A thought from TOS thread...

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

Somebody brought up a good point and I somewhat agreed with it, just wondering if anybody feels the same or not and why.

Here is the notion. The offense right now looks like a car stuck in mud. Nothing is clicking and points are being left on the field. It's too late to change the offensive strategy now, they've been working on it for months and you can't just flip a switch and do something different. Having a struggling JVB under center doesn't appear to be helping the cause any, and furthermore, he only has 10 games left before his career is over. So the question is, since we are already struggling should Iowa go ahead and sit JVB and put in Rudock, not just to see if it helps the offense, but also to give him a multiple game jump start for next year? Starting 8-10 games this season would work wonders for getting the system running smoother next year. Thoughts on this?

 

[smbhawk1]

Somebody brought up a good point and I somewhat agreed with it, just wondering if anybody feels the same or not and why.

Here is the notion. The offense right now looks like a car stuck in mud. Nothing is clicking and points are being left on the field. It's too late to change the offensive strategy now, they've been working on it for months and you can't just flip a switch and do something different. Having a struggling JVB under center doesn't appear to be helping the cause any, and furthermore, he only has 10 games left before his career is over. So the question is, since we are already struggling should Iowa go ahead and sit JVB and put in Rudock, not just to see if it helps the offense, but also to give him a multiple game jump start for next year? Starting 8-10 games this season would work wonders for getting the system running smoother next year. Thoughts on this?

I think Ferentz will never ever do this, no matter how bad we are.

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

I didnt think this is a new thought. People wanted to sit Stanzi also.

 

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

I didnt think this is a new thought. People wanted to sit Stanzi also.

Here's the difference. When people wanted Stanzi sat, or JC6, or Drew, or whatever, it's because people hoped that the change would be in immediate infusion of better play. I fully expect that Rudock is as unprepared to lead this offense as JVB appears to be currently, so I don't think it will be an immediate help. The thought process in this change is the fact that if JVB is still learning the offense, why waste the learning time on him because he's gone in a couple of months and we have to start all over again next season. So why not put Rudock in now, so he can learn the system, and then come next year he will hit the ground running?

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

I thought the overall goal was to get kids to the NFL. If you sit JVB then he wont get into the NFL.

 

[UofIght]

only make the change if you think Rudock is better, not to prepare him for next season. One of the next two games would be a good time to try it out before Minnesota comes to town.

 

[ICHawk24]

So, after ******** for years that Kirk supposedly purposely plays worse players...

we now want him to purposely play a worse player?

 

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

So, after ******** for years that Kirk supposedly purposely plays worse players...

we now want him to purposely play a worse player?

This argument only applies if the worse player is an upperclassmen and the supposed better player is stuck behind said upperclassmen. If JVB and Rudock are both comparable because they are struggling to learn the offense does it not make more sense to go with the player that will use that extra playing and learning time to better the team for the future? I know it won't happen but in theory, playing Rudock if (IF) JVB is not learning the offense would better suit the future needs of the team.

 

[burky247]

I want Nico Law at QB. Run the wildcat. Gotta get him on the field somewhere.

 

[Calculator]

When things are bad the most popular player on the team is the back-up quarterback. Ruddock had to learn a new offense too, and with no game experience you must keep JVB in there. I dont think there is much choice.

 

[Lyddea]

Somebody brought up a good point and I somewhat agreed with it, just wondering if anybody feels the same or not and why.

Here is the notion. The offense right now looks like a car stuck in mud. Nothing is clicking and points are being left on the field. It's too late to change the offensive strategy now, they've been working on it for months and you can't just flip a switch and do something different. Having a struggling JVB under center doesn't appear to be helping the cause any, and furthermore, he only has 10 games left before his career is over. So the question is, since we are already struggling should Iowa go ahead and sit JVB and put in Rudock, not just to see if it helps the offense, but also to give him a multiple game jump start for next year? Starting 8-10 games this season would work wonders for getting the system running smoother next year. Thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that it's been two games. Two.

I'm not ready to give up on this season, and if Rudock is not beating JVB for the job, then playing him to get a "jump start" on next year is just giving up on this season.

Two games. Two games with a new coordinator who brought in a new offensive system. No doubt that system has been offensive so far, but still.

