How to manage a Dual head QB situation

drew003 said:
I'd play it based on situation. Ruddock strikes me as a good QB to start the game with. He's safe. We can run our base offense to set stuff up later in the game. Play him 2 scripted series, then play Bethard two scripted series.

After that it is situtional. If we are protecting a large lead and want to grind out 15 play drives, I think Ruddock should be playing. If we are trailing multiple touchdowns I think Beathard should be in because he offers more explosive plays. If the run game is working well that plays to Ruddock's strength. If the run game is not working and we need more designed QB runs, improvisation, then we should have Beathard in. I wouldn't play a QB based simply on each's success in their first couple series.

If we are going to do this, then we need to run Beathard in some zone read stuff. We need to make defenses game plan for two slightly different packages.
Click to expand...


2 and 2 series would probably workout ok. You never know how many possessions you will have in a quarter.

Both QBs do bring something a little different. Situational play could be good for the team.
 
Given the current coaching staff, I have absolutely no confidence in allowing game situations to dictate who plays. There's just no evidence that KF sees the situation in the same manner as anyone else; actually he seems to enjoy playing the contraindicated strategy, relying on his gut feel. For example, if JR struggles and the crowd gets vocal, it's almost a certainty that KF will continue with JR indefinitely.

I'm okay with him starting JR and letting him have several series to establish himself, but if he shows signs of being unsettled as he was in the ISU game or checking off too early, I would put CJ in and not look back. KF needs to be consistent with his criteria - if one quarterback gives him the best chance of winning, that's who he needs to play. I just hope it does not take him the remainder of this season to identify who that is.
 
hawkjunkie said:
What are your suggestions? Everyone seems to have an opinion. Most of which are not positive. How can the situation be made as positive as possible?? We know the dual QB can work, we saw it in 2001. That was a unique scenario, where both QBs were different, offering separate skillsets. That definitely helped in game preparations, in that the other team needed to be ready for either QB. This is not 2001. These two QBs are much more similar than different.

How to handle the playing time? I say it has to be by quarter. What other way is there? Throw in the 2nd teamer for a series every once in a while? Hell no, that does not work, period....

Here is my opinion - The starter plays thru the 1st quarter, then the backup plays the 1st series of the 2nd quarter for the REMAINDER of the half. Then the coaches pick who finishes that game(without Kirk's opinion, no "gut" feelings like Iowa vs Michigan in 2001. Foolish. Banks would have won that game, and the 1st half play comparison wasn't even close). So, preferably the one who scores...

Make this the same every game for the rest of the year. One quarter each. Then the hot hand finishes. MAYBE switch it up late in the game, if the other QB faulters. But Keep it this way UNLESS one QB bombs, or the other shines head & shoulders above the other.

Former QBs in dual head situations say the most difficult part was not knowing if you will be back in the next series. Constant nerves. Second guessing. Never truly being able to get in the groove. Having an entire quarter with multiple series guaranteed, regardless of play, will fix that issue.

Does anyone have a better scenario for playing two QBs?
Click to expand...

Keep the opponent guessing. Seriously.

I'd also let them both do more with their feet since both provide insurance. If on gets ding like Jake did, put the clamps on the healthy one... Meaning avoid hits
 
damnfinn said:
I don't think for one second that KF is entertaining the idea of a 2 qb system.
Click to expand...

Agree!


smokemirrors.jpg
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Everyone knows Jake needs to be kicked to the curb. "$EC" him, that'll show him. The school doesn't owe him a thing, and he's cheated every fan with his terrible play, intentional mistakes and doing what the coaches ask him to do.

Thank God for CJ. 14-point wins over Purdue don't happen every day...
Click to expand...
MiniMoeHawk said:
so much derp in this post. Jake has done many good things for the hawks and his play has been far from terrible.
Click to expand...
Hawkeyebob has always been a KF and Rudock fan. I think he forgot to hit the sarcasm emoticon.
 
Duh....just have one head make all the 15 yard and shorter reads, and the other head make all of the longer reads! Perfect dual head offensive storm!
 
