If CJ would have played most of this game......

[g11]

Playing CJ and then benching him is probably the worst thing I've seen Kirk do. It's very worrisome for the team going forward too. The WRs and fans have both seen what CJ can do, and it's now a ticking clock going forward with every failed long ball Jake throws.

In my opinion, if we're behind at half time next week against ISU I would give CJ his shot. Knowing Kirk though, he'll let Jake play it out in that situation. If we end up losing, we as fans better call for change. Push for CJ to get the entire game against Pitt.

When it comes down to it, this team can't win the Big 10 without a down field passing game, they just can't. What's more upsetting is that the WRs are very capable, it's not like last year where they just didn't have the personnel for it.

 

[SheagleHawk]

I get what your saying Sheagle, without a doubt most would agree Jake should need to check down a little less, throw mid to deep a little more...and maybe throw away or tuck and run rather than check to a 1 yard route. No one can argue we need to see 150+ yards rushing as we go forward, and a vert passing game will help that.

With that said, the reason we needed the comeback was from 3 missed feildgoals and 2 awful turnovers inside our own 20. That's, at minimum, a 12 to 19 point differential..roughly what Vegas and extremely knowledgeable odd makers had us winning by.

Does Jake need to improve, absolutely. Does CJ show some promise, without question. Is the right guy getting most of the snaps, the overall stats (the only thing us internet experts have to go by, other than our infallible "eyeball test" from a tiny sample size, has to go by.

Until I see more tangible proof, Jake is the guy, with CJ being a great backup option.

Good post. I guess to clarify, I wasn't calling for Jake to be benched and CJ to start. Just think CJ, based on how he looked that series, should've seen more time Sat. I know it was just a few throws, but Jake hasn't made a throw like that in his 15 games a Hawk. Iowa so desperately needs someone who can makes those throws consistently. We finally have receivers who can get behind a defense.

 

[g11]

Good post. I guess to clarify, I wasn't calling for Jake to be benched and CJ to start. Just think CJ, based on how he looked that series, should've seen more time Sat. I know it was just a few throws, but Jake hasn't made a throw like that in his 15 games a Hawk. Iowa so desperately needs someone who can makes those throws consistently. We finally have receivers who can get behind a defense.

I think I've seen enough out of CJ at this point, he has thrown two balls now that have been flawless strikes. He has had a bad game (Against Wisconsin), but to be fair he was thrown into a really ****** situation, and had to throw in that disgusting wind in non running situations. That one drive yesterday showed us that he can throw anywhere on the field, and I really think Kirk didn't play him again because it would of caused even bigger problems. Was he mad he took that shot in the end zone instead of doing the safe 10-15 yard pass? Probably... In reality Kirk isn't going to change, and it will sadly hold this team back.

Is Jake a good quarterback? Absolutely. Sadly any throw over 35 yards is either over thrown or under thrown. The biggest thing he can improve on from what I've seen is the dump off that's getting poor Damon killed. I'm guessing in every single one of those situations he could just tuck the ball and run and get more yards (and not get his RB killed). He has a lot of potential with his feet, and I think when he learns more about taking his free yards he could be a pretty dangerous QB. If his mid to long range balls were more consistent I'd say he's pretty much Alex Smith.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

Beathard should have left before this year. Sokol would stayed and CJ would have 3 to play two somewhere else. I'm not saying I wanted him to leave...I'm just saying he should have. This is Rudock's job and I think KF now understands what he's done with the controversy. Plus, it can't help Rudock to get benched for a series. That would **** me off too when he's moved the team and made good decisions 95% of the time. After KF gets a ton of questions in his press conference, that will be the last time he throws Beathard in there.

 

[hwk23]

Just so you know, you all are so predictable. People use to call Chuck as a Soph and JR 'chuck save your percentage Long' and cried for Vlasic, they wanted Poholsky over Hartlieb, they wanted little Hartlieb over Rogers. Get the point?

Jake R has played well, beyond well. And, two 2-minute drives at the end in crunch time was an uncommon site for Ia QBs. Think about....Rodgers against Michigan, long had some, little Hartlieb against Wisky, Tate vs LSU...but yes, I'm sure beathard can do everything Jake can do but better.... Just like the backups of other iowa starting QBs.

Such a tired and crazy discussion. Iowa has a very, very healthy QB situation

Um, no. Everyone knew Chuck Long was a very special talent, and there was no talk of playing the back-up. He was the best QB ever at Iowa and voted best Big Ten QB of the 80's. That would be like calling for Peyton Manning's or Tom Brady's backup in their prime.

