Anyone worried about the LB situation?

[eyesofhawk]

It’s really a philosophical difference and I understand both viewpoints. Kirk I think likes to reward those veterans and looks as much at the leadership payoff as anything. Hayden would play the younger guy with higher ceiling if all else was equal. I probably lean more towards Hayden’s philosophy but that’s easier to say when I don’t have to deal with the chemistry of a locker room.

The key thing you say is, "if all else is equal".

Yes, then philosophy comes in. Even then, "experience" is pretty much the default philosophy across sports. And yes, KF has gotten a ton of mileage out of leadership and experience and trust over the years. Not only do coaches prefer to trust the guys on the field, but again more importantly, the players must completely trust their teammates.

Certainty, the fan narrative remains completely unfounded, though. Simply, fans can never know for sure. And coaches can almost always know for sure. Fans are not in the building every day. Truly, the baseline behavior of fans is silly.

But when someone else becomes the best man for the job, he'll be on the field. So that's usually a good problem to have, as usually it's a matter of the underclassman having developed to the point where he is ready, rather than the incumbent not being any good, and falling off.

I saw quality play from Monty last year, so believe it to be a good problem for Iowa. Seems to have high instincts and diagnosis. Is tough. And an intelligent communicator on the field.

No, Jayden doesn't have an upside, athletically. And the underclassmen do. So we'll see.

It's understable, as a fan, to hope the more talented guys are able to realize their upside on the field.

But again, the narrative that fans turn it into, is beyond laughable. Not only are they completely uninformed, but all things point to a likelihood that Iowa's staff has been getting it right. In fact, I think it can be said, that Iowa has uniquely put players in the right positions, at the right time, over the decades. It's actually something Iowa has had a good feel for. But fans will be fans.

It should also be said, that who would even play over Monty, isn't clear. Yes, I believe there's plenty of talent in the room. And my best guess is, at some point, the guy on the field will be one of those talented players. But it's hard to argue it's not Monty, if he doesn't even have a clear cut competitor. And if Montgomery is able to hold them off, that means he's playing some great football.

Also should be said, that even when it's questionable for the upperclassman to be on the field, there's value in camp in having him high on the "depth chart". Forces talented underclassmen to compete, which allows them to grow. Keeps the entire roster motivated and competing at a high level, as they see an example of hard work paying off for a less talented guy. And rewards that example's hard work with an opportunity. Maybe he's able to take off with it. If so, you'll get the most out of the upperclassman, before he goes. Then, you'll get the most out of the talented underclassman, when he's ready

 

[eyesofhawk]

My fear is Monty will play until it costs us a game. Keep in mind he couldn’t initially beat out Harrel who was not good.

We also don't know how much Montgomery improved during that time.

But it's probably fair to say Harrell wasn't the best example of an upperclassman that worked out.

But the fear with a younger player is missed assignments. A busted assignment can go all the way for a TD. Whereas, a physical mismatch might just amount to a first down.

It's also more probable that an inexperienced player busts an assignment that it is an experienced player getting out-manned. That experienced player is always in the right position because he is able to get there. The fact that he is able to be in the right position makes him a competitive ballplayer.

First of all, no one play or player costs a team a ballgame. But risk can be seen on both sides. Typically the experienced guy is able to provide B to B+ level of play, until the more talented guy is ready to provide B to A- level of play. Ideally, the younger guy is able to build an increasing amount of reps along the way. There's usually not much reason to risk the growing pains that you speak of, with C- to B level of play.

Bottom line; if I'm going to worry about something with Iowa, it's injuries, not personnel decisions

 

[RomanHawk]

We also don't know how much Montgomery improved during that time.

But it's probably fair to say Harrell wasn't the best example of an upperclassman that worked out.

But the fear with a younger player is missed assignments. A busted assignment can go all the way for a TD. Whereas, a physical mismatch might just amount to a first down.

It's also more probable that an inexperienced player busts an assignment that it is an experienced player getting out-manned. That experienced player is always in the right position because he is able to get there. The fact that he is able to be in the right position makes him a competitive ballplayer.