Someone once said, "When you have 2 QB's, you have no QB's." I think (pray) KF knows this. Time will tell.
 
1hawkeye1 said:
Someone once said, "When you have 2 QB's, you have no QB's." I think (pray) KF knows this. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I dont think that quote applies here. JR has proved he is a very competent, above avg Big 10 QB with his play last year.

If the hawks would have came out this year in the first 3 games avging 5 ypc in the running game and blowing UNI, BS, and ISU off the LOS then Jake could have thrown whatever passes he wanted to.

Some of the bad run calls might have been JR audibling into those calls.

But overall the run game is below avg and it has affected QB play.

CJ could be great, he might turn out to be a great QB. He played great in the 2nd half of Pitt and the last 3 qtrs of Purdue so I think both can do the job.
 
1hawkeye1 said:
Someone once said, "When you have 2 QB's, you have no QB's." I think (pray) KF knows this. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Typically, this quote applies when you have 2 qb's that aren't very good....because teams that have 2 qb's that are good enough to start for a major conference team, one of them ends up transferring because they aren't satisfied with playing time.

This situation is somewhat unique in that both guys are good enough to start for a lot of major conference programs (I'm guessing Michigan would kill to have one of them right about now). So I don't look at it as since we have 2 that we have none....I look at it that we've got 2 pretty darn good qb's that will be nice to have if one gets injured. See 2009 for what happens.
 
Kurt knows that Sunshine is better, but his unfettered loyalty to Riddick renders his demotion next to impossible.

Kurt doesn't have equal or complementary QBs. He's got one decent QB, and he's got a better QB who can do what the decent QB does and then some.

This dual QB farce will fail spectacularly.
 
hawkjunkie said:
What are your suggestions? Everyone seems to have an opinion. Most of which are not positive. How can the situation be made as positive as possible?? We know the dual QB can work, we saw it in 2001. That was a unique scenario, where both QBs were different, offering separate skillsets. That definitely helped in game preparations, in that the other team needed to be ready for either QB. This is not 2001. These two QBs are much more similar than different.

How to handle the playing time? I say it has to be by quarter. What other way is there? Throw in the 2nd teamer for a series every once in a while? Hell no, that does not work, period....

Here is my opinion - The starter plays thru the 1st quarter, then the backup plays the 1st series of the 2nd quarter for the REMAINDER of the half. Then the coaches pick who finishes that game(without Kirk's opinion, no "gut" feelings like Iowa vs Michigan in 2001. Foolish. Banks would have won that game, and the 1st half play comparison wasn't even close). So, preferably the one who scores...

Make this the same every game for the rest of the year. One quarter each. Then the hot hand finishes. MAYBE switch it up late in the game, if the other QB faulters. But Keep it this way UNLESS one QB bombs, or the other shines head & shoulders above the other.

Former QBs in dual head situations say the most difficult part was not knowing if you will be back in the next series. Constant nerves. Second guessing. Never truly being able to get in the groove. Having an entire quarter with multiple series guaranteed, regardless of play, will fix that issue.

Does anyone have a better scenario for playing two QBs?
Click to expand...


It does not matter what the coaches do with the two QBs people will scream and fuss unless Iowa wins in a blowout.
 
Both QB'a are Rob Lowe. One is "far less attractive Rob Lowe" unfortunately. Will KF recongnize the difference?
1411657108253_wps_3_23_September_2014_Los_Ang.jpg
 
The fact that there is a quarterback controversy proves that Ferentz is done. Even Miller said that Cj does things that Jake can't do but there's nothing Jake does that CJ can't.

The first 3 games were all Jake and he looked terrible. Could have lost to UNI and Ball State and got beat by one of the worst teams in the entire country in ISU. Then came a very mediocre Pitt team. Jake started and the first half was garbage and it looked like a sure loss until CJ came in and won it in the 2nd half. CJ looked nervous at the beginning of the Purdue game but looked good after that.

Ferentz has watched every play of Iowa football and still wants Jake..I feel sorry for CJ. If he were smart he would have went to another program who ACTUALLY plays the player who gives them the best chance to win and he'd be having a successful college career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top