Bill Happel

[PCHawk]

I disagree with this. The defense this year wasn't good enough to be put into vulnerable positions from a "gunslinger" QB. That's why JR was the better choice for this team. He made the safer choices. Now let me also say this offense needed to take more vertical shots; which CJ is better at. Its his decisions on the other plays that keep him from playing more.

So you're pretty much saying a qb who scores on a very low percentage of drives is better for the team than a qb who scores on a high percentage of drives because of the possibility that he will throw interceptions that he proved to rarely throw?

As far as the defense goes. Their biggest problem this year was giving up big plays. When you give up big plays, your opponents starting field position doesn't matter.

 

[Eda]

Eda, I very much disagree. First, classifying CJ as a gunslinger is inaccurate. CJ throws deep passes, well. That doesn't make him a gunslinger. A qb that consistently throws into (too) tightly covered receivers is a gunslinger. That is not CJ.

Secondly, it was clear to many, early on, that our defense wasn't going to be a very good one. Even with kfootball's ultra-conservative approach and using JR didn't work very well. We couldn't score points with that approach and our defense gave up points, anyway. So, that was a recipe for playing losing football. JR was at his best when the offense was opened up; but, CJ is absolutely better than JR within that opened up offense. So why, then, wouldn't you: a) open up the offense and, b) use CJ?

kfootball stayed with "that's football" instead.

First off... I used the term gunslinger with quotation marks for the many (most people on here) that have used that term I describe him. He relied heavily on his arm (which is a trait of a gunslinger). I believe KirFer even has said he is "in love with his arm". Sorry if my verbioligy of CJ gets you warmed up.

As for scoring points... Look at the games we scored a lot of points. NW, Indiana, Maryland, etc. JR took the majority of snaps in those games and has shown the ability to put up points. We could argue that the early part of the season when the defense didn't look good, neither did the offense. Perhaps KirFer knew the offense could get better, but the defense (and more specifically the LBers) was gonna be a weakness throughout the year; and that's why he went with a guy who will more often make the wiser choice. I don't know that for sure... Just speculating.

I do agree with you about the offense being opened up, both QB's are at their best. IMO, JR is the better choice in that scenario. I feel he has a stronger knowledge of the offense. That knowledge allows the offense to be more diverse in those situations.

 

[Eda]

So you're pretty much saying a qb who scores on a very low percentage of drives is better for the team than a qb who scores on a high percentage of drives because of the possibility that he will throw interceptions that he proved to rarely throw?

As far as the defense goes. Their biggest problem this year was giving up big plays. When you give up big plays, your opponents starting field position doesn't matter.

If CJ played more series, I'm sure that percentage would come down. Its also not just about throwing ints. Sometimes the wise play is the underneath route or the check down; rather than always throwing the deep ball. That is something that CJ doesn't always do. It keeps the chains moving and keeps the offense on schedule. That was something I noticed last year and seen some yet this year (although he had gotten somewhat better in that regard).

As as for the defense... Look at the Minny, Pitt, ISU, or Maryland games (games I just pulled off the top of my head). They gave up both big plays and longer drives. Id say the UNI and Indiana games were the "give up big play" games.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

First off... I used the term gunslinger with quotation marks for the many (most people on here) that have used that term I describe him. He relied heavily on his arm (which is a trait of a gunslinger). I believe KirFer even has said he is "in love with his arm". Sorry if my verbioligy of CJ gets you warmed up.

As for scoring points... Look at the games we scored a lot of points. NW, Indiana, Maryland, etc. JR took the majority of snaps in those games and has shown the ability to put up points. We could argue that the early part of the season when the defense didn't look good, neither did the offense. Perhaps KirFer knew the offense could get better, but the defense (and more specifically the LBers) was gonna be a weakness throughout the year; and that's why he went with a guy who will more often make the wiser choice. I don't know that for sure... Just speculating.

I do agree with you about the offense being opened up, both QB's are at their best. IMO, JR is the better choice in that scenario. I feel he has a stronger knowledge of the offense. That knowledge allows the offense to be more diverse in those situations.

