ADVERTISEMENT

Early Camp Rumblings

I agree that respect doesn’t mean blind loyalty. Surely, though, Kirk deserves the respect of Hawk fans and you admit as much. By your own admission, then, you owe him respect.
I respect Kirk because I believe him to be a decent human being. I also believe he merits respect for what he has given to the Iowa football program.

I don’t feel any sense of obligation, though. I don’t owe him anything anymore than he owes me anything. That includes respect. I’m never indebted to anyone on that basis, especially someone whom I only know because of a sport.
 
I respect Kirk because I believe him to be a decent human being. I also believe he merits respect for what he has given to the Iowa football program.

I don’t feel any sense of obligation, though. I don’t owe him anything anymore than he owes me anything. That includes respect. I’m never indebted to anyone on that basis, especially someone whom I only know because of a sport.
So even if someone merits respect, you don’t owe him respect? Sorry, I don’t get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocRambo
Imagine writing paragraph after paragraph. Spending god knows how many hours in this one thread typing up stuff where no sane person will read at this point.
Imagine if you actually read it rather than being afraid you might be proven wrong about something.

The posts really aren't that long. You're reading multiple posts that amount to more words; are you not? They are in depth, with plenty of supporting content and reasoning. Who really cares about a quick opinion?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 83Hawk
Oh really? Nothing close to true, eh? Here are direct quotes from you:

"To say Iowa would have a better record if the offense had been better is a hypothetical."

"You both ignored the point that with a better offense Iowa could have won games early in the season and potentially gotten overconfident and no-showed or even chocked in a big-game later in the season." (translation…FEWER wins)

"I'm confident saying there's a strong chance that Iowa would not have won 4 straight to get into the title game had they not faced that adversity that included a loss to Minnesota." (translation…Iowa would have FEWER wins)

"Who's to say if Iowa had that magical offense to help them beat PSU and Minnesota that they wouldn't have gotten full of themselves and had a no-show vs Illinois? Or chocked vs Nebraska?"

"Any season in which the offense would have been good enough to help the team get to late November with 1 or zero losses could have been subject to a late season overlook or choke job. Thus the team could have ended up losing a game they actually won." (translation…FEWER wins)

"Even if it's true that a better offense would have produced a better record the last two seasons, which I don't accept as the concrete fact that others are imposing"

You sure as heck aren’t saying a better offense leads to MORE wins! You are implying quite the opposite, in fact!

These are YOUR words. They are what they are. Sorry…you have been exposed. These are your EXACT words…misspellings and all. Although to your credit you did later on agree that a better offense could lead to more wins. It was like pulling teeth to get you to admit being wrong, but you came around. Good for you!

Yeah, yeah….l’m sure you will respond with “These are hypotheticals!” Yes they are. You often use worse-case hypotheticals (many of which are unlikely to ever happen) as “proof” that you are right.

Oh, and before you attack my reading comprehension, I think your meaning is quite obvious.

In any case, I’m done with you on this topic. You have a good day now, y’hear?
There's a reason you knew I was going to attack your reading comprehension, Pee-Wee. It's because it's like pulling teeth to get you to have a clue wtf someone is saying.

Even worse, there's truly something wrong with you for so freely allowing yourself to mischaracterize what people post. You've done it to multiple posters.

None of what you just quoted does a thing to support your claim that I ever said that a better offense would have led to fewer wins.

Most were examples of how a better offense COULD have led to fewer wins.

The quote about Iowa probably not having won 4 straight after the Minnesota game and BF announcement has NOTHING to do with offensive production. I can just imagine how bunched up your panties must have been to have found a way to include that quote.

My whole point in that thread was that the narrative of "what Iowa could have done with a better offense" was a hypothetical. And by nature of being a hypothetical, it shouldn't have been as big of a complaint as people were making it. I provided examples of how a better offense might not necessarily have even led to more wins, in an attempt to diminish the validity of the narrative, thus rendering the level of complaining to be unwarranted.

There was never any "coming around" or admitting that I was wrong. There was an attempt to pound through your thick skull that of course I realized that most likely a better offense would have been advantageous (yes, in terms of wins) to the program.

I was just giving examples of how that may not have necessarily played out that way. It's called having played devil's advocate to something people thought gave them reason to complain and attack the team and staff.

