Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 2014

[hwk23]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

I heard Scheel and Mitchell had minor injuries and were unlikely to play. I'm just surprised how much I read on here that it doesn't matter who our QB is. QB is by far the most important position on a team. Of course it matters. And unless Kirk did some self evaluation and decided to re prioritize how he evaluates players, then personnel issues will always be a hot topic.

Not only that, QB is especially important at Iowa. Almost every good Iowa team has had a very good QB (not an average QB). 1981 might be the exception where we had an outstanding defense and average QB play. We simply are never going to be good enough, talented and deep enough to win with mediocre QB play.

 

[doughudd]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

I heard Scheel and Mitchell had minor injuries and were unlikely to play. I'm just surprised how much I read on here that it doesn't matter who our QB is. QB is by far the most important position on a team. Of course it matters. And unless Kirk did some self evaluation and decided to re prioritize how he evaluates players, then personnel issues will always be a hot topic.

Dolph said on the pregame show the staff visited other coaches at their facilities (did not say who) this spring and summer to help them be less predictable. They then spent spring and summer tweaking the playbook. The staff, especially Kirk needed to get the new facility done and moved in to. With this done I look for things to get much better as they re-focus on getting winning football back on track.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Personnel decisions are what make a coach a CEO. He is charged with sorting through the 85 scholarships and putting the best 12 out there. When you play favorites and bench athletes because they show too much swagger (or WRs who don't block when they are 30 yards from the play), and play upperclassmen or guys who get better grades, you are failing your corporation and creating worker apathy, dissatisfaction, and will lead the nation in player transfers.

There IS a correlation between unfair personnel decisions and transfers. There is also a correlation between bad personnel decisions and win loss record. If the issue is swept under the rug, it is bound to repeat itself.

Hell, we had a WR last year in Powell who played sparingly at best, and yet was on an NFL roster longer than Iowa greats DJK and McNutt. That can't happen on a team so desperate for talent.

TL: DR. Just wanted to let you know. Keep spending your time typing though, I'm sure it's great stuff.

 

[Knight78]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

PC, many folks just don't understand that these seasons are connected. Not wanting to rehash this topic, but to illustrate a point: If Willies got the PT last season he should have, then he's still on the team. Then we have 2 kids that can gain separation (T. Smith the other one.) So, where was Jay Scheel yesterday? What is truly going through Scheels mind, now, when McCarrin plays and he didn't?

Scheel, according to all sources, was still nursing an injury as was Mitchell. Both should be good to go against Iowa St.

 

[doughudd]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Not only that, QB is especially important at Iowa. Almost every good Iowa team has had a very good QB (not an average QB). 1981 might be the exception where we had an outstanding defense and average QB play. We simply are never going to be good enough, talented and deep enough to win with mediocre QB play.

That was another discuss during pregame Saturday. CJ did not know the playbook well enough last season to get the starts. Yesterday CJ was changing plays at the line and nobody bashed CJ on the message boards for it. Rudock was always getting ripped for his check downs. In Vandeberg's post game interview yesterday he praise CJ for checking them into the right plays to run. It takes more than an arm at QB to run the offense. CJ finally caught up to Rudock on the playbook and now it's his team to run.

 

[doughudd]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Personnel decisions are what make a coach a CEO. He is charged with sorting through the 85 scholarships and putting the best 12 out there. When you play favorites and bench athletes because they show too much swagger (or WRs who don't block when they are 30 yards from the play), and play upperclassmen or guys who get better grades, you are failing your corporation and creating worker apathy, dissatisfaction, and will lead the nation in player transfers.

There IS a correlation between unfair personnel decisions and transfers. There is also a correlation between bad personnel decisions and win loss record. If the issue is swept under the rug, it is bound to repeat itself.

Hell, we had a WR last year in Powell who played sparingly at best, and yet was on an NFL roster longer than Iowa greats DJK and McNutt. That can't happen on a team so desperate for talent.

I gotta see this beast on the bench that's better than #95. What's his name?

