Mekhi Sargent emerging as Option#1 at RB!

[rivercityjazzman]

Yes you have misinterpreted. This concept has been discussed on innumerable occasions on this board. KF playing guys he's loyal to rather than the best player. It does not happen all the time but it has happened. I am saying Sargent is the best of our 3 headed monster and should play at least a 3rd of the snaps between the RB's. Sometimes KF is wrong. I don't think there is too much to lose between the 3 backs. I believe the staff will make the right decision with Sargent if he indeed shows he is the top dog, which I believe he is.

What do you mean by “playing guys he’s loyal to rather than the best player”? Best as defined how? The one with the most potential? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I’m interested in your thoughts.

In my experience knowing KF the last 5 years, he’s been unwavering in his approach to selecting the two-deeps. Players that demonstrate results in practice are the one that get selected, regardless of time in the program or scholarship/walkon status. Examples abound, but the one I feel I can discuss openly is that of my son, Miguel. He had been at Iowa for two years when Keith Duncan came. Miguel was the “heir-apparent” to the starting kicker’s spot when Marshall Koehler graduated. He got interviewed by ESPN and othe media sources, got photographed with other presumed starters, etc etc. What he didn’t do, however, is perform well during fall camp, while Keith did. Thus, the “new guy”, and true freshman, was selected as the starter. I can’t think of a more exposed position than the kicker (or punter) because the outcome of a game can literally rest on his foot. The following year, Miguel hit a high-water mark for a kicker’s performance in fall camp, and was selected as the starter over a proven game winner (Keith won the Michigan game for Iowa). So two cases, just happening to involve two kickers, where KF played the best guy, not “the favorite” guy.

Everyone on the board is entintitled to their opinions. In this case, my opinion is that KF doesn’t play favorites, based on my factual knowledge. I do agree with your statement statement that the staff will make the right decision if Sargent show he’s the top dog, for the reasons as stated above,

 

[kentadel]

I see Sargent as a situational back this year. Ball security and ability to pass block factor in early playing time.

 

[soybean]

Guys, it's August. Harbinger273 is entitled to have any "feeling" he wants about anything Iowa Football just the same as anyone else. Why not just sit sit back and enjoy this pre season fall camp period like he is?

 

[anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba]

The good news is they seem to have three solid options at RB. I hope to see BF use them creatively. Use some two-back sets

Oh, boy... "two-back sets." I have been asking for some of that for the last few years. With two backs, it splits the defense so all 11 guys can't flow to the ball carrier on Iowa's famous--or infamous--outside zone. With two backs and the use of misdirection, it would seem to make blocking much easier and some blocking unnecessary because some defenders would take the fake and remove themselves from the play.

Yah, I'd love to see two-back sets and misdirection at least a third of the time. Will it happen? I'd be shocked, but in a good way.

 

[grhawk]

Harb what are u basing your opinion on? You can't just say Sargent is our best back and it becomes so. At this point he is 3rd. He may end up 1st but right now he isnt. I can't buy your statement yet.

He's making stuff up to make himself appear to be an insider. It's what he does.

 

[iowa12]

I've been getting the feeling for a few weeks now with what has been coming out of Fall camp that Sargent is the number 1 at RB. He is making plays in the running and receiving game and just seems to have "IT". He had another big day in the scrimmage at Kinnick today. Once again, Kelvin Bell hits a home run in the recruiting game!
Sargent, as has been reported by his coaches, really has a confident yet humble attitude and clearly has the physical tools to be our go to guy. He is a great addition to the team.

He’ll need the two in front of him to become injured or fumble first. Also, pay his penance on special teams. Can he block, know the playbook, show up ti practice?

 

[scotthawk1964]

So you do care who is 1A. You want him to be the best back on the field.
I feel that Sargent is our best back and is showing it in Camp. KF is loyal to guys in the program already, but if Sargent is showing that he has The Juice we have to go with him IMO.

