QB at the top of questions after 3 games

L

longtimer

Well-Known Member
I preface this with the fact we played Illinois State an FCS team, Troy who lost everyone and was really bad coming into yesterday and Iowa State a decent team playing without top linebackers. All played at home with great crowds

QB McNamara continues to be unimpressive. I really believe Sullivan will take over at some point in the Minnesota game

Offensive Line has had some breakdowns in pass protection and sure we have run the ball well but we shall see when the opposition is better

Defensive tackles. I thought Black and Graves would be very good but doesn't seem to be happening

Defensive backs Crazy with 3 long TD passes in 2 games. Big problem Can Hall play next week?

Special teams give up punt return. still think we will be ok here

Its not all on QB but if your QB is not good its really difficult to be good. I hope Sullivan gets his chance and gives us at least an "adequate" QB
 
longtimer said:
I preface this with the fact we played Illinois State an FCS team, Troy who lost everyone and was really bad coming into yesterday and Iowa State a decent team playing without top linebackers. All played at home with great crowds

QB McNamara continues to be unimpressive. I really believe Sullivan will take over at some point in the Minnesota game

Offensive Line has had some breakdowns in pass protection and sure we have run the ball well but we shall see when the opposition is better

Defensive tackles. I thought Black and Graves would be very good but doesn't seem to be happening

Defensive backs Crazy with 3 long TD passes in 2 games. Big problem Can Hall play next week?

Special teams give up punt return. still think we will be ok here

Its not all on QB but if your QB is not good its really difficult to be good. I hope Sullivan gets his chance and gives us at least an "adequate" QB
Click to expand...
I'm very surprised at the 1on1 OL whiffs in pass protection. It isnt even the blitzing. Also, Cade's missed several deep pass plays either due to poor throws or just not seeing them wide open.
 
The fact that Lester had goal line packages for Sullivan is a good sign. Creativity have been in short supply the last few years. I also think you don't need to have a goal line package if your starting QB is lighting things up. So, some awareness may be there.

That said, it will be hard to convince KF to go along with a QB change for a veteran guy who has been in the program a couple years and is not turning the ball over a lot. But, hopefully Lester suggests more packages and opporunities to see what both guys can do.

Let's be honest, we don't know if Sullivan is any better. We don't.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
The fact that Lester had goal line packages for Sullivan is a good sign. Creativity have been in short supply the last few years. I also think you don't need to have a goal line package if your starting QB is lighting things up. So, some awareness may be there.

That said, it will be hard to convince KF to go along with a QB change for a veteran guy who has been in the program a couple years and is not turning the ball over a lot. But, hopefully Lester suggests more packages and opporunities to see what both guys can do.

Let's be honest, we don't know if Sullivan is any better. We don't.
Click to expand...
I thought Hill would be better. I was wrong.

Never got to see Labas or Lainez so who knows.

That's the problem...if you never get to see a guy at least give it a shot for a half or a full game you have no idea if he'll shit the bed or be the next CJ Beathard.

I have no idea if Sullivan is better but to me this past weekend's game was the one to see what he could do with his feet. Minnesota away and OSU away aren't environments you want to find yourself having your first day of work. Might as well throw a brand new truck driver in downtown Chicago day one. Can't fault him if he doesn't make it.

Which is sad. KF has got to be the most pig-headed coach I've ever seen. I do think there's some part of his personality that doesn't want to try anything different purely out of spite towards fans and media who think they know better. A 'don't tell me my job, you snot-nosed punk' type of thing.
 
Fryowa said:
I thought Hill would be better. I was wrong.

Never got to see Labas or Lainez so who knows.

That's the problem...if you never get to see a guy at least give it a shot for a half or a full game you have no idea if he'll shit the bed or be the next CJ Beathard.

I have no idea if Sullivan is better but to me this past weekend's game was the one to see what he could do with his feet. Minnesota away and OSU away aren't environments you want to find yourself having your first day of work. Might as well throw a brand new truck driver in downtown Chicago day one. Can't fault him if he doesn't make it.

Which is sad. KF has got to be the most pig-headed coach I've ever seen. I do think there's some part of his personality that doesn't want to try anything different purely out of spite towards fans and media who think they know better. A 'don't tell me my job, you snot-nosed punk' type of thing.
Click to expand...
Gee I am with Fryowa again.. I think Ferentz has done a great job at Iowa over the years Iowa is not an easy place to win. Unfortunately Ferentz has become stubborn (like many of us older people) and if the fans or media want a change he is going to dig his heels in and not do it. Hill last year McNamara this year,
At least try something else Kirk
 
We are at a place where it behooves the coaches to try someone else at QB. It probably won't happen but if there were more heat on the coaches they would be more motivated to start experimenting.
 
I think the most we can hope for is that Lester keeps putting packages together for Sullivan and he continues to meet the moment. I have been on record on this board many times that the whole you can't play to QBs thing is just bullshit. If a QB's ego cannot handle splitting reps, then he should play better. Especially in college, if your starting QB is not dominating, you should be working the back-up in. See what you got. Get him experience. Especially with a glass jaw starter.

I actually think CM would not fall apart if they split reps. If anything, limiting CM's reps might allow him to make it through a season.
 
