Per Davis: Rudock's One Advantage Over CJ...

[DBAHawkFan]

A counter play would really serve this offense

 

[iowalaw]

On The bright side, despite Davis' raving reviews of Jakes ability to audible (to a run up the middle for a one yard gain rather than risking throwing the ball down the field and a potential incomplete pass), cj is willing to take risks and will not audible out of every pass play called just because he sees a blitz coming.

 

[RocknRollface]

Davis admits that CJ always had the better arm than Rudock. However, Rudock got to see virtually all meaningful snaps for the past two years because...Jake was better able to change the plays at the line of scrimmage!??? LOL

I must have posted on this site after 7 games last year pointing out how TERRIBLE Jake was at calling audibles...and that virtually every single time he called an audible, he changed the play to a run up the middle on the left side for a gain of 1 or 2 yards. This happened over and over and over again. He would literally change a play from pass to run when the other team called for a run blitz.

If that is the best reason Davis had for playing Jake over CJ, I have to wonder if he is just covering for the fact that Kirt wouldn't let him play CJ??

Under absolutely no circumstance was the QB choice up to Greg Davis.

 

[RocknRollface]

yes, this thread is good for a chuckle. Iowa is clearly the only team that isn't successful on all of it's audibles. There is plenty to pick at in the program and everyone has their opinion. However, a constant is the board proves over and over again that very few understand the complexity of what happens within each game, play by play, at this level.

You know what's not complex?

How easy it is to tell our offense is bad every year.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

yes, this thread is good for a chuckle. Iowa is clearly the only team that isn't successful on all of it's audibles. There is plenty to pick at in the program and everyone has their opinion. However, a constant is the board proves over and over again that very few understand the complexity of what happens within each game, play by play, at this level.

Cecil, the topic of this thread is that GD stated advantage JR had over CJ was his ability to audible. As you inferred, many audibles fail or are limited in their success (if a defense has the right call, then your choices are limited.) So the point becomes if this "ability" is the single reason JR played instead of CJ, then it simply reinforces the criticisms of kfootball that his offensive philosophy is arcane, he could possibly view offense as a necessary evil (and really only needed to develop offensive linemen) and is so risk averse he stymies his own teams chances of winning. In my opinion, this is where the "he'd rather lose than play the best players" argument is born and I believe it has merit in the strict sense, i.e. we lose 5 games with the less talent QB because he is better at calling an audible that (as you are correct in pointing out) will be "successful" fewer times than it will be. Fans now wonder why not try a pass play instead of an audible into a run play, where it is understood it will have limited success? So, on 3rd downs, JR audibles to a run and we are forced to punt, yet we had the worst punt game we've ever had (almost). So, this validates the "to conservative" criticisms.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Under absolutely no circumstance was the QB choice up to Greg Davis.

Agreed. That is exactly what GD was saying (between the lines.) I have to say, I wish we still had Willies, but I am starting to feel a bit optimistic about our offense if the OL can become at least a typical Iowa OL, quickly. I get the sense GD may have told kfootball to enjoy finding a new OC if he insists on starting JR and for GD to run a 1980's high school offense.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Cecil, the topic of this thread is that GD stated advantage JR had over CJ was his ability to audible. As you inferred, many audibles fail or are limited in their success (if a defense has the right call, then your choices are limited.) So the point becomes if this "ability" is the single reason JR played instead of CJ, then it simply reinforces the criticisms of kfootball that his offensive philosophy is arcane, he could possibly view offense as a necessary evil (and really only needed to develop offensive linemen) and is so risk averse he stymies his own teams chances of winning. In my opinion, this is where the "he'd rather lose than play the best players" argument is born and I believe it has merit in the strict sense, i.e. we lose 5 games with the less talent QB because he is better at calling an audible that (as you are correct in pointing out) will be "successful" fewer times than it will be. Fans now wonder why not try a pass play instead of an audible into a run play, where it is understood it will have limited success? So, on 3rd downs, JR audibles to a run and we are forced to punt, yet we had the worst punt game we've ever had (almost). So, this validates the "to conservative" criticisms.

