Why not give Vandeberg a couple of series?

[Ronco]

I want to make sure I have this right- people can't ask pointed questions that could be construed as being negative after a win (because some people will find anything to b!t$h about) or after a loss (because those people overreact or are beating a dead horse)? There is also the "catch all" reason for not asking said pointed question- "You think you know more about......... than the staff?" response people like to throw out.

I think wondering why a backup QB didn't play is a legit question or complaint. I mean all we did for most of the 3rd quarter and all of the 4th was hand the ball off. Besides, MSU all but conceded they were toast when they pulled Cousins early 4th. Not playing more backups and running a semblance of an offense was doing the team a disservice.

 

[olivecourt]

I want to make sure I have this right- people can't ask pointed questions that could be construed as being negative after a win (because some people will find anything to b!t$h about) or after a loss (because those people overreact or are beating a dead horse)? There is also the "catch all" reason for not asking said pointed question- "You think you know more about......... than the staff?" response people like to throw out.

I think wondering why a backup QB didn't play is a legit question or complaint. I mean all we did for most of the 3rd quarter and all of the 4th was hand the ball off. Besides, MSU all but conceded they were toast when they pulled Cousins early 4th. Not playing more backups and running a semblance of an offense was doing the team a disservice.

Here's the problem: The OP asked a question. He got two answers, one about JVB's health and the other from KF about his desire to finish the game. He responded that KF is full of BS and doesn't know what he's doing. Ok, fine, but that seems like a silly argument to make after we just trashed the #5 team in the country.

To me, the proper response after a game like this would be to say: you know, I don't see the logic in every decision the coaches make. But given how good they are at every phase of the game, maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe it's me who doesn't understand.

 

[michhawk76]

Back to the main topic, it's baffling to me. If Vandenberg's back was hurting, then give Wienke some snaps. No way does Stanzi need to be out there at that time with that score. Also, what was the deal with the time-outs at the end of the 1st half? There was no way they were going to get the ball back anyway.

WIENKE is the third string QB which means that he does not take snaps from the first team center hardly ever. Why risk a fumble and opportunity for MSU to score and gain some momentum. They have proven that they can score a lot of points already this season. All they did was hand the ball off. ALSO, if you want to see what coker can do you have to leave in the first string offense and that means Stanzi is the only one who taken meaningful snaps from the center that is in the game.

 

[smhawk]

Stiff back from what? Giving hand signals? Holding a clipboard? He doesn't even run the scout team. He's a 20 year college kid, why does he have a stiff back?

Well if people working day jobs can manage to tweak there back I'm pretty sure someone on a roster for division one football can manage this. I don't know you have lifting and conditioning that could have been opportunities for this. You really wanna see him go in hurt and make it worst?

I think Ricky earned it to finish out the game. People over-rate how valuable "game" experience when it's verse a defeated defense that is probably putting in replacements themselves.

 

[Nikos]

There is no good reason to leave Stanzi in when the other quarterbacks could get some time in a Big 10 game. It was a perfect opportunity for them. KF at times doesn't make much sense. However, most of the time he does good and his good outweighs the bad.

 

[SeattleHawkeye]

I want to make sure I have this right- people can't ask pointed questions that could be construed as being negative after a win (because some people will find anything to b!t$h about) or after a loss (because those people overreact or are beating a dead horse)? There is also the "catch all" reason for not asking said pointed question- "You think you know more about......... than the staff?" response people like to throw out.

I think wondering why a backup QB didn't play is a legit question or complaint. I mean all we did for most of the 3rd quarter and all of the 4th was hand the ball off. Besides, MSU all but conceded they were toast when they pulled Cousins early 4th. Not playing more backups and running a semblance of an offense was doing the team a disservice.

+1. A friend yesterday commented that putting in backups but not running your offense doesn't do them any favors, and doesn't get them as valuable game experience. I agree w/ this perspective. If you're going to have backups in, I think you owe it to them to run your total offensive package. If a backup needs to play in the future, it would be great if he had real game experience - not garbage time just trying to run out the clock. And I understand Ferentz coached teams tend to do the super-conservative thing any 4th quarter they get a chance, so it can be argued backups are getting real game reps, but they aren't nearly as valuable as if the staff made defenses stay honest.

And the Weinke not being able to take a snap is BS. Get w/ Ferentz (or whoever will be in at center) before you go in and take some snaps. Every team does this any time a new QB (or center) comes in, and taking a snap is QB'ing 101. It can be difficult coming from different centers, but arguing that's why you leave your #1 QB in in a 37-6 blowout is a weak excuse at best.

And so it's clear, I love a number of things this staff and team did yesterday, but going ultra-conservative in the 4th quarter and not getting backups meaningful reps is something I question. That doesn't make me any less of a fan. Billso said it best:
"I know a lot of fans understand this, but for those who don't: It is possible to love your school, cheer heartily for your team and still question your coach on this stuff. Really, it's fine. It doesn't make you less of a fan. It makes you a freethinker."

 

[bxy]

It is ignorant...period. Especially after Vandervelde suffered an injury that at first looked to be very serious.

 

[dmShortSaledude]

Did John Wienke transfer? What is your point?

Even better (not that I like Vandy being injured!), let the other guy get some experience. That is my biggest complaint, not getting the experience that KF values so greatly.

My second biggest complaint, letting Stanzi play with the backup o-line against a really, really po'd MSU defense. Too much risk, IMO...

