Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Iowa Depth Chart

When things are going bad, the fans always think the backup is ready for the big stage/is better than the starter. Head coach holds them back because they know they're not ready. When the coach finally puts them in, they do great. Now the fans feel validated that the guy was great, but the head coach was holding him back. When in reality, the coach made it all happen when only putting him in when he was ready.

When a team is consistently winning you don't hear fans clamoring for the backups, or thinking that the backups are better than the starters.
 
Section110 said:
In some cases that's exactly what I'm saying. He makes safe choices. That's only news to you apparently. And yes you look plenty stupid trying to desperately explain yourself. A RB can't blow an assignment or give up a big play... HA. I wouldn't have pulled that gem out of you if I hadn't kept playing the Devil's Advocate.
Click to expand...

And I'll never understand how a RB can be a "safe choice". If a RB can't hold onto a football or block in pass protection they aren't talented and belong on the bench.
 
GTO said:
When things are going bad, the fans always think the backup is ready for the big stage/is better than the starter. Head coach holds them back because they know they're not ready. When the coach finally puts them in, they do great. Now the fans feel validated that the guy was great, but the head coach was holding him back. When in reality, the coach made it all happen when only putting him in when he was ready.

When a team is consistently winning you don't hear fans clamoring for the backups, or thinking that the backups are better than the starters.
Click to expand...

Except last year when Powell and Beathard went in they didn't play good
 
CyTwins said:
And I'll never understand how a RB can be a "safe choice". If a RB can't hold onto a football or block in pass protection they aren't talented and belong on the bench.
Click to expand...

There is a "safe choice" with about every single position on the field. Do you start the WR who can flat out fly but struggles to block or consistently catch the ball? Do you start the DE who can create havoc for a QB but also has a tendency to give up the perimeter? Do you start the TE who can block and sort of catch or do you start the sexier TE who can make big plays in the passing game but is a liability when asked to block?

Running back is no different. There are fundamentals that are important to the position. Some RBs may not be as good with their ball security as others, but they are worth the risk because of the added threat they give the offense. It's always risk vs. reward no matter what position you're talking about and KF is notorious for playing it safe.
 
CyTwins said:
Except last year when Powell and Beathard went in they didn't play good
Click to expand...
I know, I was referring more to the ones that do work out. The situation with Beathard is eerily similar to how our fan base was clamoring for Rohach all last year. Then he played and we were all reminded why Richardson was the better option.
 
Section110 said:
There is a "safe choice" with about every single position on the field. Do you start the WR who can flat out fly but struggles to block or consistently catch the ball? Do you start the DE who can create havoc for a QB but also has a tendency to give up the perimeter? Do you start the TE who can block and sort of catch or do you start the sexier TE who can make big plays in the passing game but is a liability when asked to block?

Running back is no different. There are fundamentals that are important to the position. Some RBs may not be as good with their ball security as others, but they are worth the risk because of the added threat they give the offense. It's always risk vs. reward no matter what position you're talking about and KF is notorious for playing it safe.
Click to expand...

Ok I think we're getting somewhere now. When you keep saying the more talented and better players are on the bench you don't actually mean they are better you just mean the holes in their game are different than the holes in the games of the starters? If that's the case I agree with you, I'm sure their was more speed on the bench behind Weisman or better vision there but those players still had holes in their games which is why Weisman was #1
 
CyTwins said:
Ok I think we're getting somewhere now. When you keep saying the more talented and better players are on the bench you don't actually mean they are better you just mean the holes in their game are different than the holes in the games of the starters? If that's the case I agree with you, I'm sure their was more speed on the bench behind Weisman or better vision there but those players still had holes in their games which is why Weisman was #1
Click to expand...

He was #1 because the attributes that he brought to the team happened to be exactly what KF likes. He was a leader. He had an incredible work ethic. He was great at ball security, pass protection, and in short yardage situations he was pretty damn consistent. I think anyone could make a solid argument that he wasn't the best option as a runner though.

In Kirk's defense, Weisman was put in there because of injuries and he did have some games where he performed admirably. I think those games helped him solidify himself as the starter. However, it seemed like once teams had enough tape on him they figured out they just needed to make him run East/West instead of North/South. He was most effective when he was allowed to run downhill and that was taken away after awhile. He often times missed the hole because he wasn't quick enough. That's when a change should have been made and it just didn't happen because Careful Kirk came out.
 
Section110 said:
He was #1 because the attributes that he brought to the team happened to be exactly what KF likes. He was a leader. He had an incredible work ethic. He was great at ball security, pass protection, and in short yardage situations he was pretty damn consistent. I think anyone could make a solid argument that he wasn't the best option as a runner though.

In Kirk's defense, Weisman was put in there because of injuries and he did have some games where he performed admirably. I think those games helped him solidify himself as the starter. However, it seemed like once teams had enough tape on him they figured out they just needed to make him run East/West instead of North/South. He was most effective when he was allowed to run downhill and that was taken away after awhile. He often times missed the hole because he wasn't quick enough. That's when a change should have been made and it just didn't happen because Careful Kirk came out.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is evidence of exactly why Weisman was the starter. Consistent, good blocker, didn't fumble, and worked hard and was a leader. We have had fast guys that were not consistent, couldn't block, didn't work hard and fumbled. I will take a Weisman any day over that fast back.
 
CyTwins said:
I don't think Weisman was great, I didn't think Rudock was good but I find it REALLY hard to believe one of the top paid coaches in College Football, one who so many Hawk fans have loved for so long and bought shirts that say "In Kirk We Trust" just all of a sudden decided to stop trying to win games.

You can say all you want and try to rationalize why Rudock was getting PT because he was the "safer option" but there is no way you can rationalize not playing the best RB on the team. I can promise you Ferentz wants to win more than you do
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying Ferentz doesn't want to win or is purposely throwing games, but Ferentz wants to win HIS way and is stubborn and detrimental to his team while he tries to win HIS way.
Last year, Jonathan Parker scored on a 60 yard TD run in under a minute drive and Ferentz said he didn't like plays or scoring drives like that, and that he'd rather control the ball...
 
jantzenblue said:
Nobody is saying Ferentz doesn't want to win or is purposely throwing games, but Ferentz wants to win HIS way and is stubborn and detrimental to his team while he tries to win HIS way.
Last year, Jonathan Parker scored on a 60 yard TD run in under a minute drive and Ferentz said he didn't like plays or scoring drives like that, and that he'd rather control the ball...
Click to expand...

link?
 
GTO said:
I know, I was referring more to the ones that do work out. The situation with Beathard is eerily similar to how our fan base was clamoring for Rohach all last year. Then he played and we were all reminded why Richardson was the better option.
Click to expand...

I don't see many similarities other than Rohach was the backup for ISU and Beathard was the backup for Rudock. That's pretty much where the similarities end.

Is Grant stronger and more athletic than Sam? Does he have a stronger arm?
 
Last edited:
Section110 said:
I don't see many similarities other than Rohach was the backup for ISU and Beathard was the backup for Rudock. That's pretty much where the similarities end.

Is Grant stronger and more athletic than Sam? Does he have a stronger arm?
Click to expand...
He has the stronger arm and is the gunslinger. Not more athletic, though. But just like Beathard, will throw more INTs.
 
GTO said:
He has the stronger arm and is the gunslinger. Not more athletic, though. But just like Beathard, will throw more INTs.
Click to expand...

Athleticism is the biggest difference between Jake and CJ. That and the ability to stand and deliver even when you know you're gonna take a hit. Jake got happy feet and either threw the ball away, checked it down, or went down on purpose. CJ isn't afraid to stand in there and take a hit.
 
Section110 said:
Wrong again. Keep on talking CyTwins. There is limited stats available for CJ because he hasn't played much, but even so his stats are already better than Steele Reserve.

Steele - http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/stats/_/id/383008/steele-jantz

CJ - http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/535844/c.j.-beathard
Click to expand...

Both have a career 58% completion percentage, both have strong arms but obviously accuracy is/was an issue. Both can scramble when needed. I think it's a pretty accurate comparison. I'm sure Beathard's stats will dip a bit when he gets more snaps since his two games he played the most last season he struggled in
 
Last edited:
CyTwins said:
Both have a career 58% completion percentage, both have strong arms but obviously accuracy is/was an issue. Both can scramble when needed. I think it's a pretty accurate comparison. I'm sure Beathard's stats will dip a bit when he gets more snaps since his two games he played the most last season he struggled in
Click to expand...

QB rating of 129 (CJ) vs 119 (Steele). In his last year Jantz threw 13 tds and 12 interceptions. Last year CJ threw 5 tds and 2 interceptions in his limited playing time. Sure I mean it's not like averaging twice as many interceptions is a big difference or anything :rolleyes:
 
Section110 said:
QB rating of 129 (CJ) vs 119 (Steele). In his last year Jantz threw 13 tds and 12 interceptions. Last year CJ threw 5 tds and 2 interceptions in his limited playing time. Sure I mean it's not like averaging twice as many interceptions is a big difference or anything :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Rudock 133.5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back