It's truly amazing that a thread from 8ish months ago is still in your head. Given that, it's not surprising that I've previously had to ask you to drop your obsession with me and stop stalking me on this board. But I guess like a true creep, you thought it would be ok to go under the disguise of a new avatar and start right back up.

(Translation...you are an idiot)
 
Last edited:
So if there's no clear answer to the Hill vs X argument, then why the hell have people complained to such an extent? That has been my point all along.

To complain, rather than trusting or even giving KF the benefit of the doubt, is laughable, and is the stuff made of haters rather than fans.

QB play has been rough for a couple years. Without the benefit of inside information, it is my opinion that BF shouldn't have been coaching the QB's. But it must be stated that an emergency QB got most of the snaps last year.

You can say what you want about a room, but only one QB can play at a time. And the QB play during KF's tenure has been more than fine
Regarding your last sentence, for the most part, no it hasn’t been fine. How many QBs have completed 60+% of their passes in a season at Iowa in the last 15-20 years? Maybe you don’t watch anyone else and are stuck in 1985 like this offense but anything less than low 60’s is garbage in that time frame.
 
There's a reason you knew I was going to attack your reading comprehension, Pee-Wee. It's because it's like pulling teeth to get you to have a clue wtf someone is saying.

Even worse, there's truly something wrong with you for so freely allowing yourself to mischaracterize what people post. You've done it to multiple posters.

None of what you just quoted does a thing to support your claim that I ever said that a better offense would have led to fewer wins.

Most were examples of how a better offense COULD have led to fewer wins.

The quote about Iowa probably not having won 4 straight after the Minnesota game and BF announcement has NOTHING to do with offensive production. I can just imagine how bunched up your panties must have been to have found a way to include that quote.

My whole point in that thread was that the narrative of "what Iowa could have done with a better offense" was a hypothetical. And by nature of being a hypothetical, it shouldn't have been as big of a complaint as people were making it. I provided examples of how a better offense might not necessarily have even led to more wins, in an attempt to diminish the validity of the narrative, thus rendering the level of complaining to be unwarranted.

There was never any "coming around" or admitting that I was wrong. There was an attempt to pound through your thick skull that of course I realized that most likely a better offense would have been advantageous (yes, in terms of wins) to the program.

I was just giving examples of how that may not have necessarily played out that way. It's called having played devil's advocate to something people thought gave them reason to complain and attack the team and staff.

It's truly amazing that a thread from 8ish months ago is still in your head. Given that, it's not surprising that I've previously had to ask you to drop your obsession with me and stop stalking me on this board. But I guess like a true creep, you thought it would be ok to go under the disguise of a new avatar and start right back up.

(Translation...you are an idiot)
Ok….I will respond one last time (even though I said I wouldn’t, but this needs to be said).

You need help. Seriously.

Your obsession with always being “right”, your belief that you know it all, your presentation of opinions as “fact”, your intolerance of the opinions of others who disagree and belief that anyone who disagrees is wrong, and flying off the handle when your own words are thrown back at you make you look bad. Continuing to bicker, attack and berate others in post after post makes you look foolish. (FYI: when you reduce yourself to name calling you automatically lose whatever argument you are trying to make). You don’t always need to have the last word. You don’t “win” anything when you do.

You are taking a beating in this thread. Badly. I highly recommend you take your own advice and Let it go. I am going to take the high road here, and won’t post again in this thread (for real this time) in which you have completely gone off the deep end. I challenge you to have the courage, discipline and maturity to do the same.

The choice is yours.
 
Last edited:
Ok, to say you owe Kirk anything may not be the best way to put it. I would say fans at least owe him the benefit of the doubt, if not their respect. And certainly disrespect and constant complaining and questioning would not align one in the category of a fan.

I don't know if keeping Brian would have been in the best interest of the program or not. I'm not armed with any of the inside information. I would lean towards saying the change is a healthy move just to end all of the fan negativity around it.

We don't know for sure if KF would have brought BF back or not. He may too have decided that the negativity was just not worth it.

But if BF were brought back, I would defend it by saying KF has earned the benefit of the doubt. I certainly don't have enough inside information to have had any problem with it.

And from my perspective, there are ways to defend Brian returning. One, is not a lot of people make big changes in the midst of success. To do so it certainly a risk. Another, is to judge an offensive operation in a season where Iowa played the worst QB (to get significant snaps) that I've seen them play in my 39 years of watching Iowa football, is silly. BF had very little to do with that. It's similar, I'm sure, to why BF was brought back last season. To have judged his operation on a season ('22) where Iowa had the worst offensive line that I've seen at Iowa in 39 years, is even more silly. And BF probably had even less to do with that.

