Top 10 most indispensible players?

[HawkeyeMike23]

Is this fact? Can I verify this somewhere or are you delusional and talking out of your ***?

Vandenburg is a .500 qb at this point with a miserable failure of a second half against NW, nothing more

Stanzi's first game might be important in this discussion if I had a time machine, but since the only thing that matters is who is better now I will leave the time travel to Doc and marty

No obviously there's no way to verify this, but I agree with him. I think on that day Vandenburg gave us a better shot than Stanzi did. Vandenburg made several NFL quality throws in that game, throws I don't think Stanzi could make. There's no question he has a better arm than Stanzi, and I don't think Stanzi did anything all year that would lead anyone to believe that he would have played better than Vandenburg did in that game.

Now I think Stanzi is a very good college QB and an excellent leader and I don't want to see him hurt at all, but if it did happen I would feel very comfortable with Vandenburg going in. Also, I can't help but think how good our offense might be in '11 with possibly four OL starters, all 3 RBs, McNutt and Davis at the WR and Vandenburg leading the offense.

 

[irvskyle]

I hope you are all right and Vandenburg is the next Montana, but Stanzi didnt luck into a winning % of 82% and hasnt won 2 January bowl games because he cant make the throws.

I dont dislike the guy but you have forced my hand in presenting some facts
Vandenburg LOST to OSU again we lost the game (quit acting like nebraska fans and celebrating a 'close' loss), essentially Lost to NW since it was a pretty even game when he came in and then in his one win went 11/24 for 117yds with 0tds and 1 int and 4 carries for -39 yds. not to mention the fact that he threw 3 picks against tOSU in his 'signature game', something everyone overlooks for some reason

I am not saying he wont be good, Im not saying he isnt talented, Im not saying he wont EVENTUALLY be better than Stanzi(although I am skeptical he will) but he is not better NOW and its not close and to say he gave us a better chance to win last year in the Horseshoe is laughable

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

I hope you are all right and Vandenburg is the next Montana, but Stanzi didnt luck into a winning % of 82% and hasnt won 2 January bowl games because he cant make the throws.

I dont dislike the guy but you have forced my hand in presenting some facts
Vandenburg LOST to OSU again we lost the game (quit acting like nebraska fans and celebrating a 'close' loss), essentially Lost to NW since it was a pretty even game when he came in and then in his one win went 11/24 for 117yds with 0tds and 1 int and 4 carries for -39 yds. not to mention the fact that he threw 3 picks against tOSU in his 'signature game', something everyone overlooks for some reason

I am not saying he wont be good, Im not saying he isnt talented, Im not saying he wont EVENTUALLY be better than Stanzi(although I am skeptical he will) but he is not better NOW and its not close and to say he gave us a better chance to win last year in the Horseshoe is laughable

Stanzi is a very good QB and he has shown a remarkable knack for making big plays and pulling out games. No one is going to argue that, and while Stanzi can make most throws there are some he can't. That's not a knock on him, he just doesn't have the arm strength that Vandenburg does. Stanzi throws a great deep ball, but he can't make some of those out route throws that Vandenburg makes and the slant pass to McNutt that Vandenburg had was another one Stanzi probably couldn't make.

Also no one is "celebrating" losing to OSU. But even though Iowa lost, you can still be impressed by how Vandenburg played, its OK to admit that. Iowa had no healthy RBs that game, they were forced to throw more than usual with a freshman QB on the road against OSU. Having two picks, the third was on a 4th down hail mary so I won't hold that against him, is a reasonable number. One of Stanzi's signature games was against Indiana where he threw 5 interceptions, against Michigan St he was 11/27, against Penn St he was 11/26 with 2 interceptions. Stanzi won ugly games plenty of times so if you're knocking Vandenburg for the Minnesota game, you should realize it wasn't much different statistically than a lot of Stanzi's games.

