NCHawker
Well-Known Member
LOL ! spit my drink out. Thank you. I needed that.
doesn't seem as bad as some seem to think...
- Thread starter 528646
- Start date
LOL ! spit my drink out. Thank you. I needed that.
BlindDogScooter
Well-Known Member
It's as simple as this. Some people are gonna **** and moan no matter what.
Some people think they can sit at home... without ever having seen a single
minute of practice time... and determine who should be on the field on game
day.
Some people think they know better and have more capoable judgement than
a coaching staff with God knows how many combined years of VERY SUCCESSFUL
exoperience even though they've never walked a sideline and likely have never
played the game at this level.
Some people just need to *****.
I'll take the 2-0. I'll take Jake any day.
Next...
Some people think they can sit at home... without ever having seen a single
minute of practice time... and determine who should be on the field on game
day.
Some people think they know better and have more capoable judgement than
a coaching staff with God knows how many combined years of VERY SUCCESSFUL
exoperience even though they've never walked a sideline and likely have never
played the game at this level.
Some people just need to *****.
I'll take the 2-0. I'll take Jake any day.
Next...
tm3308
Well-Known Member
The thing is, though, that ruling that TD incomplete was the right call and our kickers suck. Yesterday isn't likely to be the only time poor FG kicking hurts us and puts us in a position to lose a game (if not outright cost us a game or two).
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Yeah, all those fans who wanted Stanzi in 2008 didn't have a ******* clue. Kirk obviously had a very good reason for sticking for Jake that trumped what everyone could see with their own eyes on gameday.
We don't get to see these guys in practice. But Ferentz isn't infallible, and Beathard should at least be getting a look. His ceiling is far higher, and the offense could really open up with him in the lineup in a way that it simply won't with Rudock.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
The kicking game ain't gonna get a whole lot better during this season. Maybe it'll improve some, but it's not likely that it'll be any better than average by the end of the year, and that's probably being generous. So others are going to have to pick up the slack, which requires a playmaking ability that I'm not sure Rudock has. He doesn't hit receivers downfield unless he can see that they're wide open, and even then, the passes tend to be off the mark (even if the receiver pulls it in).
And the lack of a downfield threat creates all sorts of problems in the running game. I'm not saying the offensive line doesn't need some work and the RB rotation doesn't suck, but those problems are exacerbated by defenses who have no reason to respect anything beyond 10 yards downfield.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
The thing is maybe we'll continue to see CJ but we haven't even see enough to get a real sample size. That could be a good or bad thing, but the fact is I'm sure that there is a reason KF has stuck with Jake and limited CJ's time. For those that don't think Jake deserves to be under center I simply don't think we've seen enough of CJ to validate that point.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Because we don't also have the same people saying "It's not the bad" or "Rudock is fine (his inefficient numbers be damned)" in all these threads?
There are two opposing opinions of what's going on right now. If you want to limit everyone to stating their opinion once, we all might as well just stop coming here, because the conversation will stop after about 20 minutes.
It's because serious journalist has to create a serious QB controversy.
This situation is not even close to the 2008 QB quandary.
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
i've breezed by TMs inputs given i read they are negative. is he really comparing Iowa's starting QB to groundball jake?
if so, that, my friend, is a brutal comparison.
just for fun - check out these stats from 2007 - completion % and yards......you can also check out 2008 in the same link.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/169329/year/2007/jake-christensen
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's why I think Beathard should be getting a more serious look. You nailed it.
So what are everyone else's excuses for having the same opinion?
Benddontbreak
Well-Known Member
Jake led 2 long scoring drives in the last 5 min of the game when the chips were down. He isn’t the problem.
You explain why this is similar to the 2008 QB controversy first.
dualradius
Well-Known Member
1hawkeye1
Well-Known Member
smh
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
The fact that KF keeps putting Beathard in the game at any point is very, very telling..
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
what does it tell?
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
And some folks think that outscoring an FCS team and MAC team by a combined 12 points means there are no issues. We needed a 4 qtr touchdown against an FCS team to give ourselves a chance of having no worse than a tie. That turned out to be a one score (8 point) win. We then needed 2 touchdowns in the last 5 minutes of the game to beat a MAC team. Both games were at home. The devil is in the details, my friend. We are more than fortunate to be 2-0. Don't kid yourself into thinking Iowa has looked good in getting to 2-0. We just as easily could be 0-2. If you don't think having to come from behind, at home, doesn't send a negative recruiting message, then more power to you. We may end up 12-0. That'd be great; it'd be fantastic. But, until that happens, the only thing we can say for sure is that Iowa needed a late rally, at home, to beat a MAC team. This was all caught on national t.v. That just isn't okay.
dualradius
Well-Known Member
This is good... My feeling when I watch the hawks is that they're just too tight. Everything short. No pop. Need to open things up and get the ball vertical.