I don't know if we should Jinx that young lad by calling him the juice, we all know what happened to the last man called the juice. Of course, before everything went sour he did win the Heisman. Lol

 

[TheRealHerky]

Some seasons have us down to the 4th string guy by the 5th game. Let's enjoy our embarrassment of riches at RB while we can. All 3 will get their snaps if deserving and ready.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Yes you have misinterpreted. This concept has been discussed on innumerable occasions on this board. KF playing guys he's loyal to rather than the best player. It does not happen all the time but it has happened. I am saying Sargent is the best of our 3 headed monster and should play at least a 3rd of the snaps between the RB's. Sometimes KF is wrong. I don't think there is too much to lose between the 3 backs. I believe the staff will make the right decision with Sargent if he indeed shows he is the top dog, which I believe he is.

I believe that there is a practical misunderstanding to this point.

Firstly, a player may be exceptionally athletic ... this then may lead to the perception that the player is "better" because IF the individual's potential were to ever translate to play on the field ... then the individual MIGHT prove better.

However, I can recount a laundry list of athletic players whom the Hawks have had who failed to either understand our schemes adequately well OR who failed to either do an adequate amount of film work OR understand the film-study they had done .... and consequently, those individuals were forever out of position and most failed to execute consistently.

The best given player is the player who regularly puts up the best film ... you ARE what your film says you are. Most film is from practice, but game-film tells an important story too.

I honestly do not know of a single instance where the Hawks played an "inferior" player to that of one who was clearly superior. Even ones that we fans might have thought were more clear .... like the ones between Stanzi and Christensen ... it was clear that the coaches thought that there were a lot of positives for both guys. Thus, the competition, in their eyes, was a close one. Whenever, the competition between players has clearly favored one player over another ... then I've ALWAYS seen the Hawks play the better player.

Lastly, while some of the "blame" here as been put at the feet of Kirk ... Kirk gives his assistants a ton of autonomy. He's absolutely NOT an micromanager. The position coaches get a significant say as to whom plays. The coordinators arguably get the biggest say ... and ultimately, Kirk mostly only utilizes "veto-power" ... but, even then, he doesn't use that often. Kirk does a great job of making sure that players are treated fairly when there are close-competitions for playing time.

The coaches are loyal to ALL the players on the roster. The coaches do like to reward guys who've developed a ton and who've earned everything they've gotten. But, ultimately the coaches opt for fairness ... and everybody on the team knows that the team objective is to win the B1G.

 

[Suterman]

Any more than you can say Reiff has passed Lattimore at DT.

I believe I said Brincks but either way it is all speculation until kick off.

 

[bagdropper]

Guys, it's August. Harbinger273 is entitled to have any "feeling" he wants about anything Iowa Football just the same as anyone else. Why not just sit sit back and enjoy this pre season fall camp period like he is?

The Voice of Reason. Posters here take this stuff WAY too personally.

My hot taek? The exact same thing I've believed all along.

Iowa will use whatever combination be it singularly or up to 3 different guys as game action dictates because of their variance of strengths. I believe having 3 guys with the capability to ALL be The Guy harbors nothing but good things at the position for the future.

Just let the next 2 weeks come, folks. It'll get here. Be patient. No sense driving yourselves insane and pitting Hawk Fan against Hawk Fan because of restlessness.

 

[anon_gjzkhykcp9iuj]

Internet arguing over depth charts, important stuff.

 

[cleotishaywood]

More depth the better. Never know if AIRBHG will raise it's ugly head.

Hopefully one of them can give us similar production in catching the ball and making people miss ala Wadley.

 

[Takeno Prisoners]

What do you mean by “playing guys he’s loyal to rather than the best player”? Best as defined how? The one with the most potential? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I’m interested in your thoughts.

In my experience knowing KF the last 5 years, he’s been unwavering in his approach to selecting the two-deeps. Players that demonstrate results in practice are the one that get selected, regardless of time in the program or scholarship/walkon status. Examples abound, but the one I feel I can discuss openly is that of my son, Miguel. He had been at Iowa for two years when Keith Duncan came. Miguel was the “heir-apparent” to the starting kicker’s spot when Marshall Koehler graduated. He got interviewed by ESPN and othe media sources, got photographed with other presumed starters, etc etc. What he didn’t do, however, is perform well during fall camp, while Keith did. Thus, the “new guy”, and true freshman, was selected as the starter. I can’t think of a more exposed position than the kicker (or punter) because the outcome of a game can literally rest on his foot. The following year, Miguel hit a high-water mark for a kicker’s performance in fall camp, and was selected as the starter over a proven game winner (Keith won the Michigan game for Iowa). So two cases, just happening to involve two kickers, where KF played the best guy, not “the favorite” guy.