Nailed it.

 

[CP87]

Cecil, the topic of this thread is that GD stated advantage JR had over CJ was his ability to audible. As you inferred, many audibles fail or are limited in their success (if a defense has the right call, then your choices are limited.) So the point becomes if this "ability" is the single reason JR played instead of CJ, then it simply reinforces the criticisms of kfootball that his offensive philosophy is arcane, he could possibly view offense as a necessary evil (and really only needed to develop offensive linemen) and is so risk averse he stymies his own teams chances of winning. In my opinion, this is where the "he'd rather lose than play the best players" argument is born and I believe it has merit in the strict sense, i.e. we lose 5 games with the less talent QB because he is better at calling an audible that (as you are correct in pointing out) will be "successful" fewer times than it will be. Fans now wonder why not try a pass play instead of an audible into a run play, where it is understood it will have limited success? So, on 3rd downs, JR audibles to a run and we are forced to punt, yet we had the worst punt game we've ever had (almost). So, this validates the "to conservative" criticisms.

I don't think Cecil was trying to defend any aspect of the coaching staff's decision making. I think he was simply making the tangential point that posters/fans who claim they know exactly what play is coming or feel that in some way they have a better sense of what the offense should do then the coaches who have dedicated decades to learning this sport, have put in thousands of hours (collectively) with these players, and have spent hundreds of hours (collectively) preparing a game plan for a given opponent are delusional.

If you have no playing, coaching, or analysis experience beyond the high school level, it is perfectly reasonable to say the product stinks and there are other coaching staffs who could get better results. What rubs some the wrong way (me included) is when certain fans insinuate that the schematic solutions to on-field problems are simple and obvious and if the Hawks would just do "this thing" (whatever that thing may be) differently they would easily win more games. I don't know a ton about the intricacies of the college game, but I know enough to realize how ignorant I am. Some people seem to be unaware of the depth of their ignorance.

I know this post will lead to tons of claims "kool-aid drinker" and "fan boy" and all of those other euphemisms that get thrown around anytime a post is not directly calling for the coach's head even if I make the following disclaimer, but I will add it any way: this post has nothing to do with how good the coaching staff is or is not at its job, it is only a comment on the fact that things on the field are much more complicated than some realize.

 

[Eda]

I luv the Seinfeld reference to comedian Banya " gold pure gold Jerry".

Now back to the thread, JR showed in 2013 he was a very competent QB and he made a huge improvement in 2014 in his TD to INT ratio, but he also showed a huge propensity to go into a shell and not even get first downs. That is when CJ needed to come into the game. The coaches saw the spark in the 2nd half of the Pitt game so why not put in your relief pitcher in games like Maryland, Minny, Nebby etc

Actually the the difference in the Pitt game was the defense finally being able to make some run stops and forcing Pitt's young QB to make plays. As for Minny... CJB did play and the result was much the same of JR. Not good. I'd say the Maryland game was a combo of the players getting killed on the edge, fumbles when we started to get momentum, and the coaches completely abandoning the run in the 4th quarter.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that Sunshine would've made all the difference last year.

 

[PCHawk]

Cecil, the topic of this thread is that GD stated advantage JR had over CJ was his ability to audible. As you inferred, many audibles fail or are limited in their success (if a defense has the right call, then your choices are limited.) So the point becomes if this "ability" is the single reason JR played instead of CJ, then it simply reinforces the criticisms of kfootball that his offensive philosophy is arcane, he could possibly view offense as a necessary evil (and really only needed to develop offensive linemen) and is so risk averse he stymies his own teams chances of winning. In my opinion, this is where the "he'd rather lose than play the best players" argument is born and I believe it has merit in the strict sense, i.e. we lose 5 games with the less talent QB because he is better at calling an audible that (as you are correct in pointing out) will be "successful" fewer times than it will be. Fans now wonder why not try a pass play instead of an audible into a run play, where it is understood it will have limited success? So, on 3rd downs, JR audibles to a run and we are forced to punt, yet we had the worst punt game we've ever had (almost). So, this validates the "to conservative" criticisms.