I don't think Iowa would be better off with Vandenburg starting next year, I think Stanzi is one of the best Iowa QBs of all time, but it's certainly not laughable to think that Iowa might not have been as close to upsetting OSU as they were if Stanzi had played that game.

 

[whammer33024]

since someone brought up montana...i will ask this...

would you rather start AND expect a better result starting a rookie steve young(jimmy) vs. a seasoned vet in joe montana(slingin dick)?

i'm definitely not saying i don't have high hopes for jimmy as i do think he's going to be a hell of a quarterback and could take us a long way in 11...but theres a reason slingin dick started in the orange bowl. theres a reason the crowd went silent when they saw slingin dick laying in the end zone in obvious pain.

call it ugly, call it what you want. slingin dick wins games. period. did any of you stop to think for a moment that maybe we changed up the offense a little bit to account for jimmy's talents compared to what we would normally do with ricky? i don't see how this is even a comparison at this point in time

 

[irvskyle]

since someone brought up montana...i will ask this...

would you rather start AND expect a better result starting a rookie steve young(jimmy) vs. a seasoned vet in joe montana(slingin dick)?

i'm definitely not saying i don't have high hopes for jimmy as i do think he's going to be a hell of a quarterback and could take us a long way in 11...but theres a reason slingin dick started in the orange bowl. theres a reason the crowd went silent when they saw slingin dick laying in the end zone in obvious pain.

call it ugly, call it what you want. slingin dick wins games. period. did any of you stop to think for a moment that maybe we changed up the offense a little bit to account for jimmy's talents compared to what we would normally do with ricky? i don't see how this is even a comparison at this point in time

Speaking from facts and results its not a comparison

one guy has an 82% winning percentage 56% completion percentage and throws more tds than ints with a 131 qb rating, the other was .500 with a 48% completion rate and more than 2 ints per td and a qb rating of 89 and one good game where he threw 3 ints and almost won

 

[EddyP]

Guys no one is arguing who the starter should be only that we have two good QB's which is why AC gets the nod. Yes QB is admittedly the most important position on the field but if you didn't like what you saw against OSU then you are blind. And someone once said the best thing about freshman is they become sophmores. AC is a special player and the motor for a great defense.

 

[hawks263344]

I'm fine with most peoples list except for one big exception. I wouldn't even put Stanzi in my top 20. We won a lot of games inspite of his poor play. Games were also close because of all the injuries we had all year. If he were to go down in the first quarter of the first game we wouldn't be hurt one bit. Sash should be high on people lists because he gets INT's and there is nobody good to back him up.

 

[irvskyle]

I'm fine with most peoples list except for one big exception. I wouldn't even put Stanzi in my top 20. We won a lot of games inspite of his poor play. Games were also close because of all the injuries we had all year. If he were to go down in the first quarter of the first game we wouldn't be hurt one bit. Sash should be high on people lists because he gets INT's and there is nobody good to back him up.

Please share this top 20...lmao

 

[Hawke]

I'm fine with most peoples list except for one big exception. I wouldn't even put Stanzi in my top 20. We won a lot of games inspite of his poor play. Games were also close because of all the injuries we had all year. If he were to go down in the first quarter of the first game we wouldn't be hurt one bit. Sash should be high on people lists because he gets INT's and there is nobody good to back him up.

Would it be fair to say he would make your top 22?

 

[clim33]

1. Clayborn (he changes the game, period)
2. DJK ("possession" reciever that keeps the chains moving)
3. Reiff (experience at O line that has questions)
4. Stanzi (he just wins baby)
5. Sash (he's the centerfielder that will lock down the flat)
6. McNutt (after this season, you'll know why)
7. Vandervelde (another OL with experience, just needs to step up a bit)
8. Donahue (it's easy to miss, but he changed the field in our favor a lot last year)
9. Wegher (I know we have 3 backs, but he is going to make D Coordinators lose sleep with his versatility)
10. Prater (he's our best shot at shutting down the corner, 10b would be Bernstine)

Dead on the money. I might add Klug/Ballard in the mix as 10B though.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

I am assuming you are referring to the Stanzi/Vandenburg debate. You definitely can make an argument for Stanzi being #1. But, Vandenburg is 1 year older now. He is going into his 3rd year. He has some game experience. As Jon Miller has pointed out on several occasions, physically he might have the best tools of any Iowa QB since Chuck Hartlieb.