First of all, no one play or player costs a team a ballgame. But risk can be seen on both sides. Typically the experienced guy is able to provide B to B+ level of play, until the more talented guy is ready to provide B to A- level of play. Ideally, the younger guy is able to build an increasing amount of reps along the way. There's usually not much reason to risk the growing pains that you speak of, with C- to B level of play.

Bottom line; if I'm going to worry about something with Iowa, it's injuries, not personnel decisions

Well, you are wordy, if nothing else.

A couple of things you are overlooking. Just like players have differene levels of athletic ability, they also have different levels of moxie or instinctiveness. So some players don't need nearly as much experience to reach the same mental level as more experienced players.

Regarding experience, the coaches lost many safe opportunities for the younger guys to get experience last year. Those decisions (or nondecisions ) have consequences.

And please stop with the HOF stuff. A coach who had one of the worst offenses in college football for nearly a third of his tenure has eliminated himself from that discussion.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Well, you are wordy, if nothing else.

A couple of things you are overlooking. Just like players have differene levels of athletic ability, they also have different levels of moxie or instinctiveness. So some players don't need nearly as much experience to reach the same mental level as more experienced players.

Regarding experience, the coaches lost many safe opportunities for the younger guys to get experience last year. Those decisions (or nondecisions ) have consequences.

And please stop with the HOF stuff. A coach who had one of the worst offenses in college football for nearly a third of his tenure has eliminated himself from that discussion.

Nope. Not overlooking any of that. That's all of what I trust the coaches are putting into their correct calculus.

Not playing who the coaches played, would have also had its consequences. And again, plenty to suggest that the hall of famer and his staff have been getting it right.

And I won't stop referencing a hall of fame credential. What more does anyone want?

Eliminated from what discussion? KF will be a hall of famer. Not sure what you are talking about.

You have eliminated all legitimacy to your thoughts by valuing a few years of bad offense (during successfull seasons) over a hall of fame career. I feel sorry for you. And your math is very bad.

And even if two years of the worst offense in the country actually were important, it may be worth mentioning that KF (and BF) had little to do with that.

Strong positions come with strongly backed (wordy) posts

 

[WeBeHerkin]

Buffington will be a beast.

 

[Grayhair1981]

We also don't know how much Montgomery improved during that time.

But it's probably fair to say Harrell wasn't the best example of an upperclassman that worked out.

But the fear with a younger player is missed assignments. A busted assignment can go all the way for a TD. Whereas, a physical mismatch might just amount to a first down.

It's also more probable that an inexperienced player busts an assignment that it is an experienced player getting out-manned. That experienced player is always in the right position because he is able to get there. The fact that he is able to be in the right position makes him a competitive ballplayer.

First of all, no one play or player costs a team a ballgame. But risk can be seen on both sides. Typically the experienced guy is able to provide B to B+ level of play, until the more talented guy is ready to provide B to A- level of play. Ideally, the younger guy is able to build an increasing amount of reps along the way. There's usually not much reason to risk the growing pains that you speak of, with C- to B level of play.

Bottom line; if I'm going to worry about something with Iowa, it's injuries, not personnel decisions

Was not allowing any QB beside Vandenberg to take a single snap in 2012 in the best interest of the program? Was trying to win that 5th game the last game of the season more important than getting your future QB some game experience? It contributed directly to them losing to NIU at home the first game of 2013.
The coaches aren't always right.
***

 

[eyesofhawk]

Was not allowing any QB beside Vandenberg to take a single snap in 2012 in the best interest of the program? Was trying to win that 5th game the last game of the season more important than getting your future QB some game experience? It contributed directly to them losing to NIU at home the first game of 2013.
The coaches aren't always right.
***

If they aren't, we would have no way of knowing.

We have no idea what all went into the Vandenberg calculus.

We do know that KF has gotten a ton of mileage over the decades out of loyalty and contiinuity.

We also know that his players love him. And that he's put together a hall of fame career.

Certainly, the Vandenberg narrative is silly. At the very least, KF should have earned the benefit of the doubt. Just fans being fans, unfortunately

 

[BigOHawk1]

Buffington will be a beast.

A bigger Josey Jewell? I'll take it...