 

[Billso]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

From even the most elementary laymans eyeball test, everyone from coaches to commentators to fans can agree that CJ has a superior skill set than Jake. It was obvious last year, and it was obvious this week in watching them play. CJ is more mobile, has a quicker release, a better arm, and better instincts. He also can hit the deep ball better. Jake played exactly the same for Mich as he did for Iowa. CJ played exactly the same this week that he did last year. WHY did it take Kirk a full wasted season to see that?

In addition, eyeball tests make clear that Mark Weismann (and his backup) was inferior to the two running backs who played behind him last year. It can't even be debated. Both guys today had a burst that Weismann never had. Both guys have vision he never had. Neither get drilled behind the line of scrimmage for loss of yards like he did. Both can get the tough yards AND go the distance, traits you need in a starting tailback. WHY did it take Kirk a full wasted season to see that?

Personnel mistakes cost us games last year. And these are just the glamour positions that everyone notices. Think about personnel mistakes in the trenches or at WR that no one can really tell were mistakes (i.e. Powell's misuse last year in favor of Stone and crew, and starting 2 walkon freshmen LB over better athletes come to mind).

If we could just get the best guys on the field regardless of politics and coaches pets, this could actually be a solid team! The assistant coaches need to step up and stand up for the position players they coach every day to ensure that the best players are on the field, regardless of politics. Davis is as much to blame for CJ riding the bench all last year as Kirk is. Too afraid to stand up to his boss, knowing that no other team will ever give him another chance after being fired by back to back poor offensive teams.

How many deep balls were hit yesterday? You'll have to remind me.

Who were the "better athletes" Kirk should have started at LB last year?

Players develop in college, often dramatically. A player this year is not the same guy he was last year.

Powell was rarely open, and when he was Jake couldn't hit him. Canzeri and Daniels were mostly hurt. Wadley did well before fumbleitis set in.

I grade your post "Fail".

 

[Bluesman]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

I think it's pretty clear CJ should have been the QB last year; I also think it's pretty clear Mark Weisman shouldn't have been playing running back. Would changes have made a huge difference last year? Maybe one more win, who knows? With Kirk as the head coach maybe not.

I'll get excited when they beat somebody good. Not going to go off the deep end about a win over an FCS team. They did seem to play with a different attitude which was nice to see, definitely a bit of a different vibe about the team. If they are truly a good team this year they should beat Iowa State by at least 21 next week; of course we all know Kirk's record against the lowly Clones so I'm not expecting it. The Hawks have a pretty easy schedule this year, 8-4 should be a piece of cake if Kirk doesn't get in the way.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

I heard Scheel and Mitchell had minor injuries and were unlikely to play. I'm just surprised how much I read on here that it doesn't matter who our QB is. QB is by far the most important position on a team. Of course it matters. And unless Kirk did some self evaluation and decided to re prioritize how he evaluates players, then personnel issues will always be a hot topic.

What is Scheel's injury and how long will he be out? I really think he will be key for us this season. Really need to get him on the field.

 

[GrandpaHawk]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Personnel decisions are what make a coach a CEO. He is charged with sorting through the 85 scholarships and putting the best 12 out there. When you play favorites and bench athletes because they show too much swagger (or WRs who don't block when they are 30 yards from the play), and play upperclassmen or guys who get better grades, you are failing your corporation and creating worker apathy, dissatisfaction, and will lead the nation in player transfers.

There IS a correlation between unfair personnel decisions and transfers. There is also a correlation between bad personnel decisions and win loss record. If the issue is swept under the rug, it is bound to repeat itself.

Hell, we had a WR last year in Powell who played sparingly at best, and yet was on an NFL roster longer than Iowa greats DJK and McNutt. That can't happen on a team so desperate for talent.

Best 12 out there? What sport are you playing or what business are you running.

 

[meaning]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Personnel decisions are what make a coach a CEO. He is charged with sorting through the 85 scholarships and putting the best 12 out there.

Any coach that did this would be plagued with penalties on every play. I don't think that coach would even last a season.

 

[Scorpio]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Dolph said on the pregame show the staff visited other coaches at their facilities (did not say who) this spring and summer to help them be less predictable. They then spent spring and summer tweaking the playbook. The staff, especially Kirk needed to get the new facility done and moved in to. With this done I look for things to get much better as they re-focus on getting winning football back on track.

