Having a Book Smart QB Overrated?

I

iowalaw

Banned
The announcers go on and on about what a good student our QB is and what difficult classes he is taking. Heck, last year, they said that practice schedules had to be altered based on one of Jake's physics classes.

While I have no doubt he will do well in life when football is done, but does his science knowledge benefit us on the field...or does it actually hurt us? There are guys out there who can barely read (i.e. Vince Young or Michael Vick) who had such instinct at the qb position that they could audible the right play at the right time and the athletic ability to put the ball right on the money. Meanwhile, as Chuck Long stated over and over again, our straight A student predictably audibled to a run, up the middle, for 1-2 yard gains, over and over again after he had a chance to stand back and read the defense. In doing so, he disregarded the play called by the coach (essentially overriding the coach), and made a calculated decision as to what play would work the best...and it backfired virtually every time. Is he overthinking?

Same goes for passing plays. We have 4 or 5 guys running routes on any given play. Rather than throw down field, Jake is overthinking because there may or may not be some coverage on our deep play threat, and he checks down to the wide open guy 2 yards down the field. Is this a good throw statistics wise? Sure, it will be caught and pump up the completion percentage. But will it get first downs and points? Not so much.

There is much to clean up on this offense, but my take is, instinct and athletic ability are way more important than gpa at the qb position.
 
Booksmart people tend to be able to focus, work-hard, and be reliable. Those are good traits for football players.

Iowa often coaches its QBs into safe and conservative decision-making. QBs that improvise and take risks don't play or that gets coached out of them.

As far as Ruddock's checks, he wasn't checking into run plays. The called play was a run, but the play gave him an option to decide what direction the ball would be run. It is a basic "check-with-me call" that even non-complicated high school teams use. The QB looks at the defense, counts gaps, and defenders and then the QB checks which side the play will be run. We do need to have a pass audible out that look or do a dummy call sometimes, so it is not so obvious that a run is coming when we start doing checks at the line.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Ruddock once audibled out of the called play on Saturday. On a couple of options, he threw a quick hitch out of called run play based upon the corner's alignment (the one I'm remembering wasn't a great decision b/c he through into an unaccounted edge defender).
 
iowalaw said:
The announcers go on and on about what a good student our QB is and what difficult classes he is taking. Heck, last year, they said that practice schedules had to be altered based on one of Jake's physics classes.

While I have no doubt he will do well in life when football is done, but does his science knowledge benefit us on the field...or does it actually hurt us? There are guys out there who can barely read (i.e. Vince Young or Michael Vick) who had such instinct at the qb position that they could audible the right play at the right time and the athletic ability to put the ball right on the money. Meanwhile, as Chuck Long stated over and over again, our straight A student predictably audibled to a run, up the middle, for 1-2 yard gains, over and over again after he had a chance to stand back and read the defense. In doing so, he disregarded the play called by the coach (essentially overriding the coach), and made a calculated decision as to what play would work the best...and it backfired virtually every time. Is he overthinking?

Same goes for passing plays. We have 4 or 5 guys running routes on any given play. Rather than throw down field, Jake is overthinking because there may or may not be some coverage on our deep play threat, and he checks down to the wide open guy 2 yards down the field. Is this a good throw statistics wise? Sure, it will be caught and pump up the completion percentage. But will it get first downs and points? Not so much.

There is much to clean up on this offense, but my take is, instinct and athletic ability are way more important than gpa at the qb position.
Click to expand...

I think you may be overthinking this ... 0 Interceptions, 0 sacks, 76% completion rate, we scored 31 points and won the football game. I will take that every week.
 
This post is mis-timed. Pro level trolls know not to shoot their load after a W. If you wait and make this post after a tough loss (preferably one where rudock didn't play particularly well), you'd have a whole caravan of posters jumping on board, asking if the actor who played corky on life goes on has any collegiate eligibility left.

Questioning if our qbs IQ is too high for football after a win in which he actually played pretty good is a dead end.
 
This really was a swing & a miss as trolling attempts go. 528646 gives some excellent advice, though. I would stash this thread away and bust it out following Iowa's first lost. It could be gold then!
 
News flash, guys - a win against a Division opponent does not mean that everyone played a great game. A high completion percentage (thrown primarily to wide open running backs at the line of scrimmage) does not mean that the qb was on his game. I would venture a guess and say that every Big 10 team could and should beat UNI 100% of the time. So pointing to a W does not end the discussion at all.