 

[IowaFarmBoy2]

Not a position to worry about under Parker

 

[Ozzie89]

No. I was worried last year, but they were solid. This is a position, it seems, where Phil just plugs kids in year after year and they get the job done. There could be some growing pains due to some inexperience early, but they'll settle in and be solid

 

[Grayhair1981]

If they aren't, we would have no way of knowing.

We have no idea what all went into the Vandenberg calculus.

We do know that KF has gotten a ton of mileage over the decades out of loyalty and contiinuity.

We also know that his players love him. And that he's put together a hall of fame career.

Certainly, the Vandenberg narrative is silly. At the very least, KF should have earned the benefit of the doubt. Just fans being fans, unfortunately

We do have ways of knowing: our eyes.

 

[83Hawk]

Was not allowing any QB beside Vandenberg to take a single snap in 2012 in the best interest of the program? Was trying to win that 5th game the last game of the season more important than getting your future QB some game experience? It contributed directly to them losing to NIU at home the first game of 2013.
The coaches aren't always right.
***

No, the coaches aren’t always right (even though there are some here who will never admit it).

Playing Vandenberg EVERY snap (the only QB in major college football to do so that year) even when games were out of reach, was a mistake on Kirk’s part. To not let a backup get some actual game experience in those situations, especially considering the Hawks would have a new starting QB the next season, was not a good decision.

But hall of fame coaches are never wrong, apparently.

 

[eyesofhawk]

No, the coaches aren’t always right (even though there are some here who will never admit it).

Playing Vandenberg EVERY snap (the only QB in major college football to do so that year) even when games were out of reach, was a mistake on Kirk’s part. To not let a backup get some actual game experience in those situations, especially considering the Hawks would have a new starting QB the next season, was not a good decision.

But hall of fame coaches are never wrong, apparently.

No need to mischaracterize, if you're referring to me

 

[eyesofhawk]

We do have ways of knowing: our eyes.

Stop.

Plenty of eyeballs on that staff on salary and able to witness daily information

 

[eyesofhawk]

No, the coaches aren’t always right (even though there are some here who will never admit it).

Playing Vandenberg EVERY snap (the only QB in major college football to do so that year) even when games were out of reach, was a mistake on Kirk’s part. To not let a backup get some actual game experience in those situations, especially considering the Hawks would have a new starting QB the next season, was not a good decision.

But hall of fame coaches are never wrong, apparently.

Not primarily valuing the present moment, is almost never the correct approach

 

[Grayhair1981]

Stop.

Plenty of eyeballs on that staff on salary and able to witness daily information

Ferentz and staff have done A LOT more right than wrong. No one is infallible and KF is no exception to that maxim. Throwing Cade out there every game in 2024 is another example. Sullivan was an instant upgrade. They would have lost to NW if Cade hadn't suffered a "concussion" after he threw the pick six.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Ferentz and staff have done A LOT more right than wrong. No one is infallible and KF is no exception to that maxim. Throwing Cade out there every game in 2024 is another example. Sullivan was an instant upgrade. They would have lost to NW if Cade hadn't suffered a "concussion" after he threw the pick six.

Were you not a coach yourself, or, am I thinking of someone else? Some heavy fanism here.

First, you've doubled down on uninformed opinions . We also, have no way of knowing that Sullivan should have played over Cade. Sullivan may not have been ready earlier in the season. May not have been comfortable yet with verbiage. May not have been making good decisions, or processing his reads very well. We fans, are privey to none of that information.

And Iowa ran a different package with Sullivan. To make the switch to him also required everyone else to be up to speed with that package.

It's my opinion that Sullivan was a limited player, as well. He was able to make the run game better. But he was limited in the passing game, which is where all the fans wanted improvement. Once physically broken, Cade made some very poor decisions, himself. But I never trusted Sullivan's decision-making. Perhaps the staff saw the same thing, and trust is huge.

Regardless, we don't know. And we will never have the amount of information that the staff had. So much goes into all this stuff, that fans have zero inside knowledge about, and limited understanding of the information they do have.

For example, most fans don't realize that continuing to play Vandenberg, most likely positively contributed to the development of other players on the offense. The entire rhythm of the offense runs through the qb. Making a change at qb must take into account how it will affect the rest of the players on offense.