The BTN pregame show said Kirk and staff visited Oregon and got ideas from their weekly schedules/tendencies. I was pretty suprised by this. Also not a bad program to get a few helpful notes from, shows he's trying.

Some of the changes were practices being moved to morning instead of afternoon. This led to fewer classroom conflicts and most importantly synced the players body clocks to practicing the same time they would likely be playing. Kirk understood 11am games would be common and used this to to coordinate practice times. Seems logically smart. They also changed their weekly schedule. Thursday's are now the day off, and they get the whole day off. Sunday is game film, Monday is upcoming opponent game plan implementation, Tuesday and Wednesday are full blown contact practices, Thursday off and Friday is cross the T's, dot the I's and mental prep for Sat. I don't know what they were doing before but all this seems like smart changes.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

I wouldn't read anything as groundbreaking as, "Today's performance confirms...." Into this game. This is the first game of the year. Iowa is a division higher than Illinois State.

Iowa played a good game. They won like they were supposed. Maybe this is a great year. Maybe, Maybe, this is Iowa's one game where they look good. It's still early nothings confirmed on this team yet.

 

[Bigtenchamp]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Just watched the replay, like a lot of what I saw. Perhaps the funniest comment of the day by Millen was when they were taking about KFz naming CJ the starter in January. (paraphrasing) " Ferentz and Davis knew what they had in Beathard, nobody else did. Iowa fans weren't sure,when they announced he would be the starter."

I about fell out of my chair with laughter.

Lol yeah I remember that... I love it when announcers trying to act like they know about the team pull stuff out of their arse.

I guess it fools someone somewhere.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Dolph said on the pregame show the staff visited other coaches at their facilities (did not say who) this spring and summer to help them be less predictable. They then spent spring and summer tweaking the playbook. The staff, especially Kirk needed to get the new facility done and moved in to. With this done I look for things to get much better as they re-focus on getting winning football back on track.

If so, that's great. But doesn't it strike you as a bit strange....that a Coach with this much experience needs this kind of help?

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Not to mention a recruiting aspect that plays into this. I'd think that 10 wins would get some better prospects versus 7 wins. Just sayin.

Sure, but it guarantees nothing.

Recruiting and personnel are not the biggest problem.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Personnel decisions are what make a coach a CEO. He is charged with sorting through the 85 scholarships and putting the best 12 out there. When you play favorites and bench athletes because they show too much swagger (or WRs who don't block when they are 30 yards from the play), and play upperclassmen or guys who get better grades, you are failing your corporation and creating worker apathy, dissatisfaction, and will lead the nation in player transfers.

There IS a correlation between unfair personnel decisions and transfers. There is also a correlation between bad personnel decisions and win loss record. If the issue is swept under the rug, it is bound to repeat itself.

Hell, we had a WR last year in Powell who played sparingly at best, and yet was on an NFL roster longer than Iowa greats DJK and McNutt. That can't happen on a team so desperate for talent.

(Sigh)

Powell hasn't even been gone a full year. And he was more one-dimensional than Parker, who is almost a poster child for One-Dimensional Player Prototype.

Willies was hurt. He missed assignments. He quit.

Give it a rest. It's getting old.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

For those saying Weisman shouldn't have been playing RB last years, will you at least concede that Canzeri having heel/ankle issues and Daniels missing 7 or 8 games gave permission for Weisman to be used? Or is that asking too much?

 

[Knight78]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

If so, that's great. But doesn't it strike you as a bit strange....that a Coach with this much of experience needs this kind of help?

Back when I was a teacher/coach at the high school level I sat in coaching clinics with guys like Jerry Christiansen, Don Showalter and Gordon Rundquist, who were there taking notes and listening intently. These three guys won 1765 games in their careers so far, and they are still trying to get one more piece of information, one more drill, one more bit of knowledge that would give them an edge.

No, it doesn't strike me as strange at all. What would strike me as strange if he STOPPED trying to get this kind of help.

 

[seepig]

Re: Today's Performance Confiirms That the Best Players Weren't Always On Field in 20

Is anyone concerned at all with what appeared to be many open WRs yet again? Reece Fleming got turned around more that a ballerina at the Bolshoy!