Beathard Rudock Question

homes

homes

Well-Known Member
In the deep dark meetings of the coaching staff, I don't think who the best QB is really a debate at all. I believe they all know it is Beathard, but Ferentz is too decent to cut Rudock off at the knees and full on bench him after an 8 win season last year, and a respectable, albeit not great, start to this season. If the coaches really felt that Rudock should be the unequivocal starter, there would be none of this shared First String line going on; he'd continue to be the starter, no questions asked-type status. The fact that he isn't, in light of starting every game last year, and not being horrible this year (I know, some standard, huh?) suggests that Beathard is their man - they just can't be that overt about it.
 
homes said:
In the deep dark meetings of the coaching staff, I don't think who the best QB is really a debate at all. I believe they all know it is Beathard, but Ferentz is too decent to cut Rudock off at the knees and full on bench him after an 8 win season last year, and a respectable, albeit not great, start to this season. If the coaches really felt that Rudock should be the unequivocal starter, there would be none of this shared First String line going on; he'd continue to be the starter, no questions asked-type status. The fact that he isn't, in light of starting every game last year, and not being horrible this year (I know, some standard, huh?) suggests that Beathard is their man - they just can't be that overt about it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that simple. I think they see both QBs as pretty equal, but the second half of the Pitt game showed that Iowa does have the potential to be better with CJ. However, they still trust Jake, and as you mentioned, he did win 8 games last year.
 
I don't think all the marginal QB play is on the QBs. Most is on the coaches and preparation. Other teams can get up for early year games, why can't Iowa?

I do agree, however, that JR has had plenty of game time and first string reps in practice to get better. CJ should start and keep starting to work out any QB errors in reading the defense. Offensive line and RB play needs to pick up, as well.
 
I think the coaches see it as close and competitive QB duel, as both have strengths and weaknesses. I just hope that CJ gets a good shot at the job again, and is ready to seize the day. I like Jake, but CJ has the better upside. If our running game was stellar, then I could see sticking with the safe bet, Jake, but the whole offense has struggled...so we need a boost. Start Jake, bring in CJ in the 2nd qtr unless we are lighting it up, and re-access at halftime.
 
Not a shot at CJ by any means, but I think if he and the offense play a full game against Purdue he solidifies himself as the starter. That said, he had his chance to take the driver seat and as good as the 2nd half was the over abundance of 3 and outs didn't do him any favors in regards to locking down the position.
 
The problems are much greater than who is the starting QB for Iowa and all the games have show that. :)


National Rankings:
99th in Total Offense.
72nd in Passing Offense
95th in Rushing Offense
87th in Offensive Efficiency
 
I think it comes down to who you think will do the best IN SPITE of the coaching staff.

I think that is Beathard, since he is more prone to going off ****** than Rudock.

the word s-c-r-i-p-t is forbidden. just fyi...that's what I wrote above.
 
biasedHAWKEYE said:
I think it comes down to who you think will do the best IN SPITE of the coaching staff.

I think that is Beathard, since he is more prone to going off ****** than Rudock.

the word s-c-r-i-p-t is forbidden. just fyi...that's what I wrote above.
Click to expand...

That word is forbidden as it is easy for malicious hackers to inject a ****** in a PHP-based BBS system like this one that would infect any Windows computer. And the easiest way to do it is to inject a (word that cannot be named) into a reply like this with special code. I work in computer tech support and I've seen it happen on similar PHP-based BBS systems.
 
kicker22 said:
Not a shot at CJ by any means, but I think if he and the offense play a full game against Purdue he solidifies himself as the starter. That said, he had his chance to take the driver seat and as good as the 2nd half was the over abundance of 3 and outs didn't do him any favors in regards to locking down the position.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that 2 of the 5 dropped passes were in the 1st qtr and were on 3rd down and a reception would have meant a 1st down. Sure, every qb has receivers that drop passes. But if you are evaluating the qb, you're looking at the decision and the throw and if the receiver drops a pass, then you have to count that as a successful play/conversion for the qb.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
Pretty sure that 2 of the 5 dropped passes were in the 1st qtr and were on 3rd down and a reception would have meant a 1st down. Sure, every qb has receivers that drop passes. But if you are evaluating the qb, you're looking at the decision and the throw and if the receiver drops a pass, then you have to count that as a successful play/conversion for the qb.
Click to expand...

