Top 10 most indispensible players?

[tm3308]

I noticed you didnt answer my question if Ricky had played and taken OSU to overtime and lost would we all still be talking about it like he invented the wheel?

As for the UNI game its tough to pick Iowa players that stood out. Maybe Moeaki?
Part of the offenses problem was no running game... Paki was a bad idea and they stuck with it far too long. The offensive line was awful and the defense had real trouble stopping their passing game.

Ricky didnt play great thats for sure, but had just the one fumble that I recall completed 65% of his passes and won the game.

The biggest problem I have always had with other Iowa fans is that they always are looking to the next qb, and still havent learned that sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for. I see this becoming that kind of situation, Ricky won every game he played in its entirety last year and who knows what would have happened had he finished that NW game and tOSU game

Ricky wouldn't get the credit for it like Vandenberg is because he's an upperclassmen, and one who's shown he's got plenty of moxie in the clutch. If he had done what Vanderberg did (meaning do it as a freshman making his first start), people would have been just as excited about Stanzi. But you expect that kind of performance from an upperclassman QB. It's very unusual to see someone in Vandenberg's position do it.

And no one is wishing that Vandenberg would start for us. Just that we might not wring our hands too much if Ricky were to go down. In other words, we feel kind of like Ricky is Joe Montana, and Vandenberg is Steve Young, as opposed to Ricky is Peyton Manning and Vandenberg is.....who's Indy's backup QB again?

 

[whammer33024]

i think people are getting the wrong vibe here. nowhere has anyone said that jimmy is a bad quarterback and the next jake christensen(heaven for-fing-bid)...all i'm saying is that i think ricky is a team leader(jimmy is not) in which the whole team rallies behind. granted, he has more years in the program so earned more respect, but isn't that part of the whole thing?

i do agree, jimmy(or is it jimmie?) played MUCH better than i ever imagined against tOSU. i expected to be run out of the shoe with our tails between our legs and i was very impressed with what he did. but how can anyone on here honestly say he gave us a better chance to win that ricky? that statement boggles my mind. because he "can't" make the slant pass everyone seems to remember from that game? who says ricky wouldn't have found someone else to throw the ball to a little farther down field?

you also have to remember that first team players(ricky and the rest of the starters) practice together more...therefore they develop a relationship and know what to expect from each other. ricky throws a softer ball than jimmy does and his receivers know it. he also probably does things a bit differently than jimmy does. all that goes into how well an offense can perform. so it wasn't just jimmy making his first start, theoretically.

 

[EddyP]

The biggest problem I have always had with other Iowa fans is that they always are looking to the next qb, and still havent learned that sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for. I see this becoming that kind of situation, Ricky won every game he played in its entirety last year and who knows what would have happened had he finished that NW game and tOSU game

I believe I've prefaced almost every post with "Stanzi should be the starter". Not going to re-read every post but I don't think there has been one that states they think he should be.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

i think people are getting the wrong vibe here. nowhere has anyone said that jimmy is a bad quarterback and the next jake christensen(heaven for-fing-bid)...all i'm saying is that i think ricky is a team leader(jimmy is not) in which the whole team rallies behind. granted, he has more years in the program so earned more respect, but isn't that part of the whole thing?

i do agree, jimmy(or is it jimmie?) played MUCH better than i ever imagined against tOSU. i expected to be run out of the shoe with our tails between our legs and i was very impressed with what he did. but how can anyone on here honestly say he gave us a better chance to win that ricky? that statement boggles my mind. because he "can't" make the slant pass everyone seems to remember from that game? who says ricky wouldn't have found someone else to throw the ball to a little farther down field?

you also have to remember that first team players(ricky and the rest of the starters) practice together more...therefore they develop a relationship and know what to expect from each other. ricky throws a softer ball than jimmy does and his receivers know it. he also probably does things a bit differently than jimmy does. all that goes into how well an offense can perform. so it wasn't just jimmy making his first start, theoretically.