Kirk choosing a QB over something that plays such a small part in the game (compared to ability to make plays) is par for the course. He also choses RBs based on ability to pick up the blitz and WRs based on ability to block down field. Now it's time for 10 responses on how important those parts of the game are.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I don't think Cecil was trying to defend any aspect of the coaching staff's decision making. I think he was simply making the tangential point that posters/fans who claim they know exactly what play is coming or feel that in some way they have a better sense of what the offense should do then the coaches who have dedicated decades to learning this sport, have put in thousands of hours (collectively) with these players, and have spent hundreds of hours (collectively) preparing a game plan for a given opponent are delusional.

If you have no playing, coaching, or analysis experience beyond the high school level, it is perfectly reasonable to say the product stinks and there are other coaching staffs who could get better results. What rubs some the wrong way (me included) is when certain fans insinuate that the schematic solutions to on-field problems are simple and obvious and if the Hawks would just do "this thing" (whatever that thing may be) differently they would easily win more games. I don't know a ton about the intricacies of the college game, but I know enough to realize how ignorant I am. Some people seem to be unaware of the depth of their ignorance.

I know this post will lead to tons of claims "kool-aid drinker" and "fan boy" and all of those other euphemisms that get thrown around anytime a post is not directly calling for the coach's head even if I make the following disclaimer, but I will add it any way: this post has nothing to do with how good the coaching staff is or is not at its job, it is only a comment on the fact that things on the field are much more complicated than some realize.

Fair enough, CP. My post simply illustrates that while things can be complex, common sense and repetition can be valid tools in recognizing actual systemic and schematic issues.

 

[Eda]

I don't think Cecil was trying to defend any aspect of the coaching staff's decision making. I think he was simply making the tangential point that posters/fans who claim they know exactly what play is coming or feel that in some way they have a better sense of what the offense should do then the coaches who have dedicated decades to learning this sport, have put in thousands of hours (collectively) with these players, and have spent hundreds of hours (collectively) preparing a game plan for a given opponent are delusional.

If you have no playing, coaching, or analysis experience beyond the high school level, it is perfectly reasonable to say the product stinks and there are other coaching staffs who could get better results. What rubs some the wrong way (me included) is when certain fans insinuate that the schematic solutions to on-field problems are simple and obvious and if the Hawks would just do "this thing" (whatever that thing may be) differently they would easily win more games. I don't know a ton about the intricacies of the college game, but I know enough to realize how ignorant I am. Some people seem to be unaware of the depth of their ignorance.

I know this post will lead to tons of claims "kool-aid drinker" and "fan boy" and all of those other euphemisms that get thrown around anytime a post is not directly calling for the coach's head even if I make the following disclaimer, but I will add it any way: this post has nothing to do with how good the coaching staff is or is not at its job, it is only a comment on the fact that things on the field are much more complicated than some realize.

Great post.

IMO, a reason this site is only bearable in very small doses.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

I don't think Cecil was trying to defend any aspect of the coaching staff's decision making. I think he was simply making the tangential point that posters/fans who claim they know exactly what play is coming or feel that in some way they have a better sense of what the offense should do then the coaches who have dedicated decades to learning this sport, have put in thousands of hours (collectively) with these players, and have spent hundreds of hours (collectively) preparing a game plan for a given opponent are delusional.

If you have no playing, coaching, or analysis experience beyond the high school level, it is perfectly reasonable to say the product stinks and there are other coaching staffs who could get better results. What rubs some the wrong way (me included) is when certain fans insinuate that the schematic solutions to on-field problems are simple and obvious and if the Hawks would just do "this thing" (whatever that thing may be) differently they would easily win more games. I don't know a ton about the intricacies of the college game, but I know enough to realize how ignorant I am. Some people seem to be unaware of the depth of their ignorance.

I know this post will lead to tons of claims "kool-aid drinker" and "fan boy" and all of those other euphemisms that get thrown around anytime a post is not directly calling for the coach's head even if I make the following disclaimer, but I will add it any way: this post has nothing to do with how good the coaching staff is or is not at its job, it is only a comment on the fact that things on the field are much more complicated than some realize.

