If the new hawk QB looks very good next year ...

[uihawk82]

Then I will be pi##ed off for one the first times really against this coaching staff. I just didnt see it having JVB take all the snaps.

In the 60s-80s before new rules were put into effect, teams like alabama, usc, nebraska would have 100 scholarship players and 50 walkons paid for by local boosters just waiting in the wings.

Iowa was never and will never be in that category so they need the best players on the field.

If sokol or rudock look polished with very good skills then I would say we got hoodwinked and wasted the 2012 season.

 

[bcl20]

If Iowa's QB looks very good next year than I will be happy.

 

[zhawk21]

If Iowa's QB has a good next year it means GD is no longer coaching at Iowa.

 

[DJL]

If Greg Davis is still the OC, the new QB will not look good...unless he is a Vince Young clone

 

[BaryGarta]

Then I will be pi##ed off for one the first times really against this coaching staff. I just didnt see it having JVB take all the snaps.

In the 60s-80s before new rules were put into effect, teams like alabama, usc, nebraska would have 100 scholarship players and 50 walkons paid for by local boosters just waiting in the wings.

Iowa was never and will never be in that category so they need the best players on the field.

If sokol or rudock look polished with very good skills then I would say we got hoodwinked and wasted the 2012 season.

You mean, of course, if Rudock looks good. Sokol cannot be part of the conversation. He had three years to play 2, and wanted a redshirt this year. He was essentially unavailable all season. Beathard, as a true freshman, was also realistically unavailable. Rudock and Weinke were the only available QBs in all actuality. Too many people have been saying that if Rudock wasn't up to snuff that Sokol should have gotten in. Sokol didn't want to play this season. He wanted a year to learn and then have two years to make an impact. But if Jake tears it up next season, I'm with ya. But I am more of the same opinion as others that either Jake didn't pick things up as well as they'd like, or something, and that he may be passed by one or two other QBs on the roster.

 

[deanvogs]

Why would anyone be p!ssed off if we had a good QB next year? It would mean that we recruited talent, and coached it up. The best thing about it would be we would have 2 years if it was Sokol, 3 years if it was Rudock, and 4 years if it was Beathard of good QB play.

This team wasn't going anywhere with any of these QB playing this year. The problems were much, much deeper than just Vandenberg.

 

[briney11]

In the 60s-80s before new rules were put into effect, teams like alabama, usc, nebraska would have 100 scholarship players and 50 walkons paid for by local boosters just waiting in the wings.

Iowa was never and will never be in that category so they need the best players on the field.
QUOTE]

Explain the paying of players in the 60's, 70's, 80's. I had this conversation with a younger nebraska fan last night. I told him that we were experiencing something like their callahan years. He of course replies with "ya but you guys never had the devany/osborne years. To which I replied that's because Iowa never cheated and payed players and gave them steroids like nebby did to build their program. That's how they are able to get talented kids to come to the middle of nowhere freezing cold nebraska while we have a hard time getting those same kids to come to the middle of nowhere freezing cold Iowa. The can point to wins and championships in their past that they got by cheating. Of course he won't believe that the great TO would ever do somwthing like that and since the google search doesn't bring up any blatant accusation, he doesn't believe that it ever happened. Sorry for getting off topic.

 

[ILHawk]

You mean, of course, if Rudock looks good. Sokol cannot be part of the conversation. He had three years to play 2, and wanted a redshirt this year. He was essentially unavailable all season. Beathard, as a true freshman, was also realistically unavailable. Rudock and Weinke were the only available QBs in all actuality. Too many people have been saying that if Rudock wasn't up to snuff that Sokol should have gotten in. Sokol didn't want to play this season. He wanted a year to learn and then have two years to make an impact. But if Jake tears it up next season, I'm with ya. But I am more of the same opinion as others that either Jake didn't pick things up as well as they'd like, or something, and that he may be passed by one or two other QBs on the roster.

How often does KF make sense to others?

 

[ILHawk]

If Iowa's QB looks very good next year than I will be happy.

Seriously, at the risk of criticism. When is the last time a KF QB looked good and led a team that was great statistically. Pick Rick? I totally botched the end of a bowl game but won anyway Tate? I can McCann? Ok, Take me to the bank Banks? Think about Banks for a minute. KF spent 2 years trying to make him a drop back QB. On 3rd down he'd take off and run anyway. His success was due to KF?

GD gets way too much credit for this years offense. Way too much. Imagine being a new OC and you have a makeshift line that under best scenarios in the past was mediocre in offensive stats in almost every year. Then told to take time off the clock to give the defense time to decide the game. Then you find out your senior qb really didn't have great stats in overall effectiveness. Fumbles and interceptions are not to happen. You have a 1 year contract but your renewal is based on whether you played the game plan of the HC, not on offensive stats? Imagine coming into that situation.

