That's exactly right. You have no idea if #2 is going to be needed next week or next month. That's why you get him reps as soon as possible.
Success this year and next year > than who will be around in 2020.
We're burning the shirt?
- Thread starter Cy'sBigBrother
- Start date
That's exactly right. You have no idea if #2 is going to be needed next week or next month. That's why you get him reps as soon as possible.
Success this year and next year > than who will be around in 2020.
You don't think we could have got a 4th year out of Tate had he redshirted as a freshman, or you don't think Tate was worth a shit?
Practice reps don't burn the redshirt. I would have given Stanley the #2's in practice, but let Wiegers play mop-up in a game. If CJ were to really get hurt, Stanley would be ready to go.
What do you believe is so valuable about the one pass he threw?
Why is it not best case scenario that CJ stays healthy all year, Stanley takes #2 reps all year giving him valuable experience, and Stanley starts next year as a RS Freshman?
I can buy the argument that getting #2 reps in practice all year is beneficial and worthwhile. However, I can't buy the argument that getting garbage snaps and attempting only one pass against a bad team is worth burning one year of eligibility.
Exactly. Nobody is saying that Wiegers should get mop up duty and #2 practice reps. From everything I've heard, even from Tate, is that the #2 reps are what's really valuable. That can be accomplished without burning a year of eligibility.
So Stanley gets all the game reps at #2. He game preps as #2. He's in all the sideline huddles talking gameplans. Iowa plays well and gets some big leads and Wiegers gets a little mop-up duty against Miami, ISU, NDSU and Rutgers. Iowa heads up to Minny and in a 1-score game, Beathard hobbles off the field early in the 2nd half. Trainers are still working on him when Iowa gets the ball back and his return is uncertain.
You've been wishy-washy on #2 to this point, but there's a real decision to be made. Maybe you can float Wiegers for a possession or two to get a better read....but then you've taken the #3 who is getting scout team reps every week and putting him in a situation where he's set up to fail. Or, you then run right past the guy who has played in 4 games and jump over Wiegers to bring in Stanley because "now it matters".
That's the kind of wishy-washy QB handling that led to the Rudock-Beathard situation in the first place. No thanks. For my money, if Wiegers and Stanley are even, then you go to Wiegers and let Stanley redshirt....but if Stanley beats him out, then you go with that. Otherwise, you're sending the QBs, the rest of the team and future potential recruits a terrible message.
I think there's a pretty good chance that Tate isn't the Tate we came to know if he redshirts in 2003. He said himself on his podcast this week that getting those reps in practice and the game prep work in 2003 behind Chandler gave him a huge advantage over Manson going into the next season. If Manson gets those reps, maybe he wins the starting job in 2004. Either way, I'm not sure Tate runs the offense as well or as confidently in 2004 with no running support if he spent 2003 running scout team.
Ideally you want a young guy to reps without it being a pressure-cooker environment. Furthermore, when a guys redshirt is gone, the expectation that he should be ready to play on a moments notice typically is strong motivation for him to practice better.
What many seem to fail to realize is that Tate's '03 season was important in preparing him for the '04 season.
Also, while I've always gushed about Tate's ability - his inability to appreciate O'Keefe's attempts to teach him serve as testament to just how egotistical and immature Tate was. Tate has recounted how the rift between he and O'Keefe really started when he made a good "gamer" play and O'Keefe jumped on his case about the wide-open outlet option that he didn't even see. O'Keefe was there trying to help him better see the game and improve as a player ... and all Tate wanted to hear was an "attaboy." Irreverent little crap ... it's not like O'Keefe helped to develop a past QB into a Heisman contender ... oh wait ... he did!
The difference between our views is that I believe a player can get #2 practice reps without needing to play in games. You seem to believe this is impossible.
I'll also add that I'm fine with going either way on Stanley. If they had decided to redshirt him, then great....but you can't have your cake and eat it too. The #2 QB has to be ready to play at a moment's notice and should be prepped accordingly, even in garbage time. You either RS Stanley and commit to Wiegers as #2 or you go all-in on Stanley. I can respect either of those decisions. I can't respect the squishy attempt to walk the middle. If you do that, you're doing a disservice to both guys.
There are only so many reps available in practice with the 1s and 2s. #1 is getting most of those already. Are you arguing that Wiegers and Stanley should be co-#2s and splitting the reps that are left so that Wiegers can play in the unimportant snaps while we wait to see if there are important snaps for Stanley?
I understand there are some nuances to the psychology of already having the redshirt burned. I don't think that outweighs the consideration of maintaining a full year of eligibility.
I think we have great coaches, and I have been as big of a supporter of Ferentz as anyone to the point I've been called a Ferentz-apologist. I still support this staff and have a ton of respect for them, but I disagree with this decision. I understand the reasons for playing Stanley, and I don't think it's idiotic to support the decision, but I just haven't seen any rationale that is persuasive enough to convince me that throwing 1 pass against Miami Ohio is worth burning one year of eligibility.
How many division 1 programs have you run?
