Question For Ferentz Haters

L

littlesparky23

Well-Known Member
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
 
The thing I noticed most was the offense seemed to have extra pep when CJ came in. It felt like they collectively felt 'finally'.

I do think CJ made a couple plays Rudock probably doesn't

It is possible the outcome could have been the same with JR
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...

Check that defensive second half thread. The D was much more aggressive in the second half. The entire game plan today looked more aggressive -- more long pass attempts, for one. The usage of Powell deep despite the bad drop + INT made the horizontal passing scheme work the way it is supposed to work later in the half.

I have already said in several threads that I liked that I was wrong -- I didn't think this coaching staff would do these things as they aren't in the character of what we've seen from Iowa in recent years. They did them and they worked, and I couldn't be happier to be wrong.
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...


LS, outside of the fundamentals, strategy and the Jimmie's and Joe's, football is a game of emotion. The Iowa D made some nice halftime adjustments and took control in the second half. But CJ seemed to unlock the emotional door that had been closed. With CJ, Iowa offense didn't seem to be a robotic, machine-like mass of people. They looked excited. They looked more confident. They looked more aggressive. They looked like they were having fun.

When a qb brings that ability to the table and has that kind of an affect on the players around him; then you can potentially have something special. The guys at BTN (DiNardo & Griffith) said as much. Especially, DiNardo.
 
Why do you think that all of the sudden Greg Davis would change his game plan in the middle of thid game and not one of the other three previous games that Iowa looked like crap?

It was CJ coming into the game and not audibling out of the play call every time. I don't think any of that would have happened if Rudock wouldn't have gotten hurt.
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...


I quit reading after qb controversy. You haven't been paying attention to the games. Move along.
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...

Lowdermilk was interviewed after the game and he said they really didn't do anything different in the 2nd half defensively, they just "played better." Remember, Kirk always says it's all about the execution.:D For the record, although I wish Ferentz would retire or be fired I don't think he's a horrible coach, just a very mediocre one who has not changed with the times. Kind of like the old guy who refuses to get a cell phone and still insists on using a rotary phone and rabbit ears on his TV.

As for the QB stuff, I don't think Rudock is a bad QB, I just think Beathard is better and gives them a better chance to win. As Miller said in his Instant Reaction, there are things CJ can do that Jake can't, but there isn't anything Jake can do that CJ can't.
 
Question for littlesparky: Do you still wish Jake Christiansen finished his career as the starting QB at Iowa and Ricky Stanzi had transferred?
 
littlesparky23 said:
First off all I'll say that Beathard played one heck of a play and that there officially is a quarterback controversy in Iowa City. I don't agree with those who say that if Rudock was playing the second half that we would have been blown out of the house mainly because Rudock barely had the ball enough to make anything happen in the 2nd quarter because our defense couldn't get off the field.

Finally my question to all your lovable Ferentz haters (said in a sarcastic tone). Do you think any halftime adjustments were made and possibly could've been a major reason why the second half was all Iowa? Or was it the sudden and enlightening appearance of Beathard as he leapt onto the field while Kirk tried to hold him back?

Just a simple question for those who think they know football better than those who actually get paid to coach it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Rudock had 4 drives in the first half and Beathard had 4 drives in the second half if you count the 4 runs and a punt to kill clock at the end. It seems to me that Rudock had the same amount of chances as Beathard did. He just had less time of possession because he didn't move the ball as well.
 
If the coaches base their decision on game performance, there should be no controversy.
 
PCHawk said:
I'm pretty sure Rudock had 4 drives in the first half and Beathard had 4 drives in the second half if you count the 4 runs and a punt to kill clock at the end. It seems to me that Rudock had the same amount of chances as Beathard did. He just had less time of possession because he didn't move the ball as well.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Rudock scored on 1 of 4 possessions in the first half.

Beathard scored on the first 3 possessions of the second half, with his final possession being that last run only, run-out-the-clock deal.
 
PhoenixHawk said:
Yeah, Rudock scored on 1 of 4 possessions in the first half.

Beathard scored on the first 3 possessions of the second half, with his final possession being that last run only, run-out-the-clock deal.
Click to expand...

You can't fault Rudock for the pick and you can't fault Beathard for the end of the game so let's call it 1 for 3 for Rudock for 33% and 3 for 3 for Beathard for 100%
 
This thread was immediately defined by the use of the term "Haters". Any attempts at reasonable discourse with the OP following that... are the equivalent of speaking a foreign language to someone and expecting them to comprehend it.
 
That there is a quarterback 'controversy' shows us that it is more important for KF to be in complete control than the opinions of fans, sportswriters and even the results of back-to-back comparisons.

The difference between the two QB's isn't huge, but CJ has clearly been stronger in actual game play. Personally, I'd like to see that play itself out for a few games with CJ getting the start.
 
troy said:
If the coaches base their decision on game performance, there should be no controversy.
Click to expand...
So next week, we will see if Ferentz wants to do it "his way", or if he will actually play the guy who stresses the opposing defense more. I bet I know which guy Davis wants to play. Kirk, I'm not too sure about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top