Former players like McNutt were pulling their hair out at this QB's decision making. That is not on the coaches, who design passing plays for 5 guys to get open and instead the ball is throw 2 yards...that is on the qb who methodically checks off each WR down field and selects the sure thing. We have a WR who led all JUCOs in yards per reception 2 years ago and has had 2 years in our system, plus a super talent like Wilies, and a stud athlete like Smith who all can all stretch the field. If you re-watch the game, you will see that each had many open looks against non D1 cornerbacks. If our head decision maker is refusing to loft the ball up there and letting them make a play, in favor of 2 yard dump offs to Weisman and Bullock, then you have to ask if he is overthinking things and it would be better to have a guy who is willing to take a few risks to hit a home run. We happen to have a backup who can do just that. Wasn't he supposed to get a few series? The guy has a much bigger arm, and is not afraid to throw a few incompletions for the chance at a big play.

Sure, the runs up the middle against stacked lines and 2 yard dump offs did not bite us in the *** against a team with less than a hand full of D1 caliber players on the roster (where our OL outweighs their DL by 40 lbs a piece), but we will not be so lucky against quality opponents. I guess we are lucky Ferentz didn't schedule LSU or Oregon in the opening weeks like our peers did.



528646 said:
This post is mis-timed. Pro level trolls know not to shoot their load after a W. If you wait and make this post after a tough loss (preferably one where rudock didn't play particularly well), you'd have a whole caravan of posters jumping on board, asking if the actor who played corky on life goes on has any collegiate eligibility left.

Questioning if our qbs IQ is too high for football after a win in which he actually played pretty good is a dead end.
Click to expand...
 
Per Ferentz today at his press conference:


Q. Was Jake told to check down or?

KIRK FERENTZ: No, we don't tell him that unless we're throwing a screen pass.
 
Hawk1960 said:
I think you may be overthinking this ... 0 Interceptions, 0 sacks, 76% completion rate, we scored 31 points and won the football game. I will take that every week.
Click to expand...

There are bottom lines and then there is that line... very well played.


I would love to see Iowas offense stretch the field more and use the athletic receivers they have down field more. However I won't say that at the expense of or complaining about a win. I think Jake is doing what he's coached to do. If he was audibling against what the coaches wanted over and over don't you think the coaches wouldn't be too crazy about that? With all the talk about Beathard possibly getting reps I would think if Rudock was going all Brett Favre on the coaches that they'd yank him? So I don't buy that.

Jake is a solid smart player. I think if Ferentz had his choice of type of QB that Rudock would be the cookie cutter type of kid he'd go with. He's athletic enough he's not a statue and he's accurate with the ball. I look for a really really good couple of years with him and the weapons he'll have going forward.
 
iowalaw said:
News flash, guys - a win against a Division opponent does not mean that everyone played a great game. A high completion percentage (thrown primarily to wide open running backs at the line of scrimmage) does not mean that the qb was on his game. I would venture a guess and say that every Big 10 team could and should beat UNI 100% of the time. So pointing to a W does not end the discussion at all.

Former players like McNutt were pulling their hair out at this QB's decision making. That is not on the coaches, who design passing plays for 5 guys to get open and instead the ball is throw 2 yards...that is on the qb who methodically checks off each WR down field and selects the sure thing. We have a WR who led all JUCOs in yards per reception 2 years ago and has had 2 years in our system, plus a super talent like Wilies, and a stud athlete like Smith who all can all stretch the field. If you re-watch the game, you will see that each had many open looks against non D1 cornerbacks. If our head decision maker is refusing to loft the ball up there and letting them make a play, in favor of 2 yard dump offs to Weisman and Bullock, then you have to ask if he is overthinking things and it would be better to have a guy who is willing to take a few risks to hit a home run. We happen to have a backup who can do just that. Wasn't he supposed to get a few series? The guy has a much bigger arm, and is not afraid to throw a few incompletions for the chance at a big play.

Sure, the runs up the middle against stacked lines and 2 yard dump offs did not bite us in the *** against a team with less than a hand full of D1 caliber players on the roster (where our OL outweighs their DL by 40 lbs a piece), but we will not be so lucky against quality opponents. I guess we are lucky Ferentz didn't schedule LSU or Oregon in the opening weeks like our peers did.
Click to expand...

AND HE SWINGS AND MISSES AGAIN. GIVE IT A REST PAL...No takey the baitey.
 
Anybody that was at the game could probably answer this. Did our wr's get open....run the wrong routes......run into each other and fall down or was Jake just hesitant? I watched on tv so it's pretty hard to tell how the wr's actually did.
 
iowalaw said:
News flash, guys - a win against a Division opponent does not mean that everyone played a great game. A high completion percentage (thrown primarily to wide open running backs at the line of scrimmage) does not mean that the qb was on his game. I would venture a guess and say that every Big 10 team could and should beat UNI 100% of the time. So pointing to a W does not end the discussion at all.

