Labas
- Thread starter ryno
- Start date
It would never happen, and it probably wouldn't be the best way to win games, but the only way to bring any excitement over these last 4 games is to take Coop off defense, but him at QB, take play calling away from BF, install Budmayr as the OC, and let it fly. Fans would tune in for that. It would be interesting to put that option to the players and see how many would choose that over status quo.
RyDogg
Well-Known Member
One small sample of below average play when he has a month to prepare for his first start in a less than improtant game overall. I'm not saying Labas wouldnt be better, but this one game isn't proof that he would be any better being thrown into a game with the pressure to win the Big West, lacking your top 2 tight ends in an ultra conservative game plan.
He may be a better option, and I'm not against trying him out, but his one below average game isn't any kind of proof to me.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
yep. also, if what I recall, Joe never turned the ball over in that game. so important to Ferentz.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Numerous examples of teams with the #1 QB injured have inserted a true freshman QB and lived to fight another day. No guarantees. But, when we know Joe and Deacon should not be in our future plans, maybe the time has come to give our freshman a shot. Ready or not, son, you are at bat after the bye.
Just to be clear, given our program’s history, this is a really dumb post.
Just to be clear, given our program’s history, this is a really dumb post.
Utah just played their 3rd string QB at USC and won the game.
For a program the staff calls developmental, Iowa cannot develop a QB,. But they can make them look much worse than when they joined the team.
SCHawkeye2
Well-Known Member
We just saw an Iowa QB go 10/28 for 116 yds.
One INT
No TD
2 fumbles
One fumble led to a gimme FG for Minnesota - in a game we lost by 2 pts.
And Kirk refuses to give another QB an opportunity to play even a few snaps.
Despite Hill's obvious shortcomings, Kirk's stubbornness was rationalized because we were "winning".
Now we're not, so presumably there will be a change?
One INT
No TD
2 fumbles
One fumble led to a gimme FG for Minnesota - in a game we lost by 2 pts.
And Kirk refuses to give another QB an opportunity to play even a few snaps.
Despite Hill's obvious shortcomings, Kirk's stubbornness was rationalized because we were "winning".
Now we're not, so presumably there will be a change?
Yup that's always been the why he's gotten away with this. Being able to squeak by BIG west teams enabled him to not have to evolve his archaic O. 7-9 wins is enough to maintain his job and keep on keeping on. It's wildly impressive to be able to win even against mediocre competition with no offense. But by no way can that be just ok. They've shown zero incentive to want to improve on it.
Gander Hawk
Well-Known Member
What good has Budmayr done the program? Bringing in Hill?
He has one big thing going for him: he is not BF.
Aside from that, he knows what they are doing on offense (you cannot install a new system on the fly in the middle of the season), he has play-calling experience, and he will have different tendencies than BF.