Vandenburg came into a VERY, VERY difficult situation against Northwestern. DID YOU HAPPEN TO WATCH THE GAME ON NOVEMBER 14 IN THE HORSE SHOE? Can you say SICK!! The kid was unbelievable. Now, I want Stanzi as our starting QB this year. But I don't think it would be catastrophic if Stanzi went down this year.

As for Reiff, Kirk said that Riley Reiff was our best o-lineman last year. We only have 2 starting lineman back. If Reiff goes down, our o-line is a disaster. I don't care how great your skilled position players, without an offensive line, you are toast. Just ask Oklahoma las year when they only returned 1 offensive lineman.

I also go back to the 2003 team. That team had 1 returning offensive lineman- Roberty Gallery. We had a 1st year unproven QB in Nathan Chandler but Chandler was fine because of Robert Gallery. He made the entire offensive line a better unit.

Riley Reiff is extremely important to this years team.

Yes, Vandenberg had a decent game against OSU, and that says a lot about how he'll develop moving forward. At the very least, we as fans know that the Hawks have a capable backup if Stanzi goes down.

That being said, Vandenberg also threw two picks, and would have thrown a third had OSU not been offside. That pick got returned for six, and would have iced the game. It also seems like when OT started, the enormity of the moment, and the setting that it was taking place in, got to him a bit.

You also can't mention how well Vandenberg played against OSU without mentioning how bad he looked against Minnesota in the finale.

 

[tm3308]

Yes, Vandenberg had a decent game against OSU, and that says a lot about how he'll develop moving forward. At the very least, we as fans know that the Hawks have a capable backup if Stanzi goes down.

That being said, Vandenberg also threw two picks, and would have thrown a third had OSU not been offside. That pick got returned for six, and would have iced the game. It also seems like when OT started, the enormity of the moment, and the setting that it was taking place in, got to him a bit.

You also can't mention how well Vandenberg played against OSU without mentioning how bad he looked against Minnesota in the finale.

I've said this about the OSU game before: if we could have started Vandenberg, then brought in a healthy, 4th quarter Ricky and plugged him in, we would win. But Ricky's penchant for pick-6's early in the game are what make me say that Vandenberg gave us the best chance. Ricky makes a mistake or two like that against OSU, and we probably aren't in a position for his 4th quarter magic to make a difference. If he tries to make the throw to McNutt that Vandenberg did on the slant, Kurt Coleman is racing down the sideline to the other endzone.

And while I agree Vandenberg didn't look great against Minnesota, there were a couple factors that contributed to that: 1. the playcalling was much more conservative than it was in Columbus (I'm guessing because we had no chance to beat OSU without opening it up, regardless of who was QB), and 2. the offensive line and running backs did a VERY poor job of picking up the blitz. Vandenberg got mowed down several times by completely untouched linebackers, and was under extreme pressure on a lot of other throws. I realize that a QB has to work under pressure, but he saw way more than usual that day.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

I've said this about the OSU game before: if we could have started Vandenberg, then brought in a healthy, 4th quarter Ricky and plugged him in, we would win. But Ricky's penchant for pick-6's early in the game are what make me say that Vandenberg gave us the best chance. Ricky makes a mistake or two like that against OSU, and we probably aren't in a position for his 4th quarter magic to make a difference. If he tries to make the throw to McNutt that Vandenberg did on the slant, Kurt Coleman is racing down the sideline to the other endzone.

That's probably true; that was an amazing throw. James had a very small window to throw that ball and placed where only his guy would get it.

That being said, I don't think that throw needs to be made if Stross doesn't drop the touchdown on Iowa's first possesion, and/or Murray doesn't miss what was basically an extra point.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

To me it starts with leadership on the field and then directly goes to the heart of Hawkeye football ... and that is tough line play. That's not to say that other guys aren't critical to our success though.

Anyhow, my take:

1. Stanzi - Undisputed leader of the O and will be the primary factor in allowing our newbies on the OL to gain confidence. His experience will instill confidence AND also give the guys on the OL a little bit more wiggle-room in their development.

2. Clayborn - General of the DL. He's simply too much of a game-changer to not be in the top-two.

3. Klug - If Clayborn is the general, then Klug is the Beserker in the field heading straight at the enemy (thereby causing the enemy to defecate themselves)

4. Reiff - Protecting the blind-side of Stanzi and providing some of the blocks in our running game that are critical for our inevitable deployment of the play-action pass.

5. Vandervelde - For a unit that lacks starting experience ... Vandervelde's on-field experience is precious to say the least. Without doubt, we need a guy on the OL to step up and lead ... and, quite frankly, Reiff is a bit too young to have to take on those duties.

6. Sash - While his playmaking skill on the D is invaluable in itself, more importantly, his leadership on the field is also critical.

7. Reisner - With Moeaki gone, opposing secondaries will place greater emphasis on shutting down Iowa's passing game to the WRs. That means that Iowa's TE play will be that much more important in 2010. The TE spot will be critical when it comes to getting first downs.

8. McNutt - Ultimately in football, you must also be able to score. To that end, McNutt has proven to have the great skill of finding his way to the end zone.

9. Prater - Here all you have to do is track the games he started and was healthy versus the games he was either out or was unhealthy. In his first year starting this young man already proved himself to be a difference-maker.

10. Donahue - Due to Iowa's style of play, winning the field-position battle is very important. To that end, Donahue is simply too much of weapon to leave off this list.

 

[tm3308]

To me it starts with leadership on the field and then directly goes to the heart of Hawkeye football ... and that is tough line play. That's not to say that other guys aren't critical to our success though.

Anyhow, my take:

1. Stanzi - Undisputed leader of the O and will be the primary factor in allowing our newbies on the OL to gain confidence. His experience will instill confidence AND also give the guys on the OL a little bit more wiggle-room in their development.

2. Clayborn - General of the DL. He's simply too much of a game-changer to not be in the top-two.

3. Klug - If Clayborn is the general, then Klug is the Beserker in the field heading straight at the enemy (thereby causing the enemy to defecate themselves)

4. Reiff - Protecting the blind-side of Stanzi and providing some of the blocks in our running game that are critical for our inevitable deployment of the play-action pass.

5. Vandervelde - For a unit that lacks starting experience ... Vandervelde's on-field experience is precious to say the least. Without doubt, we need a guy on the OL to step up and lead ... and, quite frankly, Reiff is a bit too young to have to take on those duties.

6. Sash - While his playmaking skill on the D is invaluable in itself, more importantly, his leadership on the field is also critical.

7. Reisner - With Moeaki gone, opposing secondaries will place greater emphasis on shutting down Iowa's passing game to the WRs. That means that Iowa's TE play will be that much more important in 2010. The TE spot will be critical when it comes to getting first downs.

8. McNutt - Ultimately in football, you must also be able to score. To that end, McNutt has proven to have the great skill of finding his way to the end zone.

9. Prater - Here all you have to do is track the games he started and was healthy versus the games he was either out or was unhealthy. In his first year starting this young man already proved himself to be a difference-maker.

10. Donahue - Due to Iowa's style of play, winning the field-position battle is very important. To that end, Donahue is simply too much of weapon to leave off this list.

I've seen Prater on a lot of lists so far. I'm not saying he shouldn't be. But you base it off of the performance in games by Castillo and Lowe. Now I will say that Lowe had a very rough day against Arkansas State. But by season's end he was looking very good in his coverages, and I would have felt comfortable having him in the lineup. He's now a year older, and in most years he would likely be a starter. But this year we have arguably the deepest pool of talent at corner as we've ever had under Ferentz.

So long story short, I really like our CB depth, and not just the top 3 guys.

 

[tm3308]

That's probably true; that was an amazing throw. James had a very small window to throw that ball and placed where only his guy would get it.

That being said, I don't think that throw needs to be made if Stross doesn't drop the touchdown on Iowa's first possesion, and/or Murray doesn't miss what was basically an extra point.

That was how the season went for Murray though. He wasn't ever consistent. And there's a reason that Mossbrucker was the kicker through the 2008 season. He took a confidence hit after Ferentz turned to Murray for the PSU kick, IMO. That was a 31-yard FG, which was within the range where we used Mossbrucker all year, while Murray was used more for long-range attempts because he had the bigger leg. Whichever one wins the job this year, I hope he's got consistency going for him.

And if I remember right, you're one who isn't so sure that Stross didn't intentionally drop those balls at OSU (pardon me if I'm mistaken). I'm not one who believes that, but I don't really know a reason why he struggled so much other than maybe he was nervous playing in such a big game in front of family in friends (it was his only game at OSU, so he hadn't played in front of the home crowd in an Iowa uniform), and that Vandenberg brought it a lot harder than Stanzi (he could have afforded to take a little off of both throws on the goalline).

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I've seen Prater on a lot of lists so far. I'm not saying he shouldn't be. But you base it off of the performance in games by Castillo and Lowe. Now I will say that Lowe had a very rough day against Arkansas State. But by season's end he was looking very good in his coverages, and I would have felt comfortable having him in the lineup. He's now a year older, and in most years he would likely be a starter. But this year we have arguably the deepest pool of talent at corner as we've ever had under Ferentz.

So long story short, I really like our CB depth, and not just the top 3 guys.

tm3308 -

I know for a fact that Lowe has upped his game too. From what I've heard, the competition at CB is pretty awesome. It's not just an issue of Bernstine trying to compete with Hyde for the #2 spot ... Bernstine will have his hands full keeping Lowe at bay too.

However, with that said, in light of Spievey's early departure to the NFL, I think that Prater's extra starting experience is valuable. Furthermore, if Prater also continues to develop more and more into a full-blown team leader ... he's going to be that much more valuable too.

Anyhow, I was VERY hard pressed to not have Greenwood on the list ... after all, he's basically the quarterback of the secondary ... however, somebody has to get left off of it. Similarly, it was also very hard for me to not include Tarp on the list too ... after all, at the MIKE spot, he's basically the quarterback of the front-7.

And, btw, from what I understand, Lowery is the REAL DEAL too ....

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

tm3308 -

To clarify my prior post ... I agree with you about the quality of talent that we have at CB. However, to me, leadership and starting experience is an intangible that can really make a difference sometimes.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Speaking from facts and results its not a comparison

one guy has an 82% winning percentage 56% completion percentage and throws more tds than ints with a 131 qb rating, the other was .500 with a 48% completion rate and more than 2 ints per td and a qb rating of 89 and one good game where he threw 3 ints and almost won

You really shouldn't use winning percentage as your main criteria for how good a QB is, well unless you want to argue that Greg McElroy was the best QB in the nation last year.

 

[tm3308]

tm3308 -

To clarify my prior post ... I agree with you about the quality of talent that we have at CB. However, to me, leadership and starting experience is an intangible that can really make a difference sometimes.

Oh I agree with you on that. I still may have put Greenwood on there ahead of Prater, because we don't have much behind Sash or Greenwood right now (several walk-ons, IIRC). Losing one of them would likely create a big dropoff in talent, not to mention experience. But Prater is an excellent CB, who could be just as good as Spievey when he's done.