 

[ICHawk24]

This argument only applies if the worse player is an upperclassmen and the supposed better player is stuck behind said upperclassmen. If JVB and Rudock are both comparable because they are struggling to learn the offense does it not make more sense to go with the player that will use that extra playing and learning time to better the team for the future? I know it won't happen but in theory, playing Rudock if (IF) JVB is not learning the offense would better suit the future needs of the team.

This has been the case in nearly every b1tchfest about backups we've ever read on these boards.

 

[HobbieHawk]

I want Nico Law at QB. Run the wildcat. Gotta get him on the field somewhere.

Don't put Hyde in at Quarterback!

He'll signal for a fair catch from the shotgun!

 

[INTIMIDATORHawk]

I think if JVB continues to play as poorly as he has been, it is highly realistic to consider using Ruddock. The same thing happened in 2008. Stanzi eventually got the job over the incumbent QB from the year before because JC was absolutely awful early on in 2008.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

I thought the overall goal was to get kids to the NFL. If you sit JVB then he wont get into the NFL.

I think the overall goal is to win games. Have a good program, and sending players to the NFL will take care of itself.

To answer the OP, I wouldn't mind at least seeing Ruddock get a couple series in the next game to see what he can do - not necessarily start him. But only if he is ready. If he's going to go in there and get crushed, then save him until next year IMO.

But as someone else said - I don't think we will see Ruddock as long as JVB is available. Ruddock would have to be overwhelmingly better than JVB and then MAYBE you would see him by mid-season (see Stanzi vs. JC) or JVB would have to get injured and leave the staff with no choice.

 

[Xerxes]

Jake Ruddock is the most important player in the program right now and its not even close. Because Iowa needs a good/great QB to have a chance in the B10 in the future. However if he isn't ready they shouldn't start him. I would like to see him get legit playing time but starting him before he is ready is not going to help.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Jake Ruddock is the most important player in the program right now and its not even close. Because Iowa needs a good/great QB to have a chance in the B10 in the future. However if he isn't ready they shouldn't start him. I would like to see him get legit playing time but starting him before he is ready is not going to help.

I agree - you don't want to crush the young man's confidence. Only if he is ready do you put him in. And agreed also that Ruddock is definitely critical. He's next in line for 2013.

Problem is, it's doubtful that we'll have many blowout situations this year where you can play him, unless we're on the receiving end of the deal.

That's what was nice about 2002 - that offense was good enough where we had some blowouts, and Chandler was able to get some game reps in mop up duty.

 

[NEIChawk]

Does it matter if Ruddock gets in? The problem I see is it will be the same play-calling, and for that you have to consider the source.....Keep Vandy in...it can only get better.....

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Somebody brought up a good point and I somewhat agreed with it, just wondering if anybody feels the same or not and why.

Here is the notion. The offense right now looks like a car stuck in mud. Nothing is clicking and points are being left on the field. It's too late to change the offensive strategy now, they've been working on it for months and you can't just flip a switch and do something different. Having a struggling JVB under center doesn't appear to be helping the cause any, and furthermore, he only has 10 games left before his career is over. So the question is, since we are already struggling should Iowa go ahead and sit JVB and put in Rudock, not just to see if it helps the offense, but also to give him a multiple game jump start for next year? Starting 8-10 games this season would work wonders for getting the system running smoother next year. Thoughts on this?

It's always a valid point when we "seem" to be staring a "terrible" season in the face. But I would disagree on two points:

1) JVB, though not lighting it up, has been the "victim" of WAY too many drops
2) On the subject of JVB, would ANYone have thought he would "look" like he has this season in light of his getting fire-to-the-frying pan experience in 2009?

I think a loss to UNI MAY warrant a look at "what's next". But as with JC in 2007, the guys behind may have the "tools", but may not yet know how to use them well enough to warrant becoming the starting QB.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I agree - you don't want to crush the young man's confidence. Only if he is ready do you put him in. And agreed also that Ruddock is definitely critical. He's next in line for 2013.

Problem is, it's doubtful that we'll have many blowout situations this year where you can play him, unless we're on the receiving end of the deal.

That's what was nice about 2002 - that offense was good enough where we had some blowouts, and Chandler was able to get some game reps in mop up duty.

Chandler also had "post-HS-level" experience. BIG difference from what Chandler had in the tool kit vs. Rudock now, or Stanzi/Nelson in 2007