Again, the fact that Iowa has always had great senior leadership, great development of player leadership, great buy-in, great culture, great retention, etc., isn't even necessary to cite. Again, it's as simple as this. Fans will never be informed enough to have strong opinions on playing time.

You then, end with another fanism. To say NW would have beat Iowa, had Cade not been concussed, is disrespectful to even the NW players and coaches. Nobody cares about this woulda, coulda. This is sports

 

[LaQuintaHawk]

No, LB and secondary will be strength of defense, worry about the d line

I think all this "worried about the DL" chatter is just that, and nothing more.

As long as they do what Phil and Kevin teach them, we'll be fine...and mainly that is containment and slowing down the run.

You don't necessarily need huge bodies for that, just kids that understand leverage and what is expected of them.

Iowa has never been Sack-U. Most likely never will be.

 

[85Bears]

I think all this "worried about the DL" chatter is just that, and nothing more.

As long as they do what Phil and Kevin teach them, we'll be fine...and mainly that is containment and slowing down the run.

You don't necessarily need huge bodies for that, just kids that understand leverage and what is expected of them.

Iowa has never been Sack-U. Most likely never will be.

Of the three position groups, you will have to concede the most questionable one is d line, correct ? Yea they can be coached up to stop the run. Hopefully we get some d ends who can get some pressure on the passer once in a while.….lose epenesa stepping up would be nice

 

[93hawkeye]

It's always about the DLine. Big, athletic, experienced LBs are nice, but they make a living on what the DLine earns for them. So, no, not worried about the LBs. Worried about DLine

 

[eyesofhawk]

It's always about the DLine. Big, athletic, experienced LBs are nice, but they make a living on what the DLine earns for them. So, no, not worried about the LBs. Worried about DLine

You mean football is won up front? Who knew?

 

[RuggieC]

Not too worried because of Phil and we have 3 games to work out the kinks.

 

[baddog45]

I listened to the Hawk Central podcast when they went through all the position groups. I'm not worried about the LB's because it sounds like they are very talented and deep. Very little experience does give me some pause tho.

Much more concerned about the DL and the special teams (punter and kicker). Iowa has long thrived on limiting the running game and winning close games with special teams. Finger crossed for that to continue into 2026.

But MAYBE - the offense will break some games open this year and the Hawks won't have to rely on FG's and punts quite so much.

ditto

 

[Cidhawkeye]

Were you not a coach yourself, or, am I thinking of someone else? Some heavy fanism here.

First, you've doubled down on uninformed opinions . We also, have no way of knowing that Sullivan should have played over Cade. Sullivan may not have been ready earlier in the season. May not have been comfortable yet with verbiage. May not have been making good decisions, or processing his reads very well. We fans, are privey to none of that information.

And Iowa ran a different package with Sullivan. To make the switch to him also required everyone else to be up to speed with that package.

It's my opinion that Sullivan was a limited player, as well. He was able to make the run game better. But he was limited in the passing game, which is where all the fans wanted improvement. Once physically broken, Cade made some very poor decisions, himself. But I never trusted Sullivan's decision-making. Perhaps the staff saw the same thing, and trust is huge.

Regardless, we don't know. And we will never have the amount of information that the staff had. So much goes into all this stuff, that fans have zero inside knowledge about, and limited understanding of the information they do have.

For example, most fans don't realize that continuing to play Vandenberg, most likely positively contributed to the development of other players on the offense. The entire rhythm of the offense runs through the qb. Making a change at qb must take into account how it will affect the rest of the players on offense.

Again, the fact that Iowa has always had great senior leadership, great development of player leadership, great buy-in, great culture, great retention, etc., isn't even necessary to cite. Again, it's as simple as this. Fans will never be informed enough to have strong opinions on playing time.

You then, end with another fanism. To say NW would have beat Iowa, had Cade not been concussed, is disrespectful to even the NW players and coaches. Nobody cares about this woulda, coulda. This is sports

Uses several woulda and couldas and then says nobody cares about them. Solid work

 

[eyesofhawk]

Uses several woulda and couldas and then says nobody cares about them. Solid work

Not even close.

Read better

 

[Cidhawkeye]

Not even close.