 

[kameltoez102]

Seriously, at the risk of criticism. When is the last time a KF QB looked good and led a team that was great statistically. Pick Rick? I totally botched the end of a bowl game but won anyway Tate? I can McCann? Ok, Take me to the bank Banks? Think about Banks for a minute. KF spent 2 years trying to make him a drop back QB. On 3rd down he'd take off and run anyway. His success was due to KF?

GD gets way too much credit for this years offense. Way too much. Imagine being a new OC and you have a makeshift line that under best scenarios in the past was mediocre in offensive stats in almost every year. Then told to take time off the clock to give the defense time to decide the game. Then you find out your senior qb really didn't have great stats in overall effectiveness. Fumbles and interceptions are not to happen. You have a 1 year contract but your renewal is based on whether you played the game plan of the HC, not on offensive stats? Imagine coming into that situation.

If the quarterback looks good next year there is little to no correlation about how they would have been this year. One whole year to develop and grow stronger can immensely improve a player. I trust the coaches as they are there everyday at practice. The thing that I get frustrated with is KF sticks with a plan longer than he should. I can respect that, but also see faults. He has a philosophy that he believes in and isn't going to change it easily when maybe a change would be good. It is going to be another interesting off-season. The thing I am most interested in is what player(s) will step up and become the leaders of the team. The coaches can coach their butts off but ultimately the players need to make the plays. Item one is we need to have guys catch the ball. I am very tired of being the leaders in dropped passes and that is a great way to destroy a quarterback in terms of confidence and rhythm.

 

[HawkeyeMHA]

I will be happy and not think that he would have necessarily been good the previous year.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

If Iowa's QB looks very good next year than I will be happy.

This. I certainly won't have one thought of last year. One has nothing to do with the other. If one of the redshirted QB's looks solid next year, would it really bother anyone that they didn't lose a year to take meaningless snaps in '12 (not to mention that how they look next year, with another year of development, doesn't really say much for what the were when new)

Tired of this "oh God, NOW we have to play a new QB that didn't take 25 snaps where he handed off or hit a quick rollout dumpoff pass"....meaningless snaps are just that....and it all that would have been taken.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

If Iowa's QB looks very good next year than I will be happy.

This. I certainly won't have one thought of last year. One has nothing to do with the other. If one of the redshirted QB's looks solid next year, would it really bother anyone that they didn't lose a year to take meaningless snaps in '12 (not to mention that how they look next year, with another year of development, doesn't really say much for what the were when new)

Tired of this "oh God, NOW we have to play a new QB that didn't take 25 snaps where he handed off or hit a quick rollout dumpoff pass"....meaningless snaps are just that....and it all that would have been taken.

 

[Hawk80]

Then I will be pi##ed off for one the first times really against this coaching staff. I just didnt see it having JVB take all the snaps.

In the 60s-80s before new rules were put into effect, teams like alabama, usc, nebraska would have 100 scholarship players and 50 walkons paid for by local boosters just waiting in the wings.

Iowa was never and will never be in that category so they need the best players on the field.

If sokol or rudock look polished with very good skills then I would say we got hoodwinked and wasted the 2012 season.

I will imagine you'll be ****** just to be ******. Haters love to hate.

 

[JHHawk]

If Rudock comes in and is immediately great,then possibly he could have contributed this year,but not likely.
Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

Lets just hope the OP gets to be ****** off that we have a good qb next year,ok?

 

[MoseSchrute]

In the 60s-80s before new rules were put into effect, teams like alabama, usc, nebraska would have 100 scholarship players and 50 walkons paid for by local boosters just waiting in the wings.

Iowa was never and will never be in that category so they need the best players on the field.
QUOTE]

Explain the paying of players in the 60's, 70's, 80's. I had this conversation with a younger nebraska fan last night. I told him that we were experiencing something like their callahan years. He of course replies with "ya but you guys never had the devany/osborne years. To which I replied that's because Iowa never cheated and payed players and gave them steroids like nebby did to build their program. That's how they are able to get talented kids to come to the middle of nowhere freezing cold nebraska while we have a hard time getting those same kids to come to the middle of nowhere freezing cold Iowa. The can point to wins and championships in their past that they got by cheating. Of course he won't believe that the great TO would ever do somwthing like that and since the google search doesn't bring up any blatant accusation, he doesn't believe that it ever happened. Sorry for getting off topic.

"County Scholarships"

 

[tubahawk]

This. I certainly won't have one thought of last year. One has nothing to do with the other. If one of the redshirted QB's looks solid next year, would it really bother anyone that they didn't lose a year to take meaningless snaps in '12 (not to mention that how they look next year, with another year of development, doesn't really say much for what the were when new)

Tired of this "oh God, NOW we have to play a new QB that didn't take 25 snaps where he handed off or hit a quick rollout dumpoff pass"....meaningless snaps are just that....and it all that would have been taken.

I agree with the first part. It was apparent this season was a bust. No need to burn a redshirt just to get some pointless snaps. It's not likely KF would have seriously considered starting any of them over JVB even if they played well.

 

[ILHawk]

A question. Why would any high school qb want to come to Iowa to never get a chance? Or be the #2 and get very few practice reps?