Basically everything I've ever read from those in-the-know states that you can't have a guy redshirting and taking your #2 practice reps. It just doesn't work that way. The reps, the mental preparation, being in the huddles, game planning, how the OC treats you, etc.
Drew Tate said that if you're the #2 in the fall, on day one of Spring practice, you are the guy. If you redshirt, then on day one of Spring practice, you are a new guy. Huge mental difference for the entire football program.
But, we have people on the internet who have basically zero understanding of the inner workings of a program saying they know how to run it better than those who actually do.
I think this is also some faulty logic. I'm going to assume that Ferentz isn't a complete moron and understands the implications of putting Stanley in yesterday's game. They're certainly not going to go to a 2-QB system, but I think the Hawks have some potential for Stanley to get more work in the next 4-5 games.
The more you hold him back, the more valuable the redshirt becomes. If you hold him out of garbage time against Miami, then you debate ISU. Then you debate NDSU. Then Rutgers. Then you get to game #9 at PSU and Beathard gets hurt and you don't know if it's severe. At that point, the decision to burn a shirt on what could be a couple series is even harder to make.
Ferentz ended the drama early. Stanley is #2 and he will be played like a #2. I really do believe this is a decision that should be all-or-nothing. Decide and stick to it. If you're not sure Stanley is #2, then default to Wiegers.
Stanley gets all #2 reps, Wiegers takes whatever remaining snaps are available. CJ plays when it matters, Stanley comes in if CJ is hurt, Wiegers comes in for mop up duty when all our biggest goal is avoiding injury.
I simply don't believe that Stanley's playing time against Miami is going to have any significant effect on his development.
So it is impossible to be the #2 QB without taking a snap during the season, got it. If that is the prevailing opinion of those in the industry, I will defer to them and won't question it. It doesn't make sense to me, but if that's how things are run, then so be it.
I understand the nuances of the arguments, believe me. And I don't think Ferentz is a moron and I don't think this was an idiotic move. I simply disagree with it, no more.
Another part of the logic is justifying giving him the lion's share of the 2nd team reps and some of the 1st team reps if he's not going to see the field.
Yet another part of the logic is the message it sends to Cook and Boyle. That message being ... opt for a position change AND embrace it! That way they can be the ones to have made the decision.
Lastly, in the next spring and fall camp ... Wiegers will know that he's really going to need to elevate his game if he's going to win the spot back. Both he and Stanley will be better off from that.
When is an Iowa QB so good that he leaves for the NFL after his junior year?
Ummmmm ... what? Where was the wishy-washiness there? Rudock made quick decisions ... had himself a good many games ... but, ultimately at Iowa, he was too afraid of making passes into small windows. His overall growth stagnated.
In contrast, Beathard was initially his own enemy - young and immature. He didn't approach things correctly ... and it cost him because he couldn't definitively nail down the QB position for his own sooner.
That wasn't wishy-washiness of the coaches ... that was 2 players who were pretty even (at the time) ... and neither could separate himself from the other in the QB competition. If a guy can "win" the job ... then it is their job.
While I have no residual love for Rudock since he quit on the Hawks ... it still is clear by his play at Michigan AND now for the Detroit Lions ... how he could have made it a hard decision for the coaches. He's a good player ... as is Beathard. The problem for Rudock was that he couldn't distance himself from Beathard. After the coaches gave Rudock his fair shake ... they then gave Beathard his shot. To Beathard's credit ... he's subsequently run with it!
But it's not just that black-and-white. As you progress in the season the "well, we
The wishy-washy was the mid-season announcement that both would play....then not really doing it.
Lots of good points on Stanley and burning red shirt year. Thought about Ott too! Guessing they see upside and the need on a day to day basis.
Here is my Take. The incentive for coaching staff is to foster competition and the best man wins.The incentive for all players is to play. If you take the incentive away from the players I think you lose something and maybe create morale problems.
John Fox the Chicago Bears coach tells his players that they (the players) choose who plays, it is a performance business.
Granted this is College and not the professional football but if a player works hard and deserves to play that's the dream. Now if a player wants to redshirt that is something different. If I remember correctly, I think Nicolas Baer on the basketball team knew it would be in his best interest to redshirt to get stronger etc.
Just another take. Food for thought.
Here is my Take. The incentive for coaching staff is to foster competition and the best man wins.The incentive for all players is to play. If you take the incentive away from the players I think you lose something and maybe create morale problems.
John Fox the Chicago Bears coach tells his players that they (the players) choose who plays, it is a performance business.
Granted this is College and not the professional football but if a player works hard and deserves to play that's the dream. Now if a player wants to redshirt that is something different. If I remember correctly, I think Nicolas Baer on the basketball team knew it would be in his best interest to redshirt to get stronger etc.
Just another take. Food for thought.
I have no problem with playing young guys if they show ability and earn it. I am much less supportive of the 'union card' approach of well I have seniority therefore I get the next crack at the job. If the competition is even then giving the upperclassman first crack is understandable but they need to produce on game day.