Former players like McNutt were pulling their hair out at this QB's decision making. That is not on the coaches, who design passing plays for 5 guys to get open and instead the ball is throw 2 yards...that is on the qb who methodically checks off each WR down field and selects the sure thing. We have a WR who led all JUCOs in yards per reception 2 years ago and has had 2 years in our system, plus a super talent like Wilies, and a stud athlete like Smith who all can all stretch the field. If you re-watch the game, you will see that each had many open looks against non D1 cornerbacks. If our head decision maker is refusing to loft the ball up there and letting them make a play, in favor of 2 yard dump offs to Weisman and Bullock, then you have to ask if he is overthinking things and it would be better to have a guy who is willing to take a few risks to hit a home run. We happen to have a backup who can do just that. Wasn't he supposed to get a few series? The guy has a much bigger arm, and is not afraid to throw a few incompletions for the chance at a big play.

Sure, the runs up the middle against stacked lines and 2 yard dump offs did not bite us in the *** against a team with less than a hand full of D1 caliber players on the roster (where our OL outweighs their DL by 40 lbs a piece), but we will not be so lucky against quality opponents. I guess we are lucky Ferentz didn't schedule LSU or Oregon in the opening weeks like our peers did.
Click to expand...

If you are really down on a guy who was 31-41 for 250 yards, and no picks it is hard to argue with you. By all accounts CJ didn't do enough of anything to earn the job, and doesn't understand when or how to check down. All you have to do is look at Steele Jantz for ISU. He had a big arm, made big plays all the time....he also didn't understand how to take what the defense gave him, and constantly made throws he shouldn't. His turnovers, and him always trying to make the big play cost ISU numerous game. So much so that Rhoads was forced to bench Steele, and play a QB that had 1/2 his talent, cause he couldn't make good decisions.
 
Is having a book smart QB overrated? YES.


Just look at the professor who is complaining about the visitors locker room. He's probably quite book smart. However, he like most book smart people have little common sense when it comes to real life.

By the way. Not saying JR has no common sense. I believe he does have it. But being book smart only goes so far in athletics. You need instinct and a book can't teach you that.
 
Last edited:
iowalaw said:
News flash, guys - a win against a Division opponent does not mean that everyone played a great game. A high completion percentage (thrown primarily to wide open running backs at the line of scrimmage) does not mean that the qb was on his game. I would venture a guess and say that every Big 10 team could and should beat UNI 100% of the time. So pointing to a W does not end the discussion at all.

Former players like McNutt were pulling their hair out at this QB's decision making. That is not on the coaches, who design passing plays for 5 guys to get open and instead the ball is throw 2 yards...that is on the qb who methodically checks off each WR down field and selects the sure thing. We have a WR who led all JUCOs in yards per reception 2 years ago and has had 2 years in our system, plus a super talent like Wilies, and a stud athlete like Smith who all can all stretch the field. If you re-watch the game, you will see that each had many open looks against non D1 cornerbacks. If our head decision maker is refusing to loft the ball up there and letting them make a play, in favor of 2 yard dump offs to Weisman and Bullock, then you have to ask if he is overthinking things and it would be better to have a guy who is willing to take a few risks to hit a home run. We happen to have a backup who can do just that. Wasn't he supposed to get a few series? The guy has a much bigger arm, and is not afraid to throw a few incompletions for the chance at a big play.

Sure, the runs up the middle against stacked lines and 2 yard dump offs did not bite us in the *** against a team with less than a hand full of D1 caliber players on the roster (where our OL outweighs their DL by 40 lbs a piece), but we will not be so lucky against quality opponents. I guess we are lucky Ferentz didn't schedule LSU or Oregon in the opening weeks like our peers did.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would still just advise you to make a mental note to bump this thread after our first loss - it would be up to 8+ pages by now of stunningly lucid and insightful takes from hn posters. Someone might even create a "wins vs act score" matrix for every hawk qb going back to randy reined for you trolling enjoyment.
 
While I appreciate Jake's stat line, I too wonder if he is overthinking things out there. Would like to see him trust his instincts more often on the longer passes.
 
Hay here is the rest of what Kirk said in case you forgot


Q. Was Jake told to check down or‑‑
KIRK FERENTZ: No, we don’t tell him that unless we’re throwing a screen pass, and that’s obvious, but‑‑ that’s how they’re built. They’re pretty much a deep zone team and have been, so that’s what I said a week ago. Typically their style is to make you earn it and work for it, and I think that’s a good defensive strategy personally, unlike what we did. That’s a good thing when you can make people drive the ball 10, 12 plays, that’s typically a good strategy, and they did a nice job, so we didn’t expect many clean shots down the field that just going into the game didn’t look like part of the possibility.
 
Jake is fine and is going to keep getting better..he looked better to me out there on Saturday than he did last year. Sure, he missed a few shots but as Kirk said, UNI plays a deep three-deep zone...not all that dissimilar to what Iowa tries to do; keep things in front of you and force teams to make a lot of plays to score.

He showed command and accuracy that I don't recall seeing as consistently last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top