Going into that game I never would have thought that Vandenburg would give us a better shot. If the game was replayed I would still want Stanzi to start. But knowing how Vandenburg did play that day, I don't see what Stanzi would have done better. On the season we averaged 23.2 points per game, it's not like with Stanzi at the helm we were putting up 40 on teams on a regular basis. Vandenburg got off to a great start, should have been even better if it wasn't for a few drops, Stanzi consistently turned the ball over early in games. Vandenburg lead Iowa down the field repeatedly throughout the second half, he had several throws, not just the slant pass, that I don't think Stanzi could make.

All I'm saying is, looking back, and going off of Stanzi's typical 2009 stats I don't think Stanzi would have played better than what Vandenburg gave us that day.

 

[irvskyle]

I believe I've prefaced almost every post with "Stanzi should be the starter". Not going to re-read every post but I don't think there has been one that states they think he should be.

First I didn't say "the problem I have with eddy p is" I said other fans
Second are you understanding the topic at hand? Its not totally writing off jv its stating that the biggest loss on the team would be ricky stanzi in terms of wins and losses..... if you want to point out another single player that you think would be a bigger loss that's great but for now I am done comparing a proven starter and winner to a guy that has played 2 and half games 2 of which we lost that has thrown less than 100 passes and completed less than 50%

 

[whammer33024]

yup...i edited this because its beating a dead horse.

 

[EddyP]

First I didn't say "the problem I have with eddy p is" I said other fans
Second are you understanding the topic at hand? Its not totally writing off jv its stating that the biggest loss on the team would be ricky stanzi in terms of wins and losses..... if you want to point out another single player that you think would be a bigger loss that's great but for now I am done comparing a proven starter and winner to a guy that has played 2 and half games 2 of which we lost that has thrown less than 100 passes and completed less than 50%

Yes, but you don't which is part of the reason this thread is so long. I have repeatedly stated that I think AC would be a bigger loss because I think Vandenberg would be a capable back up and AC doesn't have one that can do the things that he does.

 

[irvskyle]

Ok eddy p, I think clayborn is the only player you can make an argument for, two questions neither of which I have the answer. Would stanzi be 2nd on your list? And what is the hawks record in games clayborn has started?

 

[tm3308]

Ok eddy p, I think clayborn is the only player you can make an argument for, two questions neither of which I have the answer. Would stanzi be 2nd on your list? And what is the hawks record in games clayborn has started?

How many of Stanzi's wins are really more of a credit to the defense than Stanzi's play? I love the guy, and have been sold on him as the starter since the Northwestern game in 2008 when he led us down the field in the last minute without the benefit of having Greene to hand the ball to. But the defense did bail him out in some of those wins, and I don't see the defense doing that without Clayborn.

 

[EddyP]

Ok eddy p, I think clayborn is the only player you can make an argument for, two questions neither of which I have the answer. Would stanzi be 2nd on your list? And what is the hawks record in games clayborn has started?

Yes, although I think you can make a case for Reiff which some have already. As for your second question(excuse me while I go sprint into a brick wall).....

ok, I'm back. We've been over this. You and some others don't have the confidence in Vandenberg that I have from what you have seen. That's fine. But again we are talking about this year.

 

[whammer33024]

lets face it eddy...slingin dick is the most indispensible player simply for his patriotism.

argue that!

 

[irvskyle]

Yes, although I think you can make a case for Reiff which some have already. As for your second question(excuse me while I go sprint into a brick wall).....

ok, I'm back. We've been over this. You and some others don't have the confidence in Vandenberg that I have from what you have seen. That's fine. But again we are talking about this year.