Everyone on the board is entintitled to their opinions. In this case, my opinion is that KF doesn’t play favorites, based on my factual knowledge. I do agree with your statement statement that the staff will make the right decision if Sargent show he’s the top dog, for the reasons as stated above,

Evaluation of kickers can be more objective than for most other positions.

The discussion about KF playing favorites has gone on for years and IMO,
has totally missed the point.

IMO, KF plays the players he THINKS will contribute the most to the team. The key word is THINKS. His mentality is that ball security and mistake-free play take priority over all other considerations. Thus we take a sack rather than risk an interception on a key third down, we let a punt hit the ground and roll 30 yards rather than risk a drop,........ The overall result is fewer turnovers but fewer scores, thus allowing lessor teams to compete or even beat us.

Football is largely a game of trade-offs and of astute risk/reward judgments. That unthrown third down pass could have been a TD, a first down, a PI or even an INT which would have been just as good as the upcoming punt. That unfielded punt would have prevented the usual loss of 60 yards of field possession over the course of the game.

A significant part of great coaching is finding that balance. If the more aggressive approach leads to more TOs (and it probably will) will that be more than offset by additional points scored over the course of the game?

KF has always opted for the lowest possible risk and foregone the upside possibilities. Thus he sees the safest player as the best player. Mentality, not favoritism.

 

[Freyvet]

He’ll need the two in front of him to become injured or fumble first. Also, pay his penance on special teams. Can he block, know the playbook, show up ti practice?

Shouldn't you have to block, know the playbook and show up to practice?

 

[HumbleP1e]

What do you mean by “playing guys he’s loyal to rather than the best player”? Best as defined how? The one with the most potential? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I’m interested in your thoughts.

In my experience knowing KF the last 5 years, he’s been unwavering in his approach to selecting the two-deeps. Players that demonstrate results in practice are the one that get selected, regardless of time in the program or scholarship/walkon status. Examples abound, but the one I feel I can discuss openly is that of my son, Miguel. He had been at Iowa for two years when Keith Duncan came. Miguel was the “heir-apparent” to the starting kicker’s spot when Marshall Koehler graduated. He got interviewed by ESPN and othe media sources, got photographed with other presumed starters, etc etc. What he didn’t do, however, is perform well during fall camp, while Keith did. Thus, the “new guy”, and true freshman, was selected as the starter. I can’t think of a more exposed position than the kicker (or punter) because the outcome of a game can literally rest on his foot. The following year, Miguel hit a high-water mark for a kicker’s performance in fall camp, and was selected as the starter over a proven game winner (Keith won the Michigan game for Iowa). So two cases, just happening to involve two kickers, where KF played the best guy, not “the favorite” guy.

Everyone on the board is entintitled to their opinions. In this case, my opinion is that KF doesn’t play favorites, based on my factual knowledge. I do agree with your statement statement that the staff will make the right decision if Sargent show he’s the top dog, for the reasons as stated above,

This. I would want to hear what's going on IF this wasn't the case. My concern was how someone determined this alleged favoritism to be true. I think you'd see mass exits and a negative cloud around recruiting if kids didn't expect to get a fair shot. When players leave, they seem to be complementary of the coaches almost universally.

 

[HawkTex]

None of us has the slightest idea that there will be a change at RB. Those that have been at practice can speak and give us information. If you haven't been at practice then you can't say Sargent is emerging as RB 1.

100% Correct. Who starts is really irrelevant. If Sargent is solid, we have the luxury of splitting carries and not beating any one back up. The 25-30 carries per game days are pretty much behind us unless injuries take a toll.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

This one might be long but I am at the dog park and the boys are doing their thing.

