Name a ******* starter

droidhawk said:
I see Kirk is on the forum. Here's what you said in a nutshell: if we don't have a top ten defense, we can't win.

And there you have it folks. Can't win without defense right Oregon, tcu, Baylor, Florida state or any other school who recruits real talent on offense.
Click to expand...


This can't be said enough. Kirk is nothing without Norm. Iowa fell apart as Norms health went downhill.
 
DDThompson said:
It's not about the bowl game. It's about reducing negative recruiting in florida. It's about keeping CJ with the Hawks in 2015.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much I buy the "negative recruiting in FL" thing. Is it really and truly more important for recruiting to start the player who's from FL, just because Iowa is playing it's bowl game in FL, as opposed to playing the QB who may have the higher upside (and possibly more talent)? What message does it send to recruits, from FL or otherwise, if you are sitting your more talented players because you prefer to play favorites, even if said "favorite" is from FL? And I don't just mean at QB - that could send a bad message to potential recruits at ANY position.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but my guess is that recruits would care more about their getting playing time if they deserve it, rather than playing because of their home state.

But I do agree that whoever KF starts in this game, is definitely going to be about keeping CJB in the program. Don't start him, and he's gone. I'm not totally sold that he isn't gone anyway, but if you want him to stick around, you've got to play him. Doesn't set a great precedent to let one of your players strong arm you into playing time either, though. KF has himself in a pickle, yes indeed.
 
83Hawk said:
So....are you saying it wouldn't have mattered who played QB? Are you saying there is no way CJ could have led Iowa to a better record?
Click to expand...

I value strong defense as much as anyone else, but I just don't understand the "as long as we have a good defense, we don't need a good offense" mentality. Is there a rule against being good in both? Like in 2002 & 2008? Maybe Iowa would be even better with a good offense to go along with a stout defense. Just a thought.

Don't know about anyone else, but 11-1 or 10-2 sounds better than 8-4... Being able to score points can also help you win games.
 
knighthawk13 said:
Norm wasn't coaching our top 10 defense last year. Phil is a good coach. Replacing 3 really good LBs was always going to be a challenge.
Click to expand...

Obviously it wasn't when no one seemed to take that into account when predicting what would/wouldn't be acceptable based on our "cake" schedule. Regardless of what it looks like on paper, if there are holes or missing pieces to the puzzle it doesn't matter what the opposition looks like. I'm not saying that I'm satisfied with 7-5 but I truly feel that the majority set the bar based on what we could be rather than what we were.
 
The whole thing sounds like a Cluster ---- KF get this thing figured out. I have never seen his program look this impotent. Its like he cant pull the trigger. Very dissapointting
 
522b638249a7b.preview-620.jpg


BEHOLD THE FACE OF CONFIDENT LEADERSHIP
 
Why name a starter when you don't have to? GDGD already said both would get snaps in the first half; and an assessment would happen at half to figure out the strategy. Some will beach for beaching sakes.
 
CJ said for himself it's the first time it's felt like a competition, now KF names JR as the starter would tell me that my coach believes the other guy is better..

No way can CJ trust KF moving forward, I would be shock if he stays at Iowa no matter the outcome or his performance Friday..
 
If Riddick truly is better than Beathard, then Beathard prolly oughta transfer to a 1AA school commiserate with that level of talent.

Because let's not kid ourselves...Riddick has a sub-MAC arm. And that's prolly defamatory towards MAC QBs.
 
kicker22 said:
Obviously it wasn't when no one seemed to take that into account when predicting what would/wouldn't be acceptable based on our "cake" schedule. Regardless of what it looks like on paper, if there are holes or missing pieces to the puzzle it doesn't matter what the opposition looks like. I'm not saying that I'm satisfied with 7-5 but I truly feel that the majority set the bar based on what we could be rather than what we were.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of people that said 8 wins was probably going to be the number. You just don't replace 3 studs that set the bar last year and expect to win playing the same style of football. What's frustrating is KF didn't seem to think that we would need a more high powered offense this year to make up for the defensive issues we were going to have.
 
kicker22 said:
Obviously it wasn't when no one seemed to take that into account when predicting what would/wouldn't be acceptable based on our "cake" schedule. Regardless of what it looks like on paper, if there are holes or missing pieces to the puzzle it doesn't matter what the opposition looks like. I'm not saying that I'm satisfied with 7-5 but I truly feel that the majority set the bar based on what we could be rather than what we were.
Click to expand...