Eda, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. kfootball's strategy, as you speculate, virtually equates to not scoring points because the defense isn't good enough to keep points off the board. Again, that would be a losing strategy. Regarding which qb is better in the opened up offense, we disagree, completely. I believe that it is obvious CJ is much better. CJ makes NFL caliber throws down field and JR can't. CJ throws receivers open and stays in the pocket longer waiting for receivers to break open. JR doesn't do any of those things.

 

[PCHawk]

If CJ played more series, I'm sure that percentage would come down. Its also not just about throwing ints. Sometimes the wise play is the underneath route or the check down; rather than always throwing the deep ball. That is something that CJ doesn't always do. It keeps the chains moving and keeps the offense on schedule. That was something I noticed last year and seen some yet this year (although he had gotten somewhat better in that regard).

As as for the defense... Look at the Minny, Pitt, ISU, or Maryland games (games I just pulled off the top of my head). They gave up both big plays and longer drives. Id say the UNI and Indiana games were the "give up big play" games.

Maybe the percentages would have gone down. But maybe they would have gone up with more experience. As far as decision making goes. I agree that CJ looked deep sometimes when the check down was the right play. With that he definitely struggled a little. But Rudock struggled mightily checking down when the down field throw was the right choice. What it comes down to is Rudock doesn't get heat for his terrible decision making because his bad decisions errored on the side of caution. They were still bad decisions though, and they cost us both points and wins this year.

None of this even mentions the points he left on the field with his physical mistakes. Jake missed A LOT of wide open recievers this year.

Not playing a physically better QB because he doesn't always make right decision is a bad idea when you play the less physically gifted QB who probably makes bad decisions more often.

 

[Eda]

Maybe the percentages would have gone down. But maybe they would have gone up with more experience. As far as decision making goes. I agree that CJ looked deep sometimes when the check down was the right play. With that he definitely struggled a little. But Rudock struggled mightily checking down when the down field throw was the right choice. What it comes down to is Rudock doesn't get heat for his terrible decision making because his bad decisions errored on the side of caution. They were still bad decisions though, and they cost us both points and wins this year.

None of this even mentions the points he left on the field with his physical mistakes. Jake missed A LOT of wide open recievers this year.

Not playing a physically better QB because he doesn't always make right decision is a bad idea when you play the less physically gifted QB who probably makes bad decisions more often.

I agree that JR has missed a lot of open down the field throws, but JR takes plenty of heat for missing the long ball. In fact, he takes far more heat for missing the deep one than CJ does for skipping the underneath or check down. I guess one could argue that taking a check down isn't a bad play; as it keeps the chains moving. Seems around here execution and check down have become bad words. I don't have the stats to prove it, but it seems this year we had far more drives for touchdowns or field goals via long sustained drives then we have had in the past. That is a product of taking the safer choices... check downs /underneath routes.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

One point that I agree with - that is that the QB isn't close to the big issue with this team. There are bigger concerns - running back, guard, linebacker, punting, punt returns and kick returns.

yes and no. The team definitely has plenty of holes.

On the other hand, a simple change in QB would probably have been worth 2 more wins. Then Ferentz would deserve credit for a 9 win season despite all the things listed above. As it stands, his stubbornness stood in the way of the easiest improvement this team had available to it.

 

[PCHawk]

I agree that JR has missed a lot of open down the field throws, but JR takes plenty of heat for missing the long ball. In fact, he takes far more heat for missing the deep one than CJ does for skipping the underneath or check down. I guess one could argue that taking a check down isn't a bad play; as it keeps the chains moving. Seems around here execution and check down have become bad words. I don't have the stats to prove it, but it seems this year we had far more drives for touchdowns or field goals via long sustained drives then we have had in the past. That is a product of taking the safer choices... check downs /underneath routes.

