What was your opinion of Kirk keeping Jake at starter which allowed defenses to load the box every game? A special assist goes to Kirk and Gregs horizontal passing game.
Jake Heinrich
- Thread starter hawk_it
- Start date
What did your read from my posts above to infer the above?
Two years ago, plenty of guys would burst in the gap manned by Walsh - and that would often disrupt plays. Last year, Walsh took a while early in the season to get consistent (as I wrote before) and the FRESHMAN, Welsh, of course got abused with some frequency. So yeah ... a lot of penetration occurred there to squelch the running game.
However, given that the Hawks had three new regular starters on the OL - it's foolhardy to assume that the OL would be executing without speed-bumps early in the season.
Of course, as the other poster indicated, even more pressure was put on the OL because Rudock did little to stretch the field vertically. That makes it that much harder on the OL (particularly one that has so much improvement yet to make) - because they were consistently having to face Ds that would keep guys up. Even when the box wasn't stacked - the D still wasn't really stretched.
When I state that the OL "isn't the problem" for the Hawks - that isn't to say that the unit still doesn't have to face the standard developmental curve. They do - they're college players ... and, as such, you have to view them as students. When students are learning something - it takes a lot of practice, it takes the development of good habits, it takes aptitude, and it takes the development of confidence for guys to become high caliber players. The Hawk OL can certainly be a liability to the team early in the season - however, that is true for the majority of teams in college football. However, in general, as the season progresses - Iowa fans typically get to witness very good line play. If you don't see that - then you need to learn more about the game.
However, there is obviously more to a strong running game than just the OL. RBs have to be able to make defenses pay when they over pursue (i.e. see and exploit cutback lanes). The passing game has to make it so that the DBs have worry about cheating up in run-support.
I've placed more emphasis on RB talent above simply because Iowa's struggles in the passing game have been broken down so thoroughly on these boards - it's beyond self-evident and barely deserves mention. It's like saying "yes, there is oxygen in the air." So no - I don't contend that better RBs would automatically transform the Iowa O to an elite rushing outfit. However, it definitely would help.
I think that it is easy for fans to want Jake yanked. However, I don't think that fans really appreciate how tenuous the dynamic of team politics can be. As a coach, you need to do your best to keep the team focussed, keep up the team morale, keep the group working on improvement, and keep the team from splintering. If the coaches aren't consistent and aren't viewed as handling things fairly - it's easy for that to really undermine all of the prior considerations.
I don't envy the position the coaches were placed in last year. If you don't recall, Jake had a really solid first year as a starter in '13. He's also a guy who clearly worked hard and seemingly did things the "right way." Unfortunately, it seems like he wasn't very charismatic - nor was he a particularly strong leader. Thus, while some guys on the team "supported" Jake and even more understood that he had earned the starting spot - Beathard was obviously a popular and polarizing figure on the team.
Beathard obviously had worked hard too - and had shown enough that he had earned reps too. My impression is that the coaches have always been high on Beathard - and had been waiting for him to surpass Jake. However, in the interest of fairness, they tried to give Jake a fair shake. At the end of the day, Jake failed to separate himself from a guy who offered the team more versatility (albeit with the trade-off of exhibiting poorer consistency).
The coaches could have opted for Beathard earlier last year. However, I doubt that it would have equated to more victories. All it probably would have done was give Beathard more experience. However, that benefit could have come at the expense of potentially creating a rift on the team.
I frankly don't believe that there was a "right" solution to the problem that the coaches faced. In hindsight, I don't think that we were a good enough team to achieve the sort of record that fans expected given the perceived "soft" schedule.
Bingo!! plus having a fullback at rb, even Chris White said so. Did this staff comb the jucos for a rb or lb's that were so desperately needed?
The second sentence doesn't even make sense.That's not what he said.
Last edited:
Weismann must be good in Beta....800+yards 16 TD's....11th in B10 in rushing (sharing the carries with two other backs) he sucks. He was a football player. I know you won't take that, but any football coach in the country will.
And you are miffed about him starting? Why....he came out and shared carries. I thought you are all about the "playing the backups".
Why don't you just stop your love affair and love fest with Ferentz and his staff. My God, even Kirk Ferentz would tell you to stop salivating over him and each decision he makes. You represent "Glory Worship" of a coaching staff at its finest.
I've said it many times, there's isn't a group at a bigger disadvantage in college football than the Iowa offensive line. Iowa's scheme stinks. Those guys are trying to block 5 on 9 every down, then throw in the fact you have a fullback starting at RB for 3 years you're trying to carve space for. Teams spread the field to dig out LBs to create space to run the football. Iowa has gone 4 wide sometimes the past few years, but they never run out if it. Everyone thinks teams spread it out to pass and it's not true.
He was a FULLBACK playing the RUNNINGBACK position. Yes, he was 11th in the conference because we had good running backs and because he couldn't break a run (something about running the stretch and him not planting his foot and turning up field fast enough). Also, I would like to see the number of carries he had compared to the other backs.
You're being dumb on purpose, then again maybe it's who you are. No other football coaches would take that because they would've gotten a real running back during that time so Mark wouldn't have to start year after year.
Do you realize the stuff you type? You can not control yourself with the bashing of present day Iowa Football (players/coaches/ ect.). But you are quick to crack anyone who supports it. Huh.....no self awareness. Its cool to be the fat guy screaming from the stands. I could just imagine the garbage that is spewed from you on a Saturday afternoon. Typical never-was.
Weisman carried the ball 40% of Iowa's runs. A lot of those were short yardage runs. Im not saying he was a star and he should have been back there, just answering the question.
Weisman 40%
Bullock 21%
Canzeri 13%
Daniels 6%
Then you got all the other stuff QB sacks and what not.
For reference, Tevin Coleman and Melvin Gordon took about 50% of their teams carries. However, something that is very telling is that Mark Weisman had the 2nd lowest YPC of all RB's in the top 40 in rushing. Only Wes Brown of Illinois was lower.
Last edited:
Not much more pathetic than an old geezer like you in a love affair with a coach. I just happen to not be as high on KF or this staff as you are and don't believe in glory worship as you do. You are a huge part of the problem--those fanatics in the fan base who are completely content with a losing B1G record over the last 5 years and barely over .500 overall in that time. I laugh at how the "creamers" like you get upset whenever someone else has an objective opinion. Again, lay off the man love of KF. Frankly, it's embarrassing and as I said before, even KF would find your worship of him creepy.
I am sure you would be the one "creaming" if you and KF had a conversation on your limited football knowledge. Keep on keepin on! Can't wait for more of your bitching and wonderful insight as a jealous never-was.
Similar threads
