offense work the way it's meant to.

 

[PCHawk]

Didn't he change Eubanks to Bruggerman?

Now that's a really good example. Can anyone confirm Eubanks wasn't hurt?

 

[dave3912]

I've watched every passing play but not in person. I'm a big believer that stats tell a story though. People tend to look at who throws the prettiest spiral in real games but they miss the fact there are a thousand other decisions that go into getting the ball to the WR. A lot of it's feel for the game and that's not coachable.

An anaolgy might be Lee Trevino vs the country club pro. The country club pro might have a very nice, even perfect swing but Lee Trevino's going to beat him and score better (at least back in the day).

hwk23, as TM said above, Sokol played the 2nd team defense this past scrimmage and I don't remember the first two scrimmages in the spring on how that played out. But many of the media come out and said that the 1st team defense was way better than the 2nd team. I believe Marc Morehouse might have been the one that said the 2nd team defense was making everyone look good.

I just think that to clear up who is better for THIS team is only going to be decided on the field in a live game. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. Either the coaching staff is going to give Sokol a chance in a game or they aren't, which sucks for him but again he needs to prove to the staff he is their best option in practice. If he doesn't do that in their opinion then so be it.

I am not rooting against Sokol nor am I a fan of KF or his conservative nature but KF does make the decisions. If he wants Rudock in, then that is going to happen but not because he is too stupid or doesn't want to win or whatever anyone on this message board wants to call it but because he truly believes from seeing him in practice day in and day out that he is the best option. KF is a D1 college football coach who has been around football his whole life playing or coaching the game, however many on this site sit at home or in the stands and play Captain Hindsight and yell when something goes wrong but rarely admit when something goes right that KF knows what he is doing. Point being he knows more than all of us on here, regardless of what we think or what we claim to know or want to admit.

 

[RocknRollface]

'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.

You've missed the point completely.

No one said it "mattered" and no one said KF isn't "trying" to do all he can.

His personal preference to avoid risks is more extreme than most other college coaches including most other national coaches of the year.

Of course everyone thinks their method is best but is it?

 

[hwk23]

hwk23, as TM said above, Sokol played the 2nd team defense this past scrimmage and I don't remember the first two scrimmages in the spring on how that played out. But many of the media come out and said that the 1st team defense was way better than the 2nd team. I believe Marc Morehouse might have been the one that said the 2nd team defense was making everyone look good.

I just think that to clear up who is better for THIS team is only going to be decided on the field in a live game. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. Either the coaching staff is going to give Sokol a chance in a game or they aren't, which sucks for him but again he needs to prove to the staff he is their best option in practice. If he doesn't do that in their opinion then so be it.

I am not rooting against Sokol nor am I a fan of KF or his conservative nature but KF does make the decisions. If he wants Rudock in, then that is going to happen but not because he is too stupid or doesn't want to win or whatever anyone on this message board wants to call it but because he truly believes from seeing him in practice day in and day out that he is the best option. KF is a D1 college football coach who has been around football his whole life playing or coaching the game, however many on this site sit at home or in the stands and play Captain Hindsight and yell when something goes wrong but rarely admit when something goes right that KF knows what he is doing. Point being he knows more than all of us on here, regardless of what we think or what we claim to know or want to admit.

Good points, I would just add that Sokol also had the best stats when they were splitting stats against 1st team (and Rudock 2nd, Beathard 3rd).

 

[RocknRollface]

Sometimes I think people forget how scary Rick Stanzi was before his senior season.

I agree, people remember him like he was Joe Montana when he was a turnover machine his first two years and basically went totally into the tank the last 5 games of his senior year.

Dosen't change the fact that he was unquestionably the better option than JC. I think people clearly forget how bad JC was, he would have ten feet of open space in front of him, run into his own lineman and fall down for a sack, that happened.

 

[RocknRollface]

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.

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.

 

[dave3912]

Good points, I would just add that Sokol also had the best stats when they were splitting stats against 1st team (and Rudock 2nd, Beathard 3rd).

I think the bad part about a few scrimages is that these aren't real games so for me, I don't compare one play or performance to another as apples to apples. Rudock could be playing better in practice, Sokol might not be and the other way with the scrimmages. But another thing is that Rudock and Sokol had different receives on different play with different defenders lined up against those receivers. The defense probably called a different play against the offenses plays that each QB had. Too much going to say that stats told the whole story or even more of it.

Comparing players is not apples to apples but more people are looking at the QB battle and saying Sokol is 3rd. That is what makes this so hard for everyone on each side of the argument everyone has their own opinion. I for one wish KF would take a few more chances and gamble a little bit more, keep opposing DC's honest. I think a QB that can handle a blitz or extend plays with their feet could be good for this team if KF would allow them to do that but until I see Sokol in a actual game I will believe KF is making a better decision than just me reading stats or watching highlights.

 

[hwk23]

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 not something we should try to do. You have to take some risk and manage it. Last year there were plenty of examples of JVB not throwing into single coverage to avoiding risk but we needed to attack in those situations. I'm hoping GD will help there because I think he has a good idea of the risk the QB should be taking, not sure though.

 

[trj]

Angerer battled injuries in 2007 and didn't really have a chance to develop. And it's not like people weren't optimistic about Coleman.

Stanzi was nowhere near ready to play in 2007; he still had filling out to do, and he didn't exactly set the world on fire once he finally did become the starter (not right away, anyway).

IIRC, people were pretty excited about Greving after he averaged over 6 ypc and scored 6 times in 2001. And it took no time at all for Russell/Lewis to take over, so I don't know why we're ******** about this one.