When I was growing up one hobby my parents really supported was me having a fish tank. As time went on I got into more difficult tank set ups but at one point I had a S. American cichlid tank. The tank would have a pecking order and when everything was running smoothly there was a calm. Calm is not good for competition. In order to get the tank to lay eggs I would introduce a "dither" fish. The ideal dither fish was slightly larger but not as aggressive as the alpha in the tank. The idea being he was considered a threat but could take a beating and didnt just die right away. I think in this example Mehki Sargent is going to prove to be a perfect "dither" fish. What we all thought was a set pecking order is going to get shaken up a little bit and the top 3 are all going to have to perform at thier highest. I actually originally thought of this with Will Honas and the LB core. The best part is we as hawk fans get 3 years of this competition and "laying the eggs" might look something like 3k yards from the RB crew.

/csb

 

[mrF6n6]

Evaluation of kickers can be more subjective than for most other positions.

The discussion about KF playing favorites has gone on for years and IMO,
has totally missed the point.

IMO, KF plays the players he THINKS will contribute the most to the team. The key word is THINKS. His mentality is that ball security and mistake-free play take priority over all other considerations. Thus we take a sack rather than risk an interception on a key third down, we let a punt hit the ground and roll 30 yards rather than risk a drop,........ The overall result is fewer turnovers but fewer scores, thus allowing lessor teams to compete or even beat us.

Football is largely a game of trade-offs and of astute risk/reward judgments. That unthrown third down pass could have been a TD, a first down, a PI or even an INT which would have been just as good as the upcoming punt. That unfielded punt would have prevented the usual loss of 60 yards of field possession over the course of the game.

A significant part of great coaching is finding that balance. If the more aggressive approach leads to more TOs (and it probably will) will that be more than offset by additional points scored over the course of the game?

KF has always opted for the lowest possible risk and foregone the upside possibilities. Thus he sees the safest player as the best player. Mentality, not favoritism.

its hard for me to believe any football coach would teach to let the punted ball drop...
I thought Josh Jackson lost his job because he let the ball drop... and Matt VandeBerg was given the job because he would never let the ball drop.

imo, it is absolutely essential that that ball gets caught.

I also think its absolute unwarranted bs to say the best players aren't being played at Iowa... you can't win like that and you wouldn't be a coach very long if you coached like that.

you may think a back up is better... but are you there every single day?... do you really know more than the coaches, who is better and who is not?

its fun to speculate on progress... but lets face it.... the coaches at Iowa live for this stuff... it is their life.
they certainly know better than me... and I trust the coaches over the likes of people like Rob Howe how live to shock and troll.

 

[David1979]

someone is reading too much in to photos.

 

[Harbinger273]

He's making stuff up to make himself appear to be an insider. It's what he does.

I've already said in this thread and before that I am not an insider. Not trying to appear like anything. I say what I think and its amazing the range of misinterpretation that comes out of it. Just shows the degree of insecure people on this board that to read their own shortcoming into it.
grhawk your still mad I called the Britt commitment before it was "officially" announced and had no inside knowledge on it.

 

[Harbinger273]

What do you mean by “playing guys he’s loyal to rather than the best player”? Best as defined how? The one with the most potential? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I’m interested in your thoughts.

In my experience knowing KF the last 5 years, he’s been unwavering in his approach to selecting the two-deeps. Players that demonstrate results in practice are the one that get selected, regardless of time in the program or scholarship/walkon status. Examples abound, but the one I feel I can discuss openly is that of my son, Miguel. He had been at Iowa for two years when Keith Duncan came. Miguel was the “heir-apparent” to the starting kicker’s spot when Marshall Koehler graduated. He got interviewed by ESPN and othe media sources, got photographed with other presumed starters, etc etc. What he didn’t do, however, is perform well during fall camp, while Keith did. Thus, the “new guy”, and true freshman, was selected as the starter. I can’t think of a more exposed position than the kicker (or punter) because the outcome of a game can literally rest on his foot. The following year, Miguel hit a high-water mark for a kicker’s performance in fall camp, and was selected as the starter over a proven game winner (Keith won the Michigan game for Iowa). So two cases, just happening to involve two kickers, where KF played the best guy, not “the favorite” guy.