 

[hwk23]

Explain to me how Wisky runs the ball successfully then. Everyone and their mothers know they are going to run the ball and they can do it with a stacked box. What's the difference?

That's a great question. Wisconsin uses different blocking schemes so that probably has a lot to do with it. It's not a 1 year thing either. Wisconsin has been more successful running the ball and scoring every year outside of 2001,2002 and 2008. Fred Russell was built to run under KFs scheme and Shonn Greene was a once in a lifetime RB.

 

[kicker22]

So honest question. With the mindset that if we're trailing next weekend we switch QBs, because obviously a week in advance it would have to be the QBs fault. Does that mean we yank our running back by committee and go with our 5th best RB (since the committee as a whole has been ineffective) and go with our second string Oline (since they're struggling to open holes)?

I think this is ridiculous the entire offense is struggling not just one guy. I'm sorry but I think the only controversy at the QB position is in our heads. I think its a fair assessment that no one (players or staff) is blaming JR for the offensive struggles. I'm guessing as a unit they're focused on getting better and not split in the locker room.

Just my opinion which means absolutely nothing.

 

[g11]

So honest question. With the mindset that if we're trailing next weekend we switch QBs, because obviously a week in advance it would have to be the QBs fault. Does that mean we yank our running back by committee and go with our 5th best RB (since the committee as a whole has been ineffective) and go with our second string Oline (since they're struggling to open holes)?

I think this is ridiculous the entire offense is struggling not just one guy. I'm sorry but I think the only controversy at the QB position is in our heads. I think its a fair assessment that no one (players or staff) is blaming JR for the offensive struggles. I'm guessing as a unit they're focused on getting better and not split in the locker room.

Just my opinion which means absolutely nothing.

If we threaten a team through the air they can't get away with stacking the box against the run. You guys claiming Wisconsin doesn't struggle running the ball look at golden boys stats from yesterday. They made their rookie QB beat them and he did.

 

[BigD]

I hope we look much better against ISU. I hope Jake does well and that CJ get a series or two just because he needs the experience. What's going on with the running game I don't know. The guys from the Big Ten Channel were puzzled by this as well. I am no expert but if you have five guys blocking eight defenders it's not going to work to often. Some suggest throwing long but if it's incomplete now your up against the same defense and only two downs to get ten yards. I would like to see our quickest receivers doing quick slants across the area vacated by the rushing seven or eight defenders. Those type of plays can create huge gains. This is similar to UNI passes to the running back into open space five yards beyond the line of scrimmage. For those who like the long ball do both. Smith on the quick slant while Willies is streaking deep. Both could be huge plays. I would keep running that play until the seven or eight in the box comes to am end and then run it down their throats.

One more thing. They have got to get or let Jake use the audible from a run to a pass to keep the defense honest. Everyone knows it's a run play when he does that. Is it stubbornness, pride, arrogance or ignorance on our coaching staff's part that is causing this? I have an idea of what the problem is but I'll bite my tongue. I think the answer is part of the QB problem also.

 

[dualradius]

So if CJ would have played would the running game have amounted to anything? I love the fact that everyone is ready to throw Jake to the dogs, but the problem lies more with our running game or lack there of then the QB play. Not saying the QB play has been great so far, but the position has always been about managing the game vs. winning it and our run game has done nothing so far.

Deep threat forces D to back off the LOS. Iowas issue is that teams put everybody in place to stop the run. Why wouldn't they?

 

[dualradius]

last year, CJ just threw every ball deep and rifled everything, no touch. This year he's a different QB.
Rudock always takes the safe throw. He doesn't make many mistakes but he also passes up deep opportunities for safe plays. That maybe fine if the running game is actually working. It isn't. If Iowa can't get the running game going against ISU's godawful run defense then the rest of the year will be reminiscent of 2012...........a bunch of check downs and 5 yard passes. With no running game, CJ is a much better fit because he can (and isn't afraid to) throw deep balls. Iowa actually has speed at WR this year, they should take advantage of that fact instead of checking down to bullock 3 yards short on the first down marker on 3rd down.

This

 

[hwk23]

If we threaten a team through the air they can't get away with stacking the box against the run. You guys claiming Wisconsin doesn't struggle running the ball look at golden boys stats from yesterday. They made their rookie QB beat them and he did.

Try looking at the past 10 years, not just yesterday, especially under Bielema. Not saying they never struggle but their scoring and rushing stats dwarf Iowa's. If you could match Iowa's defense with Wiscy's offense (style wise), that would be a pretty good combination.