Without the benefit of inside information, I never thought BF had the best feel as a play-caller. And I think it was a mistake to have him as QB coach, although I understand the reasoning why he was made QB coach. But (again, without the benefit of inside information) I think BF as OC was a ways down the list of reasons Iowa's offense has struggled. If true, no doubt KF knew it. It's not coincidence how when an O-line falls apart, all of the sudden, the offense falls apart too. Very few OC's could have done much better with that line.

As for thoughts about the QB room, that has previously been addressed in this thread. I'm not going to repeat it all. But will say that everyone was thrilled to have brought Cade in. He got hurt. I will also say that he most likely got hurt again from having played hurt, and that is on KF. It would have seemed that Iowa had a completely serviceable backup, in Labas. Unfortunately, it appears that his lifestyle took him out of that position. KF has an excellent track record of recruiting high character guys.

How many teams actually have more than two QB's ready to go at a given time? Shoot, there are a lot of teams that are searching for one guy that's any good. If anything, KF deserves credit for having having the foresight to bring Hill to campus as an emergency QB.

I have no idea what you're talking about with any "plague" at Iowa when it comes to QB's. Sure, the past couple/few years have been tough. But I would certainly characterize the QB play at Iowa during KF's tenure to have been more than fine. I doubt he would have stuck around for 26 years if any "plague" that you have suggested were reality. The past couple seasons, when it comes to QB play, is another example of where KF has earned the benefit of the doubt. Especially when you consider injury and terrible O-line play (that had little to do with KF). You can also add in significant attrition to WR's in '22 (that also didn't have a whole lot to do with KF), and a QB that may have gotten lost in a weed cloud.

In the end, the Brian thing, the offense thing, and the QB thing have been WAY overstated. KF has had enough in place in the program to navigate all that to 9.33 wins over the last 3 years, and 9 wins over the last 2. The struggles in those areas just haven't been that big of a deal. For fans to have had as big a problem with winning that many games simply means that they are butthurt from having not been "entertained" enough.

You can judge KF's "best teams" however you want. The only thing that goes into the record books are wins and losses. And KF's recent stretch of years have been his most successful period at Iowa.

A 13-10 win is the same as a 30-10 win. And to minimize the success of a program that's been winning for near the entirety of 25 years is just silly. Winning is never easy. There are no bad teams in the Big Ten conference. And there aren't many teams that want anything to do with 4 trophy games every season.

I'm not sure what your problem with good punting is. But the sport is called "foot"ball.

You make a good point that KF is compensated very well. Dealing with negativity in the community is part of the job. But annual surveys of high school coaches show that dealing with parents and the community is the least favorite part of their job. It's not much different for college coaches. Negative "fans" do make their job and their lives harder. If one considers himself a fan, why not simply support his team?
See the bold…

WHAT? You have no credibility. None.
 
To sum up this thread...

OIP.-s4ddBQyC2yrYrkM4ehvmQHaFj
 
I'm truly glad your players had a good experience with you. Maybe the idea I have gotten about you as a coach is completely off base.

I just know that many coaches would take offense to much of the stuff you post on here. You have regularly called out coaches on here and the "WNBA" board.

It's just surprising to hear those things coming from a coach and I'd be surprised if I would have enjoyed playing for you.

You have your "opinions". I have mine
Are you kidding me? I was catching crap the other day for being a Sides apologist. I definitely defend her because people are ripping her after 5 games. I rip Ferentz’ offense based on 25 years of watching it. Bluder…I have defended Bluder. Hell, I was the last guy off of the Lickliter bandwagon!

My persona here is not how I am with high school and junior high kids.

Funny story, we just had a senior girl graduate who praised me profusely at our end of season banquet when it was her turn to talk. “What you said to me last year changed my whole perspective on life and you’ll never know what that meant to me.” The other coaches asked me what I told her. “Hell if I know. I talk to these girls constantly about mindset.” I literally couldn’t remember the exact conversation because of all the talks kids/coaches have.

Again, if you want to pin me down on not liking KF’s offense you can because I have been sick of it for YEARS.
 
Imagine if you actually read it rather than being afraid you might be proven wrong about something.