Read better

Give me something better to read. ‘Because eyes says so’ is rarely, if ever supported by anything more than ‘it’s eyes opinion’

 

[eyesofhawk]

Give me something better to read. ‘Because eyes says so’ is rarely, if ever supported by anything more than ‘it’s eyes opinion’

Then if it wasn't a matter of comprehension, it's a matter of mischaracterization.

Either way, the words of my post stand on their own, so have fun with yourself

 

[Cidhawkeye]

Then if it wasn't a matter of comprehension, it's a matter of mischaracterization.

Either way, the words of my post stand on their own, so have fun with yourself

They do certainly stand on their own. Not sure it is the flex you think it is. Most people use better sources than 'because I say so'

 

[Kceasthawk@77]

What's the plan with Kueter's return? Staying at LB or possibly moving to DE?

What's the plan with Kueter's return? Staying at LB or possibly moving to DE?

I'd be really surprised if he ever plays a meaningful snap at Iowa.....

 

[eyesofhawk]

They do certainly stand on their own. Not sure it is the flex you think it is. Most people use better sources than 'because I say so'

Well, when what's being contested is what I have/have not expressed, I think it suffices

 

[Cidhawkeye]

Well, when what's being contested is what I have/have not expressed, I think it suffices

Still not a good flex. As long as you believe you are an expert that is good enough for you.

 

[HMB Trumpet]

No, the coaches aren’t always right (even though there are some here who will never admit it).

Playing Vandenberg EVERY snap (the only QB in major college football to do so that year) even when games were out of reach, was a mistake on Kirk’s part. To not let a backup get some actual game experience in those situations, especially considering the Hawks would have a new starting QB the next season, was not a good decision.

But hall of fame coaches are never wrong, apparently.

The weird thing about 2012 is that only two games were out of reach - Penn State and Michigan. Still, that's the fourth quarter of two games that at least one other guy could have gotten some snaps.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Still not a good flex. As long as you believe you are an expert that is good enough for you.

There was no flex.

Merely a reference to words that stand on their own, in response to mischaracterization.

Yes, I am an expert in what I have/have not expressed. Are not you as well, when it comes to your own thoughts?

Or should we ride the merry-go-round another time?

 

[Cidhawkeye]

There was no flex.

Merely a reference to words that stand on their own, in response to mischaracterization.

Yes, I am an expert in what I have/have not expressed. Are not you as well, when it comes to your own thoughts?

Or should we ride the merry-go-round another time?

I am the worlds leading expert on my opinion.
I am however realistic enough to know that just because I think it doesn’t make it so. You don’t appear to have that capacity.

 

[eyesofhawk]

I am the worlds leading expert on my opinion.
I am however realistic enough to know that just because I think it doesn’t make it so. You don’t appear to have that capacity.

If I don't, it wouldn't have anything to do with this particular string of posts.

Maybe go back and re-read the string from the start. You keep running yourself into the same wall.

Weeeeeee!!! That was another fun time around

 

[2D]

Still not a good flex. As long as you believe you are an expert that is good enough for you.

The only thing that uninformed, low IQ, egomaniac is an expert in is being wrong. There's a reason he's dog piled on in every thread he tries to derail.

My board experience has vastly improved since I created a custom CSS code to remove all his posts from my view. Haven't read any of his lies in nearly a month.

 

[BunchofAholes]

Was not allowing any QB beside Vandenberg to take a single snap in 2012 in the best interest of the program? Was trying to win that 5th game the last game of the season more important than getting your future QB some game experience? It contributed directly to them losing to NIU at home the first game of 2013.
The coaches aren't always right.
***

The problem in 2012 wasn't Vandenburg. It was GDGD.

 

[Cidhawkeye]

The only thing that uninformed, low IQ, egomaniac is an expert in is being wrong. There's a reason he's dog piled on in every thread he tries to derail.

My board experience has vastly improved since I created a custom CSS code to remove all his posts from my view. Haven't read any of his lies in nearly a month.

The op does take being wrong to a different level. The doubling down on it is also impressive.

 

[eyesofhawk]

The op does take being wrong to a different level. The doubling down on it is also impressive.

I wouldn't characterize Jersey in that way at all

 

[eyesofhawk]

Yes. I am currently overweight.

So, a little worried.

But I'll get it under control