The frustrating part for me is the double standard when it comes to benching players who are not performing well.
At every position other than QB, players are quickly pulled from the game due to a miscue or poor performance. One fumble and RB's are benched for the game.
At QB, no matter how colossal the miscue, or poor play overall, the starter remains in the entire game / season without any substitution. Despite multiple interceptions, QB's remain in place for the entire game.
Given how consistently bad our QB play has been recently, and how well the other aspects of the team have performed, it is obvious which of these coaching approaches is more successful.
Even Kirk has to see and know this. His ego will not allow him to change.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that it is KF's ego as much as his old school philosophy. The starting QB is the captain and leader and benching him might fracture the psyche of the team. If you have two QBs it means you don't have one. QBs have to be given a longer leash so that they don't play tight. That sort of crap. Antiquated concepts from the 80s......
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
The frustrating part for me is the double standard when it comes to benching players who are not performing well.
At every position other than QB, players are quickly pulled from the game due to a miscue or poor performance. One fumble and RB's are benched for the game.
At QB, no matter how colossal the miscue, or poor play overall, the starter remains in the entire game / season without any substitution. Despite multiple interceptions, QB's remain in place for the entire game.
Given how consistently bad our QB play has been recently, and how well the other aspects of the team have performed, it is obvious which of these coaching approaches is more successful.
Even Kirk has to see and know this. His ego will not allow him to change.
Click to expand...

I think a lot comes down to how they structure practice. For most positions, the reps are split somewhat evenly across the 2-deep, but I have heard for QBs the #1 gets a very disproportionate share of the reps.

I distinctly remember being at the 2009 Iowa vs. NW game (the one where Stanzi got his ankle twisted on a bootleg in the endzone), and seeing some folks with Vandenberg jerseys in the stands as I was leaving Kinnick. They were JVB's family (JVB was 9/27 for 82 yds and 1 int in reserve). I said something to the effect of, "Tough game, I am sure it will get better for him," and they relayed that JVB had extremely minimal practice reps once the season started, and basically none with the starters. He was put in a hopeless situation.

The next week, after receiving a week's worth of #1 reps, he went to the Shoe, completed 20/33 for 233 yds and 2 TDs (and 3 int), and almost pulled off a massive upset.

I do not know how accurately JVB's family captured the practice situation. And you can make an argument that it is on the #2 QB to get himself prepared whether he gets a lot of reps or not. But I have always thought of that conversation any time an Iowa backup QB comes in and struggles.
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
The frustrating part for me is the double standard when it comes to benching players who are not performing well.
At every position other than QB, players are quickly pulled from the game due to a miscue or poor performance. One fumble and RB's are benched for the game.
At QB, no matter how colossal the miscue, or poor play overall, the starter remains in the entire game / season without any substitution. Despite multiple interceptions, QB's remain in place for the entire game.
Given how consistently bad our QB play has been recently, and how well the other aspects of the team have performed, it is obvious which of these coaching approaches is more successful.
Even Kirk has to see and know this. His ego will not allow him to change.
Click to expand...

I hazard a gueess that the reason why they don't pull the QB is there is very little depth at that position. As it was in the begining, is now and ....
 
I may be the minority but aside from a few missed targets last week I thought Cade played rather well despite not really throwing the ball down field. He avoided turnovers and completed a high percentage and while he did miss a few open looks I thought he looked comfortable (again) despite not throwing down field. While I'd definitely prefer that he is looking down field more often I ask myself if that was by design, because tbh we didn't need to really throw the deep and intermediate routes last week. Hopefully the percentage stays up there and we open up the passing game a bit more.

That said, I've been way off base on this type of thing before, and this early in the year still tend to be optimistic and possibly delusional.
 
kicker22 said:
I may be the minority but aside from a few missed targets last week I thought Cade played rather well despite not really throwing the ball down field. He avoided turnovers and completed a high percentage and while he did miss a few open looks I thought he looked comfortable (again) despite not throwing down field. While I'd definitely prefer that he is looking down field more often I ask myself if that was by design, because tbh we didn't need to really throw the deep and intermediate routes last week. Hopefully the percentage stays up there and we open up the passing game a bit more.

That said, I've been way off base on this type of thing before, and this early in the year still tend to be optimistic and possibly delusional.
Click to expand...
Its not a bad take. His completion percentage is in the 60s and he is not turning the ball over. We would have cut off our pinkies to have that sort of QB production most of last year.

The offense is better, but as is usually true, the most popular guy in most college towns is the back-up QB. If the D shores up its coverage issues, CM's performance so far will be good enough to beat everyone except OSU. I still like the idea of packages for Sully just to see what he can do, keep the DCs on their toes, and limit CM's hits.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
Its not a bad take. His completion percentage is in the 60s and he is not turning the ball over. We would have cut off our pinkies to have that sort of QB production most of last year.

The offense is better, but as is usually true, the most popular guy in most college towns is the back-up QB. If the D shores up its coverage issues, CM's performance so far will be good enough to beat everyone except OSU. I still like the idea of packages for Sully just to see what he can do, keep the DCs on their toes, and limit CM's hits.
Click to expand...
I think you're right about having packages for Sully. In addition to breaking the ice and getting his feet wet, it may also be a sign to more mobile QB's that our staff may find a way to get them on the field sooner. I think anything that adds a spark or another layer only helps our offense going forward.
 
Le
kicker22 said:
I think you're right about having packages for Sully. In addition to breaking the ice and getting his feet wet, it may also be a sign to more mobile QB's that our staff may find a way to get them on the field sooner. I think anything that adds a spark or another layer only helps our offense going forward.
Click to expand...
Lester just needs to scream in his earhole as he walks onto the field, "whatever you do, don't fumble the damn ball!!!"

One fumble by Sully and this experiment will get squashed like a bug by KF.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
Le

Lester just needs to scream in his earhole as he walks onto the field, "whatever you do, don't fumble the damn ball!!!"

One fumble by Sully and this experiment will get squashed like a bug by KF.
Click to expand...

That will be challenging since he is up in the press box during the game. That first step might be fun to watch though. Maybe he will land on Kirk. Two birds with one stoned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top