You're right that check down has become a bad word. But it took half a season of not seeing wide open receivers and throwing 2 yard passes 3 out of 4 times to get that way. I strongly disagree with your last sentence though. I think the long sustained drives were a product of a runningback that can't break long runs but is very good at converting short yardage situations, and a QB who can't make long throws. We had no choice but to have long sustained drives.

If we had Melvin Gordon on our team, Rudock could have possibly been a better fit than CJ (I stress the word possibly). But having no deep threat in the running game or the passing game is a recipe for 7-5.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I agree that JR has missed a lot of open down the field throws, but JR takes plenty of heat for missing the long ball. In fact, he takes far more heat for missing the deep one than CJ does for skipping the underneath or check down. I guess one could argue that taking a check down isn't a bad play; as it keeps the chains moving. Seems around here execution and check down have become bad words. I don't have the stats to prove it, but it seems this year we had far more drives for touchdowns or field goals via long sustained drives then we have had in the past. That is a product of taking the safer choices... check downs /underneath routes.

Unfortunately, we saw all too often that the check down didn't move the chains. And the biggest reason for that is defenses schemed to prioritize that coverage to stop the play. They could do this because they knew Iowa would most likely not throw deep. It was one of the more frustrating things to watch. JR enthusiasts preach his completion percentage when many times JR was checking down, on 3rd downs, getting the completion but not getting the first down. So a person needs to ask what is a good decision? Is it a completed pass on 3rd down that doesn't result in first downs, or, a deeper pass that falls incomplete but would have resulted in a first down or more? In the 2014 season, Iowa needed the latter and not the former.

 

[Eda]

You're right that check down has become a bad word. But it took half a season of not seeing wide open receivers and throwing 2 yard passes 3 out of 4 times to get that way. I strongly disagree with your last sentence though. I think the long sustained drives were a product of a runningback that can't break long runs but is very good at converting short yardage situations, and a QB who can't make long throws. We had no choice but to have long sustained drives.

If we had Melvin Gordon on our team, Rudock could have possibly been a better fit than CJ (I stress the word possibly). But having no deep threat in the running game or the passing game is a recipe for 7-5.

Having long sustained drives, in my opinion, was a strategy to cover up our weakness... the defense. The ability to have long sustained drives was a result of the quarterback play and the short yardage running back strength. If we had the home run for a running back perhaps strategy would be different. But we didn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the road that it took part of the season for KirFer to tell gdgd to stop being so, well gdgd-y, and start getting a little more vertical But that may just be more of me speculating and/or hoping. Lol'n

 

[Eda]

Unfortunately, we saw all too often that the check down didn't move the chains. And the biggest reason for that is defenses schemed to prioritize that coverage to stop the play. They could do this because they knew Iowa would most likely not throw deep. It was one of the more frustrating things to watch. JR enthusiasts preach his completion percentage when many times JR was checking down, on 3rd downs, getting the completion but not getting the first down. So a person needs to ask what is a good decision? Is it a completed pass on 3rd down that doesn't result in first downs, or, a deeper pass that falls incomplete but would have resulted in a first down or more? In the 2014 season, Iowa needed the latter and not the former.

We remember the check downs that didn't result in a first down because they were short of the sticks, as they pop out because they were very painful. But let's just not forget the check downs that gained positive positive yards on 1st or 2nd down or the ones that actually resulted in a first down. It's like all those times you got an awesome gift for your wife; yet she always brings up that one time when you got her a friggin' vacuum for Christmas.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Having long sustained drives, in my opinion, was a strategy to cover up our weakness... the defense. The ability to have long sustained drives was a result of the quarterback play and the short yardage running back strength. If we had the home run for a running back perhaps strategy would be different. But we didn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the road that it took part of the season for KirFer to tell gdgd to stop being so, well gdgd-y, and start getting a little more vertical But that may just be more of me speculating and/or hoping. Lol'n

I will not believe that GD is responsible for a conservative offense and not until kfootball mandates a vertical offense does Iowa's offense become more vertical. I just won't ever believe that.

 

[NCHawker]

Actually really good quarterbacks turn chicken crap into chicken salad all the time. The qb position is the one position in football where an upgrade can make a serious difference. If we had Oregon's qb we would have beat everyone on our scedule easily.