Everyone on the board is entintitled to their opinions. In this case, my opinion is that KF doesn’t play favorites, based on my factual knowledge. I do agree with your statement statement that the staff will make the right decision if Sargent show he’s the top dog, for the reasons as stated above,

Maybe he does not. In the case of Mekhi Sargent my concern is that his newness to the program could possibly keep him off the field more than he should be. Some of the reasons for this could be things Mekhi has to take care of and some because of his recent addition to the program. I just get the impression that he is very good and don't want to see him get only marginal snaps because he is new. I would like to think that if he has done his homework so to speak he will be the guy. Some of this I will never know as I am not an insider. And to be clear him being the guy does not exclude the others. There would still be a 3 headed monster.

 

[Ladell-hawk]

I've been getting the feeling for a few weeks now with what has been coming out of Fall camp that Sargent is the number 1 at RB. He is making plays in the running and receiving game and just seems to have "IT". He had another big day in the scrimmage at Kinnick today. Once again, Kelvin Bell hits a home run in the recruiting game!
Sargent, as has been reported by his coaches, really has a confident yet humble attitude and clearly has the physical tools to be our go to guy. He is a great addition to the team.

Sargent will be a quality addition, but T Young is #1 and IKM is 1A.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

I have noticed "ball security" being discussed as a concern for Mehki, I have not heard of him having fumble issues at all and was wondering if someone could expand on this. I have also heard he is awesome in pass pro. Also, I know his coaching ability has been highly regarded, its Toren that has also been mentioned as having great hands right?

 

[Harbinger273]

I believe that there is a practical misunderstanding to this point.

Firstly, a player may be exceptionally athletic ... this then may lead to the perception that the player is "better" because IF the individual's potential were to ever translate to play on the field ... then the individual MIGHT prove better.

However, I can recount a laundry list of athletic players whom the Hawks have had who failed to either understand our schemes adequately well OR who failed to either do an adequate amount of film work OR understand the film-study they had done .... and consequently, those individuals were forever out of position and most failed to execute consistently.

The best given player is the player who regularly puts up the best film ... you ARE what your film says you are. Most film is from practice, but game-film tells an important story too.

I honestly do not know of a single instance where the Hawks played an "inferior" player to that of one who was clearly superior. Even ones that we fans might have thought were more clear .... like the ones between Stanzi and Christensen ... it was clear that the coaches thought that there were a lot of positives for both guys. Thus, the competition, in their eyes, was a close one. Whenever, the competition between players has clearly favored one player over another ... then I've ALWAYS seen the Hawks play the better player.

Lastly, while some of the "blame" here as been put at the feet of Kirk ... Kirk gives his assistants a ton of autonomy. He's absolutely NOT an micromanager. The position coaches get a significant say as to whom plays. The coordinators arguably get the biggest say ... and ultimately, Kirk mostly only utilizes "veto-power" ... but, even then, he doesn't use that often. Kirk does a great job of making sure that players are treated fairly when there are close-competitions for playing time.

The coaches are loyal to ALL the players on the roster. The coaches do like to reward guys who've developed a ton and who've earned everything they've gotten. But, ultimately the coaches opt for fairness ... and everybody on the team knows that the team objective is to win the B1G.

Mekhi needs to prove him self as well rounded on the field as well as off in order to play and be the man. I do however believe that there is purely an on field aspect, effected by film study and preparation, that can show a play to be a competitor. A guy who rises above the competition. Right now all there is to review is practice/scrimmage film, but games will obviously be the true test. Like I've said I believe Mekhi has the "IT" factor and is emerging as the #1 option.

 

[hawktrooper1]

Predicted on a thread that Toren Young would end the season with 13 TDs but not be the leading rusher.

IKM will lead the team in rushing.

Sargent will catch 40+ passes and we’ll all wonder why he doesn’t get more carries.