So do the people who call the Iowa games count or qualify? or is it to complicated for them too? Fans not the only one saying this stuff CP..

 

[Billso]

I do understand that IOWA runs that play so predictably that not only defenses see it coming...I've heard fans in the stands call it out regularly in advance of the snap. Even with a stud like Scherff @ left tackle...it usually goes nowhere.

I also understand that if they ran a counter, play-action, showed that look and and went elsewhere it might serve a broader purpose. But that hasn't happened in a few years. The last time we saw any misdirection off that...the QB "waggle" bag the other way...for example... was pre-Davis.

I also know that having heard the same from players,other coaches and broadcasters (which are usually former players and coaches)...there's some validity to it.

This. With all due respect to CP's "complexity" comment above, which is fair, it isn't just us board monkeys criticizing scheme.

 

[PCHawk]

Actually the the difference in the Pitt game was the defense finally being able to make some run stops and forcing Pitt's young QB to make plays. As for Minny... CJB did play and the result was much the same of JR. Not good. I'd say the Maryland game was a combo of the players getting killed on the edge, fumbles when we started to get momentum, and the coaches completely abandoning the run in the 4th quarter.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that Sunshine would've made all the difference last year.

How can you say THE difference in the Pitt game was defense when the offense did a 180 too?

 

[CP87]

This. With all due respect to CP's "complexity" comment above, which is fair, it isn't just us board monkeys criticizing scheme.

Agreed. Criticizing the results of the scheme does not require an intricate knowledge of what is happening with all 22 players running around on the field. Criticizing general aspects of the scheme (predictability, inability to generate big plays) does not require an intricate knowledge (but sometimes it comes from those with intricate knowledge).

Knowing how to FIX the scheme requires intricate knowledge, and those that think the coaches are morons who are missing obvious fixes that can be seen from the stands irritate me, personally. Thinking another staff can fix the problems is a perfectly reasonable stance. Joe Sixpack thinking he knows the simple answer to win more games is delusional.

 

[Eda]

This. With all due respect to CP's "complexity" comment above, which is fair, it isn't just us board monkeys criticizing scheme.

No offense here, but just because some dipwad in the stands yells run right every other play (like he "sees" it coming), doesn't make me think that guy knows anything. He'll be the same guy who says it before a pass play and then says "well I'm surprised it wasn't a run right". He's also the idiot who yells "watch the fake" on 4th and 14 midway thru the 2nd quarter.

 

[Eda]

How can you say THE difference in the Pitt game was defense when the offense did a 180 too?

Opps... My phone put 2 thes in there. Typo.

I wouldn't call the offense in the 2nd half a complete 180. In the first half the ball was moving decently. Had DP caught that first long ball, we would've put up 14 points on the first 2 drives.

But I still feel strongly the defense making stops and getting off the field much quicker, rather than allowing long long TD drives, was the difference.

PC, I feel like you and I have have debated this topic before. Are you having a case of the déjà vu also?

 

[Eda]

Kirk choosing a QB over something that plays such a small part in the game (compared to ability to make plays) is par for the course. He also choses RBs based on ability to pick up the blitz and WRs based on ability to block down field. Now it's time for 10 responses on how important those parts of the game are.

It seems like you're deemphasizing these other aspects of the game to help prove your point (that playmaking is the utmost importance). In fact, calling an audible is extremely important (reading the defense and getting the correct play call could be one of the most important aspects of his job). It's something that needs to be done on potentially every play.

 

[RocknRollface]

Agreed. That is exactly what GD was saying (between the lines.) I have to say, I wish we still had Willies, but I am starting to feel a bit optimistic about our offense if the OL can become at least a typical Iowa OL, quickly. I get the sense GD may have told kfootball to enjoy finding a new OC if he insists on starting JR and for GD to run a 1980's high school offense.

I think Davis has always tried to infer that Kirk is the one making the decisions and that he is not really in agreement with most of it.

I honestly don't think Davis cares that much, he's just in this to put some money in the bank for retirement.