Shada, I'll give you, but I really can't remember what people thought of Fletcher at the time. I just know everybody hated Shada.

According to jon and a few others Fletcher was really small, maybe 160 lbs. soaking wet when he got to Iowa. He was built like a basketball player, long arms, super skinny.

As for Shada, hate is a strong word. He wasn't as bad as people think, he was good in run support. As you know Iowa is in two deep most of the time it was just when he got caught on an island by himself it was just brutal to watch he we get spun around and he would be a step behind. He had the foot speed to be a good corner he was just a classic example of a guy who did too much thinking and not just reacting and going on instinct. Every corner gets beat, but with Shada it was like it was in slow motion you could just see it coming, especially if you were at the game in person. Shada along with JC became the scapegoat/symbol of the frustration fans had with the program at the time.

 

[deanvogs]

Avoiding risk is not something we should try to do. You have to take some risk and manage it. Last year there were plenty of examples of JVB not throwing into single coverage to avoiding risk but we needed to attack in those situations. I'm hoping GD will help there because I think he has a good idea of the risk the QB should be taking, not sure though.

This "avoiding risk" is not what is happening. It is actually called experience. Most 1st year starters at QB make throws they SHOULDN'T make, either because of bad reads, or not understanding the opponents D, or tendencies, or any other number of factors. As they get more playing time, and adjust to the speed of the game, they understand these thing better, and don't make the throw they shouldn't, as they now make correct reads, and understand what the D is giving them. If your QB has a year experience and he is still forcing throws, because he can't read the defense, or understand where the play should go, then you are probably looking at a Steele Jantz type, and that ain't good.

 

[kicker22]

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.

Great response. I couldn't agree more. I think I missed on the direction I was going with that. I wasn't trying to insuate that there isn't discipline involved in running an aggressive vs. conservative gameplan.

What I meant was simply that we all know KF's style of conservative football. The discipline I was referring to is him staying within that style throughout the course of a game (beings that's the game plan) and not trying to change things up on the fly to something that (a) we haven't practiced or (b) don't have the personnel for.

I definitely don't think of the the longer "homerun" type plays or a more aggressive offensive philosophy as sandbox. At the same time, I don't think they're a style of play that anyone can simply switch on and off. We saw on more than one occasion how poorly we looked in the hurry up offense last year and I was simply implying that based on our personnel and comfort level last year, I would have much rather remained in the "pound the ball" mentality then watch us shy away from us unless we absoluely had to. our hurry up offense was a disaster last year and although I hated the conservative mentality at times I don't think as a team we knew how to/had the tools to do anything but that offensively.

Your absolutely right about not throwing out your foundation but rather to build on your strengths and success and adjusting to what isn't working. I've always lived by the mentality that if your winning you were winning for a reason and the best strategy is to do what got you the lead rather than playing to maintain it. I also believe that if you're losing you need to right the ship, but at the same time, I think you have to make adjustments but don't think you can play a style your unfamilar with or don't have the right personnel for.

From the reports I've been hearing, I like the adjustments that have been made previously and are being implemented as we speak. Hopefully we're on the right path back to being relevant in the world of college football.

 

[DP5555]

Ruduck had 15 yards rushing

Beathard had 3 yards rushing

Sokol had 0.

Man those stats tell me Rudock would most likely start in the SEC and there's a good chance he would make people forget about this whole Johnny Football nonsense.

(hope the sarcasm detectors are turned on)

 

[hwk23]

Ruduck had 15 yards rushing

Beathard had 3 yards rushing

Sokol had 0.

Man those stats tell me Rudock would most likely start in the SEC and there's a good chance he would make people forget about this whole Johnny Football nonsense.

(hope the sarcasm detectors are turned on)

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.

 

[whammer33024]

Ruduck had 15 yards rushing

Beathard had 3 yards rushing

Sokol had 0.

Man those stats tell me Rudock would most likely start in the SEC and there's a good chance he would make people forget about this whole Johnny Football nonsense.

(hope the sarcasm detectors are turned on)

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

 

[DP5555]

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 shoot... let's see... umm... Rudock completed a pass to himself against the first team defense! Didn't see that on Sokol's stat line whammer!

 

[kmurp]

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

Why am I hearing that he is third team then? BTW, were any of Rudocks yards (skimpy as they might be) from designed runs?

 

[dave3912]

Avoiding risk is not something we should try to do. You have to take some risk and manage it. Last year there were plenty of examples of JVB not throwing into single coverage to avoiding risk but we needed to attack in those situations. I'm hoping GD will help there because I think he has a good idea of the risk the QB should be taking, not sure though.

The problem is that last season Iowa didn't have a typical stout defense to back that up. If you turn over the ball by fumbling or throwing an INT with Iowa's offensive strategy you need to get the ball back quick. With the way Iowa's defense has played the last two seasons they can't afford to play too risky. Back when Iowa was in the top 25 almost every year in many defensive categories Iowa should have been more open to chance on the offensive side.

 

[hwk23]

The problem is that last season Iowa didn't have a typical stout defense to back that up. If you turn over the ball by fumbling or throwing an INT with Iowa's offensive strategy you need to get the ball back quick. With the way Iowa's defense has played the last two seasons they can't afford to play too risky. Back when Iowa was in the top 25 almost every year in many defensive categories Iowa should have been more open to chance on the offensive side.

Actually, I think it's the opposite. If you have a great D you have the luxury to play very conservatively and remove as much risk as possible. Going way back, when Minnesota won the NC back in 1960, they used to punt on 3rd down because their defense was truly great.

 

[10sec5oh]

Hwk23 loves him some Sokol.