Have no insider info, just have a feel for the Hawks. Having 3 legit RBs is a great thing, and we’ll see who rises to the top.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

Follow up: wasnt it coach foster who went on about how Mehki has really emersed himself in the culture and does a ton of film study? I'm not saying that gets him the lions share of the Carrie's, but it wont hurt.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

Predicted on a thread that Toren Young would end the season with 13 TDs but not be the leading rusher.

IKM will lead the team in rushing.

Sargent will catch 40+ passes and we’ll all wonder why he doesn’t get more carries.

Have no insider info, just have a feel for the Hawks. Having 3 legit RBs is a great thing, and we’ll see who rises to the top.

Offensive statistics can snow ball and if BF can figure this thing out they could all put up numbers we might think unreasonable.

 

[rivercityjazzman]

Evaluation of kickers can be more subjective than for most other positions.

I can’t speak about punting, but I can speak about placekicking. When it comes to FG at Iowa, every kick is taped, and judged as a make or miss by a grad assistant standing under the goal posts. The kickers are evaluated based on #successful tries versus total # of attempts. “Style”, meaning was it a “good miss” or a “bad miss” doesn’t count. I can’t think of a more objective method of analysis.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

My personal opinion is that Ivory Kelly-Martin is emerging as option #1, because I like his initials the best.

As for who gets the most carries, I agree with the OP and share his concerns about how Kirk will dictate playing time. I fear that Kirk will let his favoritism get in the way of him playing who I think the best player is.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

I can’t speak about punting, but I can speak about placekicking. When it comes to FG at Iowa, every kick is taped, and judged as a make or miss by a grad assistant standing under the goal posts. The kickers are evaluated based on #successful tries versus total # of attempts. “Style”, meaning was it a “good miss” or a “bad miss” doesn’t count. I can’t think of a more objective method of analysis.

Let's say you could speak about punting what might you say?


(Cant blame a guy for trying)

 

[rivercityjazzman]

Maybe he does not. In the case of Mekhi Sargent my concern is that his newness to the program could possibly keep him off the field more than he should be. Some of the reasons for this could be things Mekhi has to take care of and some because of his recent addition to the program. I just get the impression that he is very good and don't want to see him get only marginal snaps because he is new. I would like to think that if he has done his homework so to speak he will be the guy. Some of this I will never know as I am not an insider. And to be clear him being the guy does not exclude the others. There would still be a 3 headed monster.

I agree that off the field responsibilities are an important factor. Failure to meet them can mean suspension, eg; the guys suspended for the first game. Bottom line: if players don’t take care of their off-field responsibilities, they won’t play.

Just because Mekhi is new doesn’t mean he won’t get a fair shake. Another example: Ron Coluzzi came in during the spring and won the KO job in fall camp (they don’t do KO till fall camp), beating out Miguel, despite the fact that Miguel had kicked in front of KF for several years. Why did he win? Because he was better. Based on this, I’m confident Mekhi should get an equal chance to show what he can do.

 

[Harbinger273]

I believe that there is a practical misunderstanding to this point.

Firstly, a player may be exceptionally athletic ... this then may lead to the perception that the player is "better" because IF the individual's potential were to ever translate to play on the field ... then the individual MIGHT prove better.

However, I can recount a laundry list of athletic players whom the Hawks have had who failed to either understand our schemes adequately well OR who failed to either do an adequate amount of film work OR understand the film-study they had done .... and consequently, those individuals were forever out of position and most failed to execute consistently.

The best given player is the player who regularly puts up the best film ... you ARE what your film says you are. Most film is from practice, but game-film tells an important story too.

I honestly do not know of a single instance where the Hawks played an "inferior" player to that of one who was clearly superior. Even ones that we fans might have thought were more clear .... like the ones between Stanzi and Christensen ... it was clear that the coaches thought that there were a lot of positives for both guys. Thus, the competition, in their eyes, was a close one. Whenever, the competition between players has clearly favored one player over another ... then I've ALWAYS seen the Hawks play the better player.

Lastly, while some of the "blame" here as been put at the feet of Kirk ... Kirk gives his assistants a ton of autonomy. He's absolutely NOT an micromanager. The position coaches get a significant say as to whom plays. The coordinators arguably get the biggest say ... and ultimately, Kirk mostly only utilizes "veto-power" ... but, even then, he doesn't use that often. Kirk does a great job of making sure that players are treated fairly when there are close-competitions for playing time.

