Quick slants: Rudock braced for bowl, probably -

[tm3308]

Using your logic, er, rhetoric... Rudock has more of an affinity to throw interceptions 'cause Rudock had how many INTs this year and Beathard had how many INTs, hum? Beathard takes better care of the football than Rudock, right? And he has a better arm than Rudock. Why the heck isn't Beathard starting, KF? I mean, KF, you really got on Stanzi for throwing interceptions.....

Actually, Beathard has a higher INT rate, too. 12 picks in 324 attempts comes out to 3.7%. Beathard has a pick in 20 attempts, or 5%.


Try again.

 

[rjbaustian]

Homer is just trolling....Ive not once read anything from him, that's worth reading

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Explain that one to Green Bay and Bret Favre. And on the latter end, Detroit and Los Angeles and Chuck Long. Matter of fact, no Boise State QBs have, to my knowledge, ever been drafted into the NFL even with BState's prolific passing attack every year. <P> Maybe you should preface your QB trumping criterion with: with Curt Ferentz, but certainly not college or pro football as a whole..

Joe Montana. *drops mic*

You're really trying though...good effort.

 

[tm3308]

Explain that one to Green Bay and Bret Favre. And on the latter end, Detroit and Los Angeles and Chuck Long. Matter of fact, no Boise State QBs have, to my knowledge, ever been drafted into the NFL even with BState's prolific passing attack every year. <P> Maybe you should preface your QB trumping criterion with: with Curt Ferentz, but certainly not college or pro football as a whole..

They don't trump arm strength, but they are more important, especially at the college level. Chuck Long had better than average arm strength for a college QB, but average at best arm strength for an NFL QB.

Does the fact that Favre had a bigger arm and more success at the pro level than Long make Long any worse of a QB for Iowa? **** no.

 

[HomerChampless]

tm3308. Here you're taking an extremely small sample size and it's not a credible sample to justify your findings that Beathard can't hit the broad side of a barn. Not credible 'cause you're extrapolating that Iowa's offense playing from 11 points behind Wisky in the second half and against a gale of a wind in the 4th is normal circumstances for Iowa's offense this season.

Not when he isn't hitting the broad side of a barn with that arm. He's got a lot of work to do just to pass where Rudock is right now. Rudock is probably going to get better, too.

Here you're taking a much larger sample size that shows all but, what, 20, of Iowa's passing plays this year? How many of those Rudock passing plays were under the 'duress' of Beathard's 20 passing plays? Not nearly as many, I'd venture to guess. I'll again point out that Rudock wouldn't of had any success against the wind and Wisky's defense in the 4th. In statistics, you have to take representative sample sizes for any predictions using a sample size to have credibility.... IOW, for the prediction to be accurate..

Actually, Beathard has a higher INT rate, too. 12 picks in 324 attempts comes out to 3.7%. Beathard has a pick in 20 attempts, or 5%.


Try again.

Finally, Joe Montana, an average armed, fairly stationary QB, had success in the NFL 'cause he had outstanding receivers throughout his career to throw to and an offensive and innovative guru as a head coach. There's always gonna be an exception to the rule.

 

[GoHawks24]

Can everybody do me a big favor please? Just pretend like HomerChampless doesn't even exist. I think that'd make things a lot better around here. The guy obviously is only looking to stir the pot, considering he usually has no idea what in the hell he's talking about.

 

[tm3308]

tm3308. Here you're taking an extremely small sample size and it's not a credible sample to justify your findings that Beathard can't hit the broad side of a barn. Not credible 'cause you're extrapolating that Iowa's offense playing from 11 points behind Wisky in the second half and against a gale of a wind in the 4th is normal circumstances for Iowa's offense this season. Here you're taking a much larger sample size that shows all but, what, 20, of Iowa's passing plays this year? How many of those Rudock passing plays were under the 'duress' of Beathard's 20 passing plays? Not nearly as many, I'd venture to guess. I'll again point out that Rudock wouldn't of had any success against the wind and Wisky's defense in the 4th. In statistics, you have to take representative sample sizes for any predictions using a sample size to have credibility.... IOW, for the prediction to be accurate..
Finally, Joe Montana, an average armed, fairly stationary QB, had success in the NFL 'cause he had outstanding receivers throughout his career to throw to and an offensive and innovative guru as a head coach. There's always gonna be an exception to the rule.

Sure, there's not a big enough sample to say Beathard can never be accurate. But he's shown NOTHING to suggest that he can be a legitimate starter to this point. Yes, he's got a big arm and mobility. So did Jamarcus Russell, and that didn't pan out for the Raiders.

Until Beathard demonstrates better accuracy, suggesting that he has a chance to unseat Rudock is laughable, at best.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

Can everybody do me a big favor please? Just pretend like HomerChampless doesn't even exist. I think that'd make things a lot better around here. The guy obviously is only looking to stir the pot, considering he usually has no idea what in the hell he's talking about.

I'm pretty sure he's not just stirring the pot, if you know what I mean. I especially love the comment about Montana. Everyone always says it was Walsh's system and the fact that he had Jerry Rice and John Taylor catching the ball for him. Granted, all good things right and the comment has merit. However, every pro team has good receivers, and there are always 7-8 "systems" for pro teams that contribute mightily to their success (New England, Green Bay). Joe Montana has special qualities that made him a great QB, one of the greatest in fact and his Super Bowls and the way he played in them will tell you that. He would have been successful for just about every pro team. I've not seen a QB who consistently delivered the ball in stride and on time like Montana did. Most of the time Taylor and Rice weren't breaking stride...and the ball was right between the numbers...that's why they were so good after the catch. Montana was as good as any QB who ever played the game at going through a succession of receivers on the same play...he could get to the fourth option faster than anyone. It was uncanny. Please don't belittle the guy, you just sound like a moron Homer.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

I'm pretty sure he's not just stirring the pot, if you know what I mean. I especially love the comment about Montana. Everyone always says it was Walsh's system and the fact that he had Jerry Rice and John Taylor catching the ball for him. Granted, all good things right and the comment has merit. However, every pro team has good receivers, and there are always 7-8 "systems" for pro teams that contribute mightily to their success (New England, Green Bay). Joe Montana has special qualities that made him a great QB, one of the greatest in fact and his Super Bowls and the way he played in them will tell you that. He would have been successful for just about every pro team. I've not seen a QB who consistently delivered the ball in stride and on time like Montana did. Most of the time Taylor and Rice weren't breaking stride...and the ball was right between the numbers...that's why they were so good after the catch. Montana was as good as any QB who ever played the game at going through a succession of receivers on the same play...he could get to the fourth option faster than anyone. It was uncanny. Please don't belittle the guy, you just sound like a moron Homer.

Agreed all around. As I've said in another post, IMHO, accuracy and timing trump arm strength and speed....in a pro style system at least.