I am not sure that the coaches see right or wrong Stanley and Wiegerts as even. Stanley checks the key metrics of a successful QB in Iowa's system;
1. Mobility
2. Strong Arm
3. Accuracy
4. Decent size
You can debate the order but that mobility piece is huge. I am not talking about a running QB but having the mobility and presence of mind to make plays off-script when things break down. Those plays are the difference in tight games which we play a ton of. The best QB's under KF all had this ability to some degree. The strong arm is also key in order to make throws into tight windows because we always lack elite receivers who get major separation.
Stanley checks # 1,3 & 4. The only question is his accuracy. He was not overly accurate in high school but you can work on that. The other traits are God given talents.
As far as Wegierts what we seen in small sample sizes is only # 4. That's the rub with him and why Stanley will most likely win the job next fall and Weigerts may transfer out along with Boyle & Cook possibly.
Playing Stanley makes roster management sense. If the incoming kid is good from Texas (Mansel) you have a better chance of keeping him with 2 years between him and Stanley with a red shirt of Mansel and playing Stanley now. Roster management 101.
I like it and it makes sense.
I am not sure that the coaches see right or wrong Stanley and Wiegerts as even. Stanley checks the key metrics of a successful QB in Iowa's system;
1. Mobility
2. Strong Arm
3. Accuracy
4. Decent size
You can debate the order but that mobility piece is huge. I am not talking about a running QB but having the mobility and presence of mind to make plays off-script when things break down. Those plays are the difference in tight games which we play a ton of. The best QB's under KF all had this ability to some degree. The strong arm is also key in order to make throws into tight windows because we always lack elite receivers who get major separation.
Stanley checks # 1,3 & 4. The only question is his accuracy. He was not overly accurate in high school but you can work on that. The other traits are God given talents.
As far as Wegierts what we seen in small sample sizes is only # 4. That's the rub with him and why Stanley will most likely win the job next fall and Weigerts may transfer out along with Boyle & Cook possibly.
Playing Stanley makes roster management sense. If the incoming kid is good from Texas (Mansel) you have a better chance of keeping him with 2 years between him and Stanley with a red shirt of Mansel and playing Stanley now. Roster management 101.
I like it and it makes sense.
Last edited:
You recruit players to play. When it comes time to move on, new players step in to play. Survival of the fittest.
Kirk is trying to get back to Indy. Stanley is the #2 which means his job is to be as ready as possible to step in if CJ goes down. A big part of being ready is getting actual game snaps whenever possible. This is all about doing what is necessary to be in the best position to win this year.
Also, given the pass pro issues last year and yesterday, I won't be surprised to see Stanley play some crtical snaps. CJ is nails but he takes a lot of hits.
The didn't announce at the mid-season ... they did in the preseason. And, sure enough, both guys saw reps. There was a run in a play where Beathard got dinged, I think against Purdue ... and after that he didn't see much more action.
Given that we had grown accustomed to the Hawks mostly sticking to just one QB ... particularly when another guy seemed like a successful and established starter ... it was pretty shocking that Beathard saw as many reps as he did in '14.
Do you believe Stanley is a better QB today because of his one pass attempt against Miami?
I don't think so.
A
anon_8rcdnbko1jbe0
Guest
Yes. Any live game experience is valuable. I would have you ask any player or coach. You practice to get on the field
Yes, I think he is better for playing yesterday than he would have been for sitting on the bench. He's one snap away from starting for a top 20 team. The more experience he gets the better.
Talent wise Stanley must have more upside as I' m sure Tyler has more system understanding and has had a year to work on his reads, etc. If Stanley has the better upside lets give him everything we can to get him ready for when he's needed.
For a fan base that was begging for CJ because of the upside he brought over Jake it seems like many are taking just the opposite approach on this. If Stanley deserves this shot you take it. The team knows and to do less in this situation it sends a bad message.
Play your best players and try to won now.....always.
For a fan base that was begging for CJ because of the upside he brought over Jake it seems like many are taking just the opposite approach on this. If Stanley deserves this shot you take it. The team knows and to do less in this situation it sends a bad message.
Play your best players and try to won now.....always.
Stanley did beat him out. Your points are valid. Harbaugh played 16 freshmen Saturday. He said they came to play and if they are good enough to play as a freshman, they will. I think that helps recruiting.
What makes you think that? The season where our starting QB was the only one in the nation to take every single snap. You don't have much history in your favor!
A lot of folks here crave red shirts. They want to red shirt everybody.
A
anon_01irjibf16qqj
Guest
When is the last time we have had a 4 year starter at Iowa?
Hint. It was a long time ago.
Not really. A lot of the fanbase thought Ruddock was holding us back and wanted to give Beathard the shot because they thought he was the better QB. I don't think any of the fanbase are calling for Stanley to replace C.J.
Hi,
Please elaborate, on why you be okay with, Stanley not redshirting and leaving after his senior over redshirting this year and possibly getting another year of him to help our hawks? I luv our hawks and If he's, as good as KF n Co are saying why not try to keep him around for another year, in Iowa City? Thanks.
