Ferentz Era Iowa FB Mt Rushmore: Vote for your Four

**Winterhawk** · 05-10-2012, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Section136

I dont think you understand the concept of the poll. It wasnt "Vote for the best football players of teh Ferentz era".

What was the concept of the poll if not to pick the 4 best/greatest impact hawkeyes during the KF era? To pick the four individual hawkeyes who would best be carved into a black hills of South Dakota? Why if this is not a "vote for the best football players of the Ferentz era" poll were only the best players from the Ferentz era on the list to choose from?

**Section136** · 05-10-2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Winterhawk

What was the concept of the poll if not to pick the 4 best/greatest impact hawkeyes during the KF era? To pick the four individual hawkeyes who would best be carved into a black hills of South Dakota? Why if this is not a "vote for the best football players of the Ferentz era" poll were only the best players from the Ferentz era on the list to choose from?

Players that had the most impact on the program in the Ferentz Era does not equal the best players of that era.

**SpiderRico** · 05-10-2012, 08:37 AM

Apparently, about 300 people thought Bob Sanders didn't make enough of an impact....unbelievable!

**Section136** · 05-10-2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by SpiderRico

Apparently, about 300 people thought Bob Sanders didn't make enough of an impact....unbelievable!

Ri-donk-u-lous.

**Winterhawk** · 05-10-2012, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Section136

Players that had the most impact on the program in the Ferentz Era does not equal the best players of that era.

By this standard, you might have to include Jake Christensen and Adam Shada - who had more impact than they did?

Again - how can someone who is involved in such a small percentage of plays, and who's unique talents probably allowed the Hawkeye's to win 3 more games over four years than the otherwise would have be considered more impactful than the individuals who played nearly all of the snaps and put that kicker in position to be able to help the team win?

**ColoradoHAWKEYE** · 05-10-2012, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by hogeye

Originally Posted by ColoradoHAWKEYE

But don't they call it "FOOTball"? Kicker is only one who truly uses his foot. Just sayin...

They call it basketball too, but no one uses a basket.

True that. Also, the reality is, the length of the ball is a foot. For the record nate was not one of my 4 of Sanders, Gallery, Stanzi, and Clark.

**Section136** · 05-10-2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Winterhawk

By this standard, you might have to include Jake Christensen and Adam Shada - who had more impact than they did? Pretty sure everybody knew positive impact was the criteria. Dumb comment.

Again - how can someone who is involved in such a small percentage of plays, and who's unique talents probably allowed the Hawkeye's to win 3 more games over four years than the otherwise would have be considered more impactful than the individuals who played nearly all of the snaps and put that kicker in position to be able to help the team win? There is no way you can positively say how many more games the Hawks won because of Kaeding. Im comfortable with him being in my Top 4 and if you dont want to list him, you have that right. I love topics like this though. Cheers.

**SpiderRico** · 05-10-2012, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Winterhawk

By this standard, you might have to include Jake Christensen and Adam Shada - who had more impact than they did?

Again - how can someone who is involved in such a small percentage of plays, and who's unique talents probably allowed the Hawkeye's to win 3 more games over four years than the otherwise would have be considered more impactful than the individuals who played nearly all of the snaps and put that kicker in position to be able to help the team win?

I would normally agree with you, but when it comes to Ferentz and his conservative style, a kicker like Kaeding was a HUGELY impactful player.

We don't normally win games by 3 or 4 touchdowns....more like 3 or 4 points. Look back at 2010. We probably don't lose to Arizona if we don't miss the PAT. We probably don't lose to Wisconsin if we make the chip shot field goal. So now you're talking about being 7-0 after the Wisconsin game (instead of 5-2) and momentum does crazy things.

That's just one example. While I wouldn't have put Kaeding on there (because I think there were 4 other guys more impactful), I don't think people who do put him on there are out of their minds either.

**Section136** · 05-10-2012, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by SpiderRico

I would normally agree with you, but when it comes to Ferentz and his conservative style, a kicker like Kaeding was a HUGELY impactful player.

We don't normally win games by 3 or 4 touchdowns....more like 3 or 4 points. Look back at 2010. We probably don't lose to Arizona if we don't miss the PAT. We probably don't lose to Wisconsin if we make the chip shot field goal. So now you're talking about being 7-0 after the Wisconsin game (instead of 5-2) and momentum does crazy things.

That's just one example. While I wouldn't have put Kaeding on there (because I think there were 4 other guys more impactful), I don't think people who do put him on there are out of their minds either.

Also had a PAT blocked or missed in the Wisky game in 2010. Final score was 31-30.

**Winterhawk** · 05-10-2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Winterhawk

By this standard, you might have to include Jake Christensen and Adam Shada - who had more impact than they did? Pretty sure everybody knew positive impact was the criteria. Dumb comment.

Again - how can someone who is involved in such a small percentage of plays, and who's unique talents probably allowed the Hawkeye's to win 3 more games over four years than the otherwise would have be considered more impactful than the individuals who played nearly all of the snaps and put that kicker in position to be able to help the team win? There is no way you can positively say how many more games the Hawks won because of Kaeding. Im comfortable with him being in my Top 4 and if you dont want to list him, you have that right. I love topics like this though. Cheers.

My point in the top comment was to show that you have shown a difference without distinction. If it is obvious as you say that we are talking about positive impact, then it goes without saying that the best players make the greatest impact. It is what makes them the best players, if they made less of an impact they would cease to be the best players. So yes, a dumb comment, but with purpose to demonstrate the lack of value in your argument. To show this point, why wasn't warren holloway on the list? He was involved in the most historical moment in the KF era - that is without debate, and clearly had a positive impact. He is rightfully not on this list.

You are right that there is no way to pick one player out, especially in football and state that they are solely responsible for wins and losses. However, the 3-4 wins I was giving him credit for are probably on the high side. Go back and look at the records for those 3 years, (2001-2003) - how many really close games were the hawks in? How many of those were a matter of kicking? There were a few, but there are probably only 5-6 that even fit the "close and kicking mattered" bill. Further, how many of those would likely have been handled solidly by other kickers? The truth is those seasons were largely great for the special players on offense and defense who play every down, and Kaeding did his part. It doesn't diminish his part, I think it just needs to be put in proper context of true relevance to the overall production of the team.

**hogeye** · 05-10-2012, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by ColoradoHAWKEYE

True that. Also, the reality is, the length of the ball is a foot. For the record nate was not one of my 4 of Sanders, Gallery, Stanzi, and Clark.

That would have been my four. Not necessarily the four best, but the four that best depict Iowa football under Ferentz.

**SpiderRico** · 05-10-2012, 09:35 AM

I went Sanders, Gallery, Stanzi and Angerer because I think those were the four greatest on and off the field leaders Ferentz has ever had in addition to the great productivity they displayed.

**azhawkeyefan** · 05-10-2012, 12:21 PM

Bob Sanders is the easy answer that shouldn't be up for debate. For the other 3 spots a legit argument can be made for all, there really are no wrong answers picking from the players on the list (add Drew Tate to that).

My 3 along with Sanders are..

Dallas Clark
Mitch King - i'm really surprised he didn't get more love in the poll.
Adrian Clayborn - the blocked punt and return vs Penn State keeps replaying in my head when I think about this list. Along with a solid 4 years of production, he had this "It" moment that we'll all remember

my honorable mention are Gallery, Stanzi, Tate and Kaeding