Any one else think the QB battle should be reopened after today?

theboat said:
QB has been serviceable, not great. I don't see any reason why it should be a closed book on who the QB is.

Iowa seems to be the only school that you can get benched for turnovers but not lack of making plays. I am just tired of watching a team play scared.
Click to expand...
Gosh, do I agree, Boat. Especially with Iowa's pass defense. Iowa's pass defense is why we need a playmaker at QB. We need points.
 
David79 said:
Beathard will see some time in the Purdue game. They are horrible. They now have QB Rob Henry switched to Safety bc they are so thin there.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that... Purdue's last coaching staff used to pass the ball a lot. I'm sure some of those players are still there. And, well, Iowa's pass defense has never been good... Unless Purdue's new coach is like Ferentz... no adjustments... my way or the highway.
 
Jake has played very well and really impressed me. Having said that, if the offense goes completely stagnant and more importantly shows an inability to run I would absolutely be in favor of throwing a changeup at the defense and bring in a QB with wheels. There is no reason not to take advantage of any weapons you have when things are not going well. Stay the course gets a little tiresome when the course can't advance the ball.

Again, I am not saying there should be a change at QB. Jake is doing quality work out there. During the course of a an individual game if the same things are not working why would you not try something different? He clearly has the IQ and confidence to not be all bruised if we throw a few different looks during a tough game. It doesn't mean he is to blame, it means we might need to tap a different set of skills in certain circumstances.
 
jake703 said:
Jake has played very well and really impressed me. Having said that, if the offense goes completely stagnant and more importantly shows an inability to run I would absolutely be in favor of throwing a changeup at the defense and bring in a QB with wheels. There is no reason not to take advantage of any weapons you have when things are not going well. Stay the course gets a little tiresome when the course can't advance the ball.

Again, I am not saying there should be a change at QB. Jake is doing quality work out there. During the course of a an individual game if the same things are not working why would you not try something different? He clearly has the IQ and confidence to not be all bruised if we throw a few different looks during a tough game. It doesn't mean he is to blame, it means we might need to tap a different set of skills in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think they could accomplish that without changing personnel, simply by throwing out the fake read-option. Just run a REAL read-option with Rudock; he's demonstrated more than adequate running ability, and the running lane is there for him to pick up big chunks of yards every time we run that play because everyone knows we're not really running the option. It's just stretch left or stretch right out of the shotgun.
 
If you read Davis's interview, he is very complimentary of Beathard, citing his ''quick arm'' which is coachspeak for strong arm with a quick release....and his running ability. I get the feeling that Davis would not mind seeing Beathard out there in some situations. As he said, Jake tends to wait on his throws..and then try to goose it. That first interception, he should have thrown it sooner and with more oomph. He tried to finesse it in there against the wind and that does not work. Beathard throws a better deep ball,and if we do not stretch the defense, they will gang up in the box against our run....I hope the staff has an open competition this week and has an open mind at OSU if we fall behind.....Jake is a thin kid, and we need to protect him for the rest of the season, so spare him the beating and let the youngster take it.
 
tm3308 said:
Yeah, we totes should have given Jason Manson a few series over Tate when Tate wasn't lighting the world on fire his first month as a starter. Because things worked out so poorly for Iowa by not doing that.

Seriously, why would we change things up under center when the quarterback play has been our primary bright spot?
Click to expand...
Because Iowa's offense needs to score lots of points to compensate for Iowa's shoddy secondary play.
 
HomerChampless said:
Because Iowa's offense needs to score lots of points to compensate for Iowa's shoddy secondary play.
Click to expand...

Because benching arguably the team's best player thus far, for no other reason than he's not doing enough to cover up the defense's flaws, makes more sense than benching the secondary and defensive line for not performing their primary duties.
 
they need to stop running the QB read until Jake keeps it more than once a game. It would also be beneficial if they spread out the formations more. The last 5 minutes of the second galf was working pretty well...I wonder why they went away from it the entire second half.
 
There is an old school of thought, "if you have two quarterbacks you have none". Some more are the "wing-t offense, single wing, the 'bone, ect". Most, if not all are out-dated. I like Jake and he should be the starter, but getting Beathard a series or two every game just as a change of pace would be a good thing. It gives opposing defenses something else to prepare for.
 
Stanzi said:
It absolutely should be opened up...but won't. My reasons are as follows:

1. Rudock doesn't have enough arm strength. He's already had a lot of under thrown deep balls.

2. Poor decision making. I realize he's a first year starter, but his picks aren't due to gunslinging like Stanzi's were, or due to trying to make a play deep and having a defender make a good play. He's throwing them right to the other team.

3. Lack of big play ability. Some of this is on Davis and his handcuffing, but I just don't see Rudock being able to make the type of plays Tate or Stanzi could. We need a game changer at QB, not a game manager.
Click to expand...

Uh. a good portion of Stanzi's pick-6 throws alone. never mind his other INTs, were the result of purely stupid throws. "Gunslinging" was often the least of it.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Uh. a good portion of Stanzi's pick-6 throws alone. never mind his other INTs, were the result of purely stupid throws. "Gunslinging" was often the least of it.
Click to expand...

And being a gunslinger, by definition, means possessing questionable decision-making skills. Not sure why that's being considered a virtue for Stanzi and a vice for Rudock.

Well, actually I am well aware of why that's the case, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
 
Sorry, but Shimonek is gonna take over next year!......From what I have heard, he has been dominating practices, but doesnt have the playbook down yet.....He is big, mobile, and has a cannon, but most of all he has the attitude!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top