I think running issues and play calling are a function of the opposing D. They literally had 8 guys in the box most of the day. They dared us to go long. Ruddock isn't a good accurate long ball passer. Powell had 3 steps on his guy twice. He under threw once looked like pass interference and over threw him once. Why are we having Vandeberg run fly routes? They dared us to go long and Jake couldnt do it. When they laid back at the end they are playing to his strength and he picked them apart underneath. Until we burn some folks long we will have Defenses that commit alot to stopping the run.
Ruddock limitations force us to pass
- Thread starter