Is rudock vandenberg 2.0?

jacknicholson said:
Vandenberg had two very good games, at Ohio State and the fourth quarter against Pitt when he looked like an All American candidate. Alas that was all. He would also throw the ball two feet from a wide open receiver on the ground quite a few times.....

I am not certain it is Ruddock's fault that there are almost no long passes. In high school. leading the number one undefeated team in America he would throw many long passes for touchdowns. Of course, he had some superior receivers. Wish we had them. Perhaps it is simply the offensive game plan. As someone said, like Woody Hayes, but instead of three yards and a cloud of dust, three yards and a pass completion and an immediate takedown.....
Click to expand...

I think Rudock CAN throw a solid deep ball. His problem is that he's hesitant to pull the trigger unless the receiver is already wide open (hence why we often see him look deep and then give up and check down). He's not shown a willingness to throw guys open by just throwing it to a spot and letting his guy run under it. In high school, his receivers were so good that they could get wide open much sooner. By the time guys get that open at this level, they're usually on the fringe or outside of his effective range.

Beathard is a guy who won't give up on deep routes so soon, and we all know he's got the livelier arm. Will he make more mistakes than Rudock? Probably. But I think the benefits of forcing defenses to respect us in the deep passing game could outweigh the negative impact of Beathard's potential mistakes. It may not be time to make the switch, but it's time to get a good look at what Beathard can do against live competition.
 
tm3308 said:
I think Rudock CAN throw a solid deep ball. His problem is that he's hesitant to pull the trigger unless the receiver is already wide open (hence why we often see him look deep and then give up and check down). He's not shown a willingness to throw guys open by just throwing it to a spot and letting his guy run under it. In high school, his receivers were so good that they could get wide open much sooner. By the time guys get that open at this level, they're usually on the fringe or outside of his effective range.

Beathard is a guy who won't give up on deep routes so soon, and we all know he's got the livelier arm. Will he make more mistakes than Rudock? Probably. But I think the benefits of forcing defenses to respect us in the deep passing game could outweigh the negative impact of Beathard's potential mistakes. It may not be time to make the switch, but it's time to get a good look at what Beathard can do against live competition.
Click to expand...

This man speaks my mind, except that I believe it is high time for the switch.
 
A thought crossed my mind today as I keep hearing about practice and how CJ struggles. Look at the defense these two are practicing against. Iowa ' s D historically has been picked apart by efficient dink and dunk QBs while fairing pretty well overall against Robinson, Pryor, etc who loved going for the home run or were one-dimensional running QBs who were not patient.
 
It was interesting when Podalak mentioned that Chuck Hartlieb was a terrible practice QB on sound off. Maybe thats the issue with CJ.
 
hwks1 said:
Agree that the D didn't get any pressure and I am very disappointed by that. But, JR managed 3 points against Ball State for an entire effing game (3 minute miracle aside) and 3 points against in the second half against that mighty ISU defense.

Rudock is not a playmaker and doesn't get us into plays that produce either.

At some point you have say QB isn't at the level of B1G quarterback
Click to expand...

Need to raise the bar a little higher then the TERRIBLE Big 10 conference if you want to be good on the national level.
 
In defense of Rudock, what are you going to do when you're constantly told to take care of the ball. I agree he is just like Kirk in that he is conservative.
 
Jonrn said:
After watching another miserable game all I can see is Vandenberg running slowly around.

1) incapable of finding anyone downfield after initial reads.

2) no ability to create a play with his feet

3) missing receivers beyond 5 yards at least 50% of pass plays

4) safe, but too safe throwing out of bounds with the slightest whisper of pressure

5) lack of athleticism

Maybe this is coaching. Maybe this isn't rudock or JVB...where are the Tate and stanzi style QB? Is that CJB? Or will he just turn into another Vandenberg?
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. Jake 2.0
 
There's a common denominator between Vandy and JR and it's not their skill sets.
 
DDThompson said:
There's a common denominator between Vandy and JR and it's not their skill sets.
Click to expand...

I think we badly need a real QB coach. QBs seem to regress. I noticed ex-NFL QB Tim Rattay is a coach on Sokol's new team and he seems to be doing well.
 
As we've heard a bazillion times, but, still rings true to this day...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 
Hey Seth, this
**NCAA Football-->Would you work for a room, food, and an "education" while your employers make millions off your labor?**

is getting them ready for the real world where we all do that for the central government and their business and illegal alien/welfare partners

 
I am so sick and tired of this mantra about no INTS and turnovers. We turned it over a grand total of 1 time and lost the game anyway.

NO RISK, NO REWARD. NO POINTS.

When you play low scoring games you open yourself up to getting beat by bad teams because you allow them to hang around and make a play or two to beat you.

Play CJ and live with a few picks knowing that he might get you many more TD's and big plays.
 
Done in by the Check Down Chump who is afraid to throw to a receiver more than 15 yards downfield. Seems legit.
 
Is Rudock Vandenberg 2.0? The answer is YES.
Greg Davis has shown me nothing as our QB coach

CJ Beathard will go outside of the box and **** off the coaches, but would be more successful, IMO.
Do you want 150 yards passing and 1 INT, or
250 yard passing, 3 TD and 2 INTs?
 
SpecialKHawk said:
I am so sick and tired of this mantra about no INTS and turnovers. We turned it over a grand total of 1 time and lost the game anyway.

NO RISK, NO REWARD. NO POINTS.

When you play low scoring games you open yourself up to getting beat by bad teams because you allow them to hang around and make a play or two to beat you.

Play CJ and live with a few picks knowing that he might get you many more TD's and big plays.
Click to expand...

That's right. JR looked like he was scared to throw over 5 yards after that 1st pick. I'm thinking we might need to go with CJ and add an intermediate/deep threat in order to save the pathetic run game. If we stay with Rudock maybe we should just go 100% dink and dunk GD stlye because it seems like it fits Rudock's strength. I'm really not a fan of this hybrid melting pot every other play.
 
AZHAWKFAN1 said:
In defense of Rudock, what are you going to do when you're constantly told to take care of the ball. I agree he is just like Kirk in that he is conservative.
Click to expand...

The thing is he doesn't take care of the ball. Should've had a pick 6 deep in ISU territory and he did throw a god awful int.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top