 

[olivecourt]

There is no good reason to leave Stanzi in when the other quarterbacks could get some time in a Big 10 game. It was a perfect opportunity for them. KF at times doesn't make much sense. However, most of the time he does good and his good outweighs the bad.

Just because his decisions don't immediately make sense to you doesn't mean they don't make sense.

 

[Ronco]

Just because his decisions don't immediately make sense to you doesn't mean they don't make sense.

Wow, now that's profound. Football hardly seems so complicated that one needs to wait for the distant future to bring clarity to certain plays or decisions.

 

[clim33]

Why is it that many of the folks on here feel the need to talk smack even when we win by 31 points.......I understood some (only some) of the miserable crap last week but this is totally stupid.......Anyone who is complaining about the coaching or players or anything should be made to be CLOWN fans for the next three years..........Just enjoy a nice win and step away from the Cliff's edge guys.........There was a reason some of the guys played longer and some guys didn't get in.......probably even a reason for the reverse......DJK would have broken the catches record on that play.......Could have been cool for the highlight reel as we recruit WR .........I thought COker looked nice as did Morris and Dibona and R Petersen..........Lets all try to say something good about the game or do you all just B#@CH about the team all the time......Sorry in advance to the regular fans

JC

 

[olivecourt]

Wow, now that's profound. Football hardly seems so complicated that one needs to wait for the distant future to bring clarity to certain plays or decisions.

Maybe Stanzi was right and JVB's back was bothering him.

Maybe JVB had a crappy week in practice or skipped a class.

Maybe Kirk was worried about recognizing blitzes and getting in and out of plays (which Stanzi did several times in the 4th quarter).

Maybe Ferentz wanted to see his first team put together a drive even when the other team knows we're going to run, which we used to be able to do quite well but haven't been able to do for a couple of years now.

Or maybe you could just take Ferentz for his word when he says he wanted to see his guys finish a game, which, if you haven't noticed, has been sort of a weakness this year.

James Vandenberg will get his time. I don't think the guy who almost led us to a victory at Ohio State is going to freak out in next year's opener because he didn't get a chance to hand the ball to Marcus Coker five times against Michigan State.

 

[PatrickAdamovicz]

I agree that it is somewhat baffling as to why at least Wienke didn't play. With that said, Kirk must have not felt comfortable with the decision to play the backup QB. It's a legit question, but hey, they did just beat the tar out of the Spartans so no real complaints here.

 

[DDHawkeye]

IN KIRK I TRUST

 

[Stealthawk]

And get practice handing the ball off? Vandy wasn't going to get any passes in if he went in, so they just kept Stanzi in.

This....... is the correct answer.

 

[SeattleHawkeye]

But it's just as easily argued that if the QB is just going to turn and hand the ball off, there's no point in Stanzi being in there, either. And if Stanzi somehow was injured during one of those final drives, what would have been the fans' reaction? (B/c I can almost guarantee you people would be really, really upset and questioning why you have your #1 QB in up by 30 in the 4th quarter.)

And also, I don't think this is a situation that people are enraged or up in arms over. It's something people noticed and thought was a bit of an oddity / curiosity...but I will say when JVV went down a lot of the people I was watching the game w/ definitely starting questioning why starters were still in.

 

[bws258]

KF's response was a non-answer ... there may be valid reasons that Vandy or Weinke didn't come in, but we'll never know them

 

[Clark]

WIENKE is the third string QB which means that he does not take snaps from the first team center hardly ever. Why risk a fumble and opportunity for MSU to score and gain some momentum. They have proven that they can score a lot of points already this season. All they did was hand the ball off. ALSO, if you want to see what coker can do you have to leave in the first string offense and that means Stanzi is the only one who taken meaningful snaps from the center that is in the game.

Is there a law that says you have to play the first string center the whole game?

And we did see what Coker could do...in the second and third quarters. Not to mention the fact that Robinson was still in well into the 4th quarter and didn't get pulled until he was almost killed.

Stanzi, ARob, Clayborn, or Sash get hurt playing when the team is up by 30 in the 4th quarter Kirk Ferentz should be fired the next day. I take that back. He shouldn't even be allowed to go into the locker room after the game.

 

[Hawkize1]

How many people on this board have the knowledge of the internal workings and the daily happenings of the Iowa football program? None! That's why I will let Kirk Ferentz make the decisions about who plays and when. He has always demonstrated the decency to play the kids who work hard keep their noses clean and provide Iowa with a chance to win. If in the case of a blowout then the players who also work hard but don't have the skill or experience to displace a starter then get their opportunity.
Kirk had a reason to do what he did on saturday. I'm not going to question it. The outcome speaks for itself!

 

[Clark]

How many people on this board have the knowledge of the internal workings and the daily happenings of the Iowa football program? None! That's why I will let Kirk Ferentz make the decisions about who plays and when. He has always demonstrated the decency to play the kids who work hard keep their noses clean and provide Iowa with a chance to win. If in the case of a blowout then the players who also work hard but don't have the skill or experience to displace a starter then get their opportunity.
Kirk had a reason to do what he did on saturday. I'm not going to question it. The outcome speaks for itself!

I find it extremely hard to believe that the entire second string was being punished. Even if they were, put in the freakin third string. To be honest, I was more concerned about the offensive linemen and runningbacks than I was about Stanzi. Stanzi wasn't likely to get hit.