 

[0520hawkeyes]

I agree. If Ferentz doesn't give Beathard more of an opportunity to prove himself, i could see him saying the hell with it, and transferring.

 

[0520hawkeyes]

Everybody's favorite player ... the backup QB. Actually, I'm just glad we have two capable QBs and they both are looking very good this year in my opinion.

For those who think CJ should be ahead of JR keep in mind CJ's career stats after yesterday's game, 11 - 30 with 1 TD and 2 INT. Not the type of results that are going to unseat the #1 QB.

It's important to recognize what type of situations CJ has put it games last year-not ideal, thus the stats reflect that.

 

[g11]

Try looking at the past 10 years, not just yesterday, especially under Bielema. Not saying they never struggle but their scoring and rushing stats dwarf Iowa's. If you could match Iowa's defense with Wiscy's offense (style wise), that would be a pretty good combination.

At the same time they've had receiving threats the last 4 years where Iowa hasn't at all. The last time Iowa had legit threats at WR down field was when we had DJK/McNutt lining up together. I think we have them again, but JR hasn't shown us much with his deep throws so who knows. All I have to go on is CJ came in for one drive and found them pretty easily, including that beauty TD attempt.

When it comes down to it I'd much rather have a few 3 and outs from incomplete bombs over 3 and out 7 yard drives. At least the first option opens up our run game because it keeps their defense honest.

 

[Gibsonian]

At the same time they've had receiving threats the last 4 years where Iowa hasn't at all. The last time Iowa had legit threats at WR down field was when we had DJK/McNutt lining up together. I think we have them again, but JR hasn't shown us much with his deep throws so who knows. All I have to go on is CJ came in for one drive and found them pretty easily, including that beauty TD attempt.

When it comes down to it I'd much rather have a few 3 and outs from incomplete bombs over 3 and out 7 yard drives. At least the first option opens up our run game because it keeps their defense honest.

I think we are all so tired of watching small ball, (my term for offense since latest OC) that we have a hard time watching the same scenario over and over. 5 yd/catch and a close game, opposing teams stacking the line of scrimmage 100% of the time and getting good/great results with that. Don't know if it's our coaches or the conservative players that are coached that way that lead to this Sat after Sat. I for one would like to see a little renegade at the steering wheel, taking a few chances and making teams pay for keeping all those guys on the line and storming our running plays. As Hayden would say, we're unable to scratch where it itches.

 

[HawkeyeHypnosis]

There is no controversy at QB. Kirk said CJ would be getting some snaps in games this year. Maybe we will see more of him, maybe less. There's no controversy though.

 

[HomerChampless]

So, you've talked to these guys, then... you have the inside skinny.

Good to know we have someone here who has an inside
track and keeps us all informed.

You use rhetoric. I use common sense.

For at least the last 6 years in the KF Iowa era, Iowa has had to pull receivers out of their.. hats.. by turning other position players into marquee receivers. That was an immediate disadvantage 'cause of lack of playing experience at WR. I look at Iowa's experience in getting quality WRs and, let's say, Baylor's experience (Baylor is a passing offense) and there's no comparison... until late.

What caused the difference in recruitment of WRs for Iowa? Jake Rudock? Kirk Ferentz's offensive philosophy, maybe?
Highly doubtful 'cause those two are examples of mainstays in KF's conservative passing offense.

Something else perked the interest of speedy, quality WRs to Iowa. My guess is it's more Davis' offensive philosophy (too bad, in the long run, it's always Ferentz's offensive philosophy) and Beathard's ability and confidence in throwing the ball.

 

[HomerChampless]

It's important to recognize what type of situations CJ has put it games last year-not ideal, thus the stats reflect that.

I agree. Beathard is always put in an adversarial position when he comes in (unless it's mop up in a high scoring Iowa game). Iowa is behind with little time remaining... against the wind... with an injury to Rudock.... to save the defense... when the running game isn't clicking. That's when Beathard comes in.

How many mop up, blow out Iowa games will there be, anyway?

There is no 2 quarterback system at Iowa. Last week against Ball State, down by 10 points with about a half of a quarter remaining proved that.

 

[ibahawkeye]

There is no controversy at QB. Kirk said CJ would be getting some snaps in games this year. Maybe we will see more of him, maybe less. There's no controversy though.

There's the answer. These guys saying that he benched CJ after one series don't get it. It was never a plan for CJ to just take over.

No matter the outcome of that series or even if CJ would have went back to back series with TD drives... he wasn't going to all of a sudden become the starter.