Understood, but that said, your also looking at replacing a QB that has been efficient this season (ie. JR). I agree that drops aren't his fault, but when the major strike against JR has been the inability to get the ball down field and take chances, I don't think 8 3 and outs (or whatever that number was) do much to prove the point that the backup is the better choice.

Again, I'm not saying JR is better or that CJ shouldn't be starting, what I'm saying is that I think they're pretty close to being equal. I simply didn't see anything in terms of how the offense played in the first half, with CJ under center, that said he's the better option. I simply feel he had a chance to take the lead in the qb battle and didn't have an opening half that made him the clear and convincing favorite.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
Pretty sure that 2 of the 5 dropped passes were in the 1st qtr and were on 3rd down and a reception would have meant a 1st down. Sure, every qb has receivers that drop passes. But if you are evaluating the qb, you're looking at the decision and the throw and if the receiver drops a pass, then you have to count that as a successful play/conversion for the qb.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to inject thought execution into this. We are here to be unreasonable and blame someone else for our problems.
 
kicker22 said:
Understood, but that said, your also looking at replacing a QB that has been efficient this season (ie. JR). I agree that drops aren't his fault, but when the major strike against JR has been the inability to get the ball down field and take chances, I don't think 8 3 and outs (or whatever that number was) do much to prove the point that the backup is the better choice.

Again, I'm not saying JR is better or that CJ shouldn't be starting, what I'm saying is that I think they're pretty close to being equal. I simply didn't see anything in terms of how the offense played in the first half, with CJ under center, that said he's the better option. I simply feel he had a chance to take the lead in the qb battle and didn't have an opening half that made him the clear and convincing favorite.
Click to expand...

Once CJ ran for that first down, he settled in and played better the rest of the way. I think you have to allow for a first time starter to have a few nerves early.....but after that the dropped passes were the only thing that kept CJ from putting up at least 13 more points....missed fgs, passing on fgs, and drops.
 
kicker22 said:
Understood, but that said, your also looking at replacing a QB that has been efficient this season (ie. JR). I agree that drops aren't his fault, but when the major strike against JR has been the inability to get the ball down field and take chances, I don't think 8 3 and outs (or whatever that number was) do much to prove the point that the backup is the better choice.

Again, I'm not saying JR is better or that CJ shouldn't be starting, what I'm saying is that I think they're pretty close to being equal. I simply didn't see anything in terms of how the offense played in the first half, with CJ under center, that said he's the better option. I simply feel he had a chance to take the lead in the qb battle and didn't have an opening half that made him the clear and convincing favorite.
Click to expand...


The 1st QTR at PU certainly was not good. But maybe he was a little wide-eyed in his first ever start and it was on the road, in conference? I know this is giving him the benefit of the doubt, but CJ had no issues moving the team against BSU or at Pit. The drive chart shows 7 3 and outs at PU. But 4 of those were in the 1 QTR, so only 3 the rest of the game. So, in 6 qtr's of play plus one possession against BSU, I believe that the 1st QTR at PU was the aberration and not the other 5.

I just believe that CJ can execute GD's offense better by virtue of being able to throw down field better. Now, if JR comes in against IU and shows the ability to consistently throw down field, then the qb controversy probably becomes moot.
 
I think the coaches would be doing him a favor. The closest he'll get to an NFL combine is the Field Museum in Chicago and he wants to be a doctor. Nothing wrong with that, really. It's a perfectly good career choice.

He's likely one of those guys that has to pile his plate so high that most mortals couldn't even contemplate it. He's probably also contemplating a country music career or something else to prove that he's a real superman.
 
Looking at 3 and outs when judging a quarterback is fine but when you have such a small sample size you have to look at what caused the 3 and out. People have already mentioned the drops but Weisman also got stuffed on a 3rd and short. If he picks up that first down and the receivers catch the ball it doesn't somehow make CJ a better qb.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
The problems are much greater than who is the starting QB for Iowa and all the games have show that. :)


National Rankings:
99th in Total Offense.
72nd in Passing Offense
95th in Rushing Offense
87th in Offensive Efficiency
Click to expand...


There is little I dislike more than agreeing with HawkPrdatr40, but here I go...It just ain't about the QB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top