The coaches are loyal to ALL the players on the roster. The coaches do like to reward guys who've developed a ton and who've earned everything they've gotten. But, ultimately the coaches opt for fairness ... and everybody on the team knows that the team objective is to win the B1G.

I definitely need to rebut the idea that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in my point. Sophisticated way of saying I have not considered all the qualifiers for Sargent to be #1. Like I have said I do roll all the things I hear about a guy and what I have seen him do together and form a fairly well educated assessment. By no means am I a know it all in football. Things coaches have said about Mekhi indicate that his progression is the result of all the things he does within the program including off field film study and so forth. That likely impacts his remarkable play in camp thus far.

 

[Harbinger273]

I agree that off the field responsibilities are an important factor. Failure to meet them can mean suspension, eg; the guys suspended for the first game. Bottom line: if players don’t take care of their off-field responsibilities, they won’t play.

Just because Mekhi is new doesn’t mean he won’t get a fair shake. Another example: Ron Coluzzi came in during the spring and won the KO job in fall camp (they don’t do KO till fall camp), beating out Miguel, despite the fact that Miguel had kicked in front of KF for several years. Why did he win? Because he was better. Based on this, I’m confident Mekhi should get an equal chance to show what he can do.

When I say off field I'm not talking about suspensions and conduct. More off field preparations in the football facilities from film study to meetings.
Hope he does get that same fair shake like Ron. Good example.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I have noticed "ball security" being discussed as a concern for Mehki, I have not heard of him having fumble issues at all and was wondering if someone could expand on this. I have also heard he is awesome in pass pro. Also, I know his coaching ability has been highly regarded, its Toren that has also been mentioned as having great hands right?

I'd be more inclined to think that ball-security would be a factor that favors Mekhi over Ivory. Mekhi benefitted from a whole year as a starter last year (albeit for a JUCO program). In contrast, Ivory had far fewer carries ... but still had some ball-security issues.

Anyhow, I like your "dither fish" example ... I totally think that the competition will ultimately make each guy better. I'm particularly excited about how the guys are both competing with one-another ... but also helping each other to get better. They KNOW that if they're helping the Hawks to be successful ... that likely means more carries for everybody!

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Maybe he does not. In the case of Mekhi Sargent my concern is that his newness to the program could possibly keep him off the field more than he should be. Some of the reasons for this could be things Mekhi has to take care of and some because of his recent addition to the program. I just get the impression that he is very good and don't want to see him get only marginal snaps because he is new. I would like to think that if he has done his homework so to speak he will be the guy. Some of this I will never know as I am not an insider. And to be clear him being the guy does not exclude the others. There would still be a 3 headed monster.

The only factor that I'd see "newness" being a factor that would count against Mekhi would relate to his knowledge of the play-book and his ability to block in pass-pro. Being a good running back in a pro-style O is more than just toting the rock ... you need to know your responsibilities. However, given how well it sounds like the RBs are working together ... my guess is that Toren and Ivory are doing a good job of helping Mekhi get up to speed.

As for how many reps each RB gets ... my guess is that we'll be seeing scenario that is guided more by who has the "hot hand."

However, ultimately, how many seasons have we had where a RB or two didn't get dinged to some degree? If you have healthy options ... rather than playing a guy just because he's been cleared by the medical staff ... you can opt to give him reps when he's healthy enough to also be productive (there's a definite difference between being cleared and being capable of being productive). With three capable guys ... they're going to be there to spell each other ... and also to keep the grind applied to the opposing D.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

A significant part of great coaching is finding that balance. If the more aggressive approach leads to more TOs (and it probably will) will that be more than offset by additional points scored over the course of the game?

KF has always opted for the lowest possible risk and foregone the upside possibilities. Thus he sees the safest player as the best player. Mentality, not favoritism.