Based on some of the posts I have read running into a brickwall seems to be a hobby of yours, I understand you have said 25 times that rick should be the starter which no one was debating (atleast I hope not) but I am confused how you can rank rick as second most indespinsible and also act as if its not thay big of a dropoff to vandenburg

And to the 'defense won most of those games' guy. That is great that you think that and I am sure many would agree, but the question is which player is most indespinsible not which side of the ball is more important, also how did that defense winning games thing work out for jc (not jesus christ)

 

[tm3308]

Based on some of the posts I have read running into a brickwall seems to be a hobby of yours, I understand you have said 25 times that rick should be the starter which no one was debating (atleast I hope not) but I am confused how you can rank rick as second most indespinsible and also act as if its not thay big of a dropoff to vandenburg

And to the 'defense won most of those games' guy. That is great that you think that and I am sure many would agree, but the question is which player is most indespinsible not which side of the ball is more important, also how did that defense winning games thing work out for jc (not jesus christ)

If you even bothered to read my post, I never said the defense won MOST of the games. But we don't win 11 games without the defense bailing out the offense in a couple games (PSU and even Indiana come to mind). And Clayborn is what makes the defense go. Without him I don't think the defense comes through in some of the situations that it did with him.

 

[irvskyle]

Well we don't win vs minnesota without the defense and its doubtful we go to ot without the d and special teams against osu(djks return) and frankly we probably get blown out by northwestern without good d and 'jitterbug' at qb . Minus complete offensive juggernauts most 10-2 teams have a good defense that is responsible for just as many wins as the offense. I have no problem with the clayborn argument he is a freakish game changer without him we likely don't beat psu and he definitely owned the orange bowl. But even if stanzi is 2nd 3rd or 4th on your list that meanss he is significantly better NOW than vandenburg which is the point of being indispensible.

 

[EddyP]

lets face it eddy...slingin dick is the most indispensible player simply for his patriotism.

argue that!

I can't. In fact I think after he leads us to a national title this year he should run for Prez in 2012!!!

 

[EddyP]

Based on some of the posts I have read running into a brickwall seems to be a hobby of yours, I understand you have said 25 times that rick should be the starter which no one was debating (atleast I hope not) but I am confused how you can rank rick as second most indespinsible and also act as if its not thay big of a dropoff to vandenburg

And to the 'defense won most of those games' guy. That is great that you think that and I am sure many would agree, but the question is which player is most indespinsible not which side of the ball is more important, also how did that defense winning games thing work out for jc (not jesus christ)

Since apparently you don't read anyone's posts this was my first one and I really intended for it to be my last one.

1. Clayborn
2-9 can be argued

I appreciate your passion for Ricky but are you his frickin' brother or something? If I don't rank him 1 you will never be happy. 2, 3, 4, yeah he's up there he's the damn QB. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN VANDY AND YOU DON'T. That's what it boils down to(for the third time).

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

How many of Stanzi's wins are really more of a credit to the defense than Stanzi's play? I love the guy, and have been sold on him as the starter since the Northwestern game in 2008 when he led us down the field in the last minute without the benefit of having Greene to hand the ball to. But the defense did bail him out in some of those wins, and I don't see the defense doing that without Clayborn.

I have absolutely no problem with folks being of the opinion that Clayborn should be ahead of Ricky. However, I really don't think that a lot of Hawk fans appreciate how much of the O flowed through Ricky last year. And what is surprising about that is that it was a pretty big transition for Ricky going from our '08 O ... one that was truly led by Greene as much as by him ... and yet our O continued to put enough points up on the board in spite A LOT of adversity.

Like many folks, I too absolutely love Vandenberg's upside. In fact, in terms of passing, ball skills, and footwork ... Vandenberg is arguably ahead of Stanzi.

However, here is a little fact for folks. Iowa may have beaten Minny largely due to the D in 2009 ... however, had Stanzi been starting, Minny's defensive tactic of simply pressuring the crap out of the QB wouldn't have worked. Ricky would have burned them for enough big plays that they'd have to keep back safeties. And with them keeping guys back ... Iowa would go back to carving them up on the ground, just like Robinson had been doing through the better part of the 1st quarter. Specifically, what I'm saying is that Iowa would have beaten the snot out of the Gophers for a second year in a row ... and I'm talking about another laugher sort of score.