That might be true, but isn't it Kirk's job to mold his team into what it could be? Potential doesn't win games, but it's the coach's job to get his team to reach that potential.
 
What's the big deal with Rudock being the starter. This is only a problem if CJ doesn't play much or at all in the first half. This whole sordid affair is finally going to be settled at halftime, one way or the other.
 
tm3308 said:
What's the big deal with Rudock being the starter. This is only a problem if CJ doesn't play much or at all in the first half. This whole sordid affair is finally going to be settled at halftime, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

My issue is that we already know what Jake can do. For this to be a real competition, you let CJ start. He's the guy with something to prove, the one we've all been wanting to see.

Now you let the flow of the game potentially dictate who plays when. This is like the IU game. KF and GD both said the QB's would play. Jake hits Powell for a TD, Parker takes one to the house, and King returns an INT. KF sticks with Jake, and not many really seemed to blame him, Iowa was rolling.

IU makes their comeback and then he throws CJ out there to kill the momentum, only to have CJ run the option???

IMO, you start CJ. Let him do his thing. If he can't do it, bring in JR. Hope that the defense is doing it's job. I still think you come out of the second half and start CJ again. Maybe he's settled, and you give him a series or two at the max, and if he still isn't doing it. JR is your guy, and clear #1 going into 2015. If CJ sticks around, he knows what to work on.

OF course all of this could have been done during the season to get him experience. We don't lose anymore games with this strategy, but we might have won a few more.
 
knighthawk13 said:
There were plenty of people that said 8 wins was probably going to be the number. You just don't replace 3 studs that set the bar last year and expect to win playing the same style of football. What's frustrating is KF didn't seem to think that we would need a more high powered offense this year to make up for the defensive issues we were going to have.
Click to expand...

i agree with much of the first part. I don't quite agree with the latter sentiment. I think the offense was high powered at time. Look at how many times we went over 30pts. Look at how many times he went for it on 4th down. Sure this isn't the Oregon offense (sorry to be captain obvious-lol'n), but at times this offense was clickin. Just too inconsistent at other times.
 
DBAHawkFan said:
My issue is that we already know what Jake can do. For this to be a real competition, you let CJ start. He's the guy with something to prove, the one we've all been wanting to see.

Now you let the flow of the game potentially dictate who plays when. This is like the IU game. KF and GD both said the QB's would play. Jake hits Powell for a TD, Parker takes one to the house, and King returns an INT. KF sticks with Jake, and not many really seemed to blame him, Iowa was rolling.

IU makes their comeback and then he throws CJ out there to kill the momentum, only to have CJ run the option???

IMO, you start CJ. Let him do his thing. If he can't do it, bring in JR. Hope that the defense is doing it's job. I still think you come out of the second half and start CJ again. Maybe he's settled, and you give him a series or two at the max, and if he still isn't doing it. JR is your guy, and clear #1 going into 2015. If CJ sticks around, he knows what to work on.

OF course all of this could have been done during the season to get him experience. We don't lose anymore games with this strategy, but we might have won a few more.
Click to expand...

But again, nothing has changed since GD said both would play. Once you make that announcement, it really makes no difference who starts. Even if Beathard started and was playing well, Rudock would still get his cracks in the first and second quarters. Just like if Rudock is playing well, Beathard is still going to get opportunities in the first half.

If you think Beathard should simply be the starter on Friday and that he should stay in the game unless he's not playing well, that's one thing. But anyone outraged by Rudock starting because they think GD was throwing out false information yesterday and the competition isn't really open, is just looking for something to be ****** at when we're going to see if CJB can win the job on the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top