There is risk taking ... but there is also playing the numbers (a la money-ball). If you play a guy who will fumble a disproportionate number of times ... that EXPLICITLY takes some potential points off the table. Furthermore, it potentially gives the ball to the opposition in good field position ... and that can lead to points for the opposition. So, as a coach, part of the trade-off has to account for these aforementioned issues ... and not just the extra points that the player offers (when he doesn't turn over the ball).

There is a definite side of Kirk that is risk averse ... and, through the years, it's been readily apparent. However, Kirk himself admits that he can be wrong ... and he changes his mind about some things too. For example, playing the numbers, it tends to benefit the O more to go for it on 4th downs on the opponents side of the field ... largely because it possibly leads to more TDs. 7 points can often make a much bigger difference in a game than just 3 points. If you drive the ball within the 10 and you stall ... you're still forcing the opponent to have crappy field position. That can lead to turnovers that immediately lead to TDs ... OR, alternatively, it can lead to punts (by the opposition) that let the Hawks get another shot at a short-field. Anyhow, Kirk has learned some of these lessons ... and has opted to be a little more aggressive as a result. Furthermore, the players really like it too ... and part of what he players like it is because it shows that the head man has confidence in them. Kirk has always had confidence in his players ... but he'd sometime opt for "safe strategy." However, I think that it's not been lost on Kirk the benefits that are reaped by showing the players his confidence in their play.

Lastly, as it relates to things like ball-security ... another element of that simply has to do with the execution of fundamentals. Kirk will always impress upon his players the importance of having strong fundamentals. How well a player executes the fundamentals are as important as many other things for determining how "good" a player is.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I definitely need to rebut the idea that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in my point. Sophisticated way of saying I have not considered all the qualifiers for Sargent to be #1. Like I have said I do roll all the things I hear about a guy and what I have seen him do together and form a fairly well educated assessment. By no means am I a know it all in football. Things coaches have said about Mekhi indicate that his progression is the result of all the things he does within the program including off field film study and so forth. That likely impacts his remarkable play in camp thus far.

The only thing I was indicating was a possible misunderstanding was the claim that Kirk and Co don't play the best players.

I would agree with your observation that the coaches clearly feel very good about Mekhi. Of course, as another poster mentioned, a lot of Mekhi's reps have been showing him running with the #2s. Thus, I don't know if I'd be reading too much into the pictures ... other than that Mekhi is obviously getting a lot of quality reps.

 

[grayhair81]

What do you mean by “playing guys he’s loyal to rather than the best player”? Best as defined how? The one with the most potential? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, I’m interested in your thoughts.

In my experience knowing KF the last 5 years, he’s been unwavering in his approach to selecting the two-deeps. Players that demonstrate results in practice are the one that get selected, regardless of time in the program or scholarship/walkon status. Examples abound, but the one I feel I can discuss openly is that of my son, Miguel. He had been at Iowa for two years when Keith Duncan came. Miguel was the “heir-apparent” to the starting kicker’s spot when Marshall Koehler graduated. He got interviewed by ESPN and othe media sources, got photographed with other presumed starters, etc etc. What he didn’t do, however, is perform well during fall camp, while Keith did. Thus, the “new guy”, and true freshman, was selected as the starter. I can’t think of a more exposed position than the kicker (or punter) because the outcome of a game can literally rest on his foot. The following year, Miguel hit a high-water mark for a kicker’s performance in fall camp, and was selected as the starter over a proven game winner (Keith won the Michigan game for Iowa). So two cases, just happening to involve two kickers, where KF played the best guy, not “the favorite” guy.

Everyone on the board is entintitled to their opinions. In this case, my opinion is that KF doesn’t play favorites, based on my factual knowledge. I do agree with your statement statement that the staff will make the right decision if Sargent show he’s the top dog, for the reasons as stated above,

Was Taylor better than Hooker last year? How many games did Taylor start only to get pulled for Hooker after Taylor whiffed a tackle or was out of position on coverage?
Not flaming on KF but he has always valued experience and knowledge over athletic ability.

 

[grayhair81]

I don't know if we should Jinx that young lad by calling him the juice, we all know what happened to the last man called the juice. Of course, before everything went sour he did win the Heisman. Lol

And rushed for 2000 yards in a 14 game season.