Similarly, with Stanzi at the helm, Iowa would have handily beaten Northwestern too. Unfortunately he got injured, we lost, and the rest is history.

While I really anticipate that Iowa's O will have little to no drop-off in production in 2011 when Vandenberg presumably takes over the reigns ... I do believe that Stanzi's ability to read Ds, handle pressure, and LEAD THE TEAM are all factors that place him in one of the top 2 spots.

People might not admit it but the facts are this ... if EITHER Stanzi or Clayborn were out ... Iowa would still win plenty of games. However, both of those guys are enough to be the difference between an 8-4 and 11-1 record.

 

[tm3308]

I have absolutely no problem with folks being of the opinion that Clayborn should be ahead of Ricky. However, I really don't think that a lot of Hawk fans appreciate how much of the O flowed through Ricky last year. And what is surprising about that is that it was a pretty big transition for Ricky going from our '08 O ... one that was truly led by Greene as much as by him ... and yet our O continued to put enough points up on the board in spite A LOT of adversity.

Like many folks, I too absolutely love Vandenberg's upside. In fact, in terms of passing, ball skills, and footwork ... Vandenberg is arguably ahead of Stanzi.

However, here is a little fact for folks. Iowa may have beaten Minny largely due to the D in 2009 ... however, had Stanzi been starting, Minny's defensive tactic of simply pressuring the crap out of the QB wouldn't have worked. Ricky would have burned them for enough big plays that they'd have to keep back safeties. And with them keeping guys back ... Iowa would go back to carving them up on the ground, just like Robinson had been doing through the better part of the 1st quarter. Specifically, what I'm saying is that Iowa would have beaten the snot out of the Gophers for a second year in a row ... and I'm talking about another laugher sort of score.

Similarly, with Stanzi at the helm, Iowa would have handily beaten Northwestern too. Unfortunately he got injured, we lost, and the rest is history.

While I really anticipate that Iowa's O will have little to no drop-off in production in 2011 when Vandenberg presumably takes over the reigns ... I do believe that Stanzi's ability to read Ds, handle pressure, and LEAD THE TEAM are all factors that place him in one of the top 2 spots.

People might not admit it but the facts are this ... if EITHER Stanzi or Clayborn were out ... Iowa would still win plenty of games. However, both of those guys are enough to be the difference between an 8-4 and 11-1 record.

That's fair enough. And I agree with a lot of what you said about the offense flowing through Stanzi (another reason why I've liked him at QB since early in 2008). I only really based my opinion on the fact that I have more confidence in Vandenberg than I would Clayborn's backup.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

That's fair enough. And I agree with a lot of what you said about the offense flowing through Stanzi (another reason why I've liked him at QB since early in 2008). I only really based my opinion on the fact that I have more confidence in Vandenberg than I would Clayborn's backup.

tm3308 -

Iowa's D is obviously better with Clayborn than without him. However, that said, I believe the following "predictions" will play out:

1. Klug will continue to develop and be an even more disruptive force on D
2. Ballard will pick up where he left off at the end of last season and have a relative "break out" season.
3. Binns will still be darn solid, but he'll also be bigger and stronger and more capable of holding the edge ... an area where he occasionally had difficulty in '09.

Thus, relative to the '09 DL, I think that the above "improvements" would be able to make the following statement true:

A 2010 Iowa DL w/o Clayborn would only be slightly worse than the 2009 Iowa DL w/ Clayborn

Of course, another implication here is that ....

A 2010 Iowa DL w/ Clayborn = freak of nature

Anyhow, the pointer here being that there is A LOT more to the 2010 Iowa DL than just Clayborn. Of course, that said, he's still the General and he makes the unit that much better!