The posts really aren't that long. You're reading multiple posts that amount to more words; are you not? They are in depth, with plenty of supporting content and reasoning. Who really cares about a quick opinion?

I read a few and you come off as a know it all jerk who refuses to concede any of his opinions are wrong and refuses to not have the last word. Not only that the hill you decided to die on is the one that deacon is was the best qb option. A qb that did nothing well.

Again I can only imagine how many hours of your life you wasted in this one thread typing up stuff. But here is the biggest kicker off all and quite frankly one in the nuts. All that time and energy with your post trying to state your point and you changed not one persons mind. Congrats….
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Iron Doc and 83Hawk
Regarding your last sentence, for the most part, no it hasn’t been fine. How many QBs have completed 60+% of their passes in a season at Iowa in the last 15-20 years? Maybe you don’t watch anyone else and are stuck in 1985 like this offense but anything less than low 60’s is garbage in that time frame.
I know of only one since 2015 that got 60% or above. 🙄 Beathard in 2015 with a 61% completion percentage.
 
Regarding your last sentence, for the most part, no it hasn’t been fine. How many QBs have completed 60+% of their passes in a season at Iowa in the last 15-20 years? Maybe you don’t watch anyone else and are stuck in 1985 like this offense but anything less than low 60’s is garbage in that time frame.
I don't know, how many have?

Call a certain stat garbage all you want. There's also a stat called wins.

KF wouldn't have lasted 26 years without at least decent QB play.

I'll stand by my statement that QB play during the KF era has been more than fine.

Petras- take away the season where is O-line was broken and for the first part of the season he had no receivers, and I'd say he was fine. His lack of mobility became a big problem with that line and that is on him. He was part of the problem in that awful season, so overall, I will drop his "rating" to serviceable. He did just beat out a fairly talented guy at Utah St.

Stanley- good.

Beathard- very good.

Rudock- fine.

Vandenberg- serviceable.

Stanzi- good.

Christensen- not quite serviceable.

Tate- good to quite good.

Chandler- fine to better than fine.

Banks- very good.

McCann- good
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 83Hawk
Ok….I will respond one last time (even though I said I wouldn’t, but this needs to be said).

You need help. Seriously.

Your obsession with always being “right”, your belief that you know it all, your presentation of opinions as “fact”, your intolerance of the opinions of others who disagree and belief that anyone who disagrees is wrong, and flying off the handle when your own words are thrown back at you make you look bad. Continuing to bicker, attack and berate others in post after post makes you look foolish. (FYI: when you reduce yourself to name calling you automatically lose whatever argument you are trying to make). You don’t always need to have the last word. You don’t “win” anything when you do.

You are taking a beating in this thread. Badly. I highly recommend you take your own advice and Let it go. I am going to take the high road here, and won’t post again in this thread (for real this time) in which you have completely gone off the deep end. I challenge you to have the courage, discipline and maturity to do the same.

The choice is yours.
The people who need to let it go are the ones that have been wildly complaining for months on end about Hill having played. The extent of those complaints has not been warranted.

I haven't been the one complaining. I've only been showing how the people who have been complaining have been out of line.

It's those who continue to complain who have been taking a beating in this thread. No one has presented a case for Lainez beyond his running ability, which has been easily rebutted.

Yes, people that resort to name calling usually "lose the argument". But that's because they usually don't have any content to support their claim, and have to resort to name calling. I haven't had to resort to anything.

There are plenty others who agree that the complaints haven't been warranted. I'm just one of the few that have been expressing it in this thread.

Yes, the level of my distaste for disrespectful idiot fans may be a weakness. I guess I join the weak club because the ease at which these "fans" question coaches is a weakness. They have a problem with coaches. I have a problem with them.

Guess what, the staff not only would agree that the complaints have been unwarranted, but they would argue that Hill should indeed have been the QB that played.

Guess what, they don't need to argue that because there is a very good win total to back up their decision. (Yes, we know Iowa didn't win "because of Hill").

Guess what, KF doesn't need to argue it because he has 25 years of results, and has earned the benefit of the doubt.

Guess what, the staff doesn't need to argue it, because they are the ones getting paid to make the decision, and who the hell are these "fans"?

Guess what, anytime you reduce yourself to calling out the coaching staff, you have almost always automatically chosen the losing side of whatever argument you are trying to make
 
Are you kidding me? I was catching crap the other day for being a Sides apologist. I definitely defend her because people are ripping her after 5 games. I rip Ferentz’ offense based on 25 years of watching it. Bluder…I have defended Bluder. Hell, I was the last guy off of the Lickliter bandwagon!