Now since this is a message board I guess I better point out the obvious. I'm not saying Beathard is as good as Mariota. I'm saying there is a huge window between Rudock and Mariota and Beathard falls into that window.

People are just completely ignoring the fact that when CJ was in the game, we scored on a very high percentage of drives. There was only one quarter of football where he didn't lead scoring drives at a significantly higher rate than Rudock and that quarter was plagued with dropped passes. There were only 2 times this season where Rudock moved the ball as good as CJ. The end of the Ball State game and the end of the Wisconsin game. I don't count Indiana because all he really did different than normal is complete one long pass to a wide open Powell.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but could not help but point out that Iowa did not exactly light up the scoreboard against Purdue.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

We remember the check downs that didn't result in a first down because they were short of the sticks, as they pop out because they were very painful. But let's just not forget the check downs that gained positive positive yards on 1st or 2nd down or the ones that actually resulted in a first down. It's like all those times you got an awesome gift for your wife; yet she always brings up that one time when you got her a friggin' vacuum for Christmas.

Eda, I agree with PCHawk that the check down is getting a bad rap. There certainly is a legitimate place for that type of play. But, all too often JR checked down at the cost of throwing to a receiver much further down field. Check downs, at the wrong time, cost us points and wins.

 

[PCHawk]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but could not help but point out that Iowa did not exactly light up the scoreboard against Purdue.

I agree but the whole first half was just so plagued with drops. I know everyone likes to make the arguement "Rudock had passes dropped too", but you can overcome a dropped pass here and there over a course of the season. When there are 8 drops in one half of football, I think you have to factor that in.

 

[PCHawk]

Having long sustained drives, in my opinion, was a strategy to cover up our weakness... the defense. The ability to have long sustained drives was a result of the quarterback play and the short yardage running back strength. If we had the home run for a running back perhaps strategy would be different. But we didn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the road that it took part of the season for KirFer to tell gdgd to stop being so, well gdgd-y, and start getting a little more vertical But that may just be more of me speculating and/or hoping. Lol'n

I just don't think there is any way to impliment a "we want to score but not too fast" game plan sucessfully. If that was seriously the plan, it was a horrible idea. I would much rather believe Rudock simply didn't see a wide open reciever than believe that he shouldn't throw it because we might score to fast.

Every time an offense scores a touchdown, the worst that can happen is to end up even if the defense gives up one too. The idea that the offense keeping the ball from the defense is somehow more important than scoring touchdowns actually sounds a lot like something Kirk would cook up though.

 

[Eda]

[/QUOTE]PCHawk;1377937]I just don't think there is any way to impliment a "we want to score but not too fast" game plan sucessfully. If that was seriously the plan, it was a horrible idea. I would much rather believe Rudock simply didn't see a wide open reciever than believe that he shouldn't throw it because we might score to fast.

Every time an offense scores a touchdown, the worst that can happen is to end up even if the defense gives up one too. The idea that the offense keeping the ball from the defense is somehow more important than scoring touchdowns actually sounds a lot like something Kirk would cook up though.[/QUOTE]

Call it what you want, but I believe that is somewhat the definition of ball control offense. Look at the difference in game calling between the Iowa State game and the Indiana game. One game and they wanted ball control/pound the rock. The other game they wanted to score a lot! I don't think JR intentionally avoided deep throws to prevent a quick score, I think he either missed it or didn't have trust in his arm strength.


side note... I think we owe the OP an apology for hijacking this thread to discuss game planning/philosophy/quarterback play. Lol'n

 

[Eda]

[/QUOTE]=ArvadaHawk;1377922]I will not believe that GD is responsible for a conservative offense and not until kfootball mandates a vertical offense does Iowa's offense become more vertical. I just won't ever believe that.[/QUOTE]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Gdgd's offensive scheme is more dependent on horizontal passing. But as has been point in out many times before, the defense can load the box without the threat of any vertical game.