My persona here is not how I am with high school and junior high kids.

Funny story, we just had a senior girl graduate who praised me profusely at our end of season banquet when it was her turn to talk. “What you said to me last year changed my whole perspective on life and you’ll never know what that meant to me.” The other coaches asked me what I told her. “Hell if I know. I talk to these girls constantly about mindset.” I literally couldn’t remember the exact conversation because of all the talks kids/coaches have.

Again, if you want to pin me down on not liking KF’s offense you can because I have been sick of it for YEARS.
I'll admit I haven't been to the "WNBA" board for a while. I do know it was within the first five games that you were calling Sides out. I also know that I was the first one on this board to defend her, and continued to be one of the few within the first five games.

I applaud you for not bashing Lickliter. I thought I was the only one.

It sounds like you've truly made a difference in the lives of a lot of young women and I commend and thank you for that.

I guess I just overreacted to hearing you break the "coaches code". I guess I can understand that you can be different on this board than you are in a coaching situation. I just seems kind of rare.

I will pin you down on not liking KF's offense. It has been serviceable for near the entirety of his tenure. If it hasn't been entertaining enough for you, that's on you. As a coach, you should understand that winning is what's entertaining. Maybe football isn't your area of expertise. But as a coach, I would think you would appreciate every other strength of the program that has allowed Iowa to continue winning even when the offense hasn't been serviceable. Yes, I would like the offense to be better. But I just don't understand why it's such a big deal to people.

I guess this is another discussion entirely, but competition alone in entertaining. And so are the Hawkeyes. I've never not been entertained by a Hawkeye sporting event in 39 years of having closely followed them
 
I read a few and you come off as a know it all jerk who refuses to concede any of his opinions are wrong and refuses to not have the last word. Not only that the hill you decided to die on is the one that deacon is was the best qb option. A qb that did nothing well.

Again I can only imagine how many hours of your life you wasted in this one thread typing up stuff. But here is the biggest kicker off all and quite frankly one in the nuts. All that time and energy with your post trying to state your point and you changed not one persons mind. Congrats….
The hill I am choosing to die on is not that Deacon should have gotten the snaps at QB (although I agree with that).

The hill I choose to die on is that the extent of complaints that Hill got those snaps has been unwarranted.

This distinction has been made a couple times in this thread.

You are probably correct though, that there's no getting these idiots to realize that
 
This thread is a great example of why I don't come here much anymore.

A fun thread about camp rumors turns into multiple pages of arguing about the same shi4 that has been argued over and over and over again.

Let it go, it's a new season.
 
I don't know, how many have?

Call a certain stat garbage all you want. There's also a stat called wins.

KF wouldn't have lasted 26 years without at least decent QB play.

I'll stand by my statement that QB play during the KF era has been more than fine.

Petras- take away the season where is O-line was broken and for the first part of the season he had no receivers, and I'd say he was fine. His lack of mobility became a big problem with that line and that is on him. He was part of the problem in that awful season, so overall, I will drop his "rating" to serviceable. He did just beat out a fairly talented guy at Utah St.

Stanley- good.

Beathard- very good.

Rudock- fine.

Vandenberg- serviceable.

Stanzi- good.

Christensen- not quite serviceable.

Tate- good to quite good.

Chandler- fine to better than fine.

Banks- very good.

McCann- good
McCann by far was not the best, even if the other guy wasn't "ready". Petras...will be interesting to watch.
 
McCann by far was not the best, even if the other guy wasn't "ready". Petras...will be interesting to watch.
Banks has even said he wasn't ready. Not ready is not ready.

McCann and that team were a huge part of building certain winning elements that still exist in the program today. I'm just fine with how that season turned out. As proud of that team as any Hawkeye team.

May not have worked out as well for Banks and crew they following year if he had been forced into action the previous year. I'm just fine with how that season went as well. Also as proud of Banks and that team as any
 
  • Haha
Reactions: peacehawk
I remember that argument, he and a couple others thought a better offense wouldn’t compliment the defense.
An argument I've never understood. How can controlling the ball better and scoring points make things tougher on your defense? There are basketball on grass type teams that don't seem to give 2 shits about defense...but that's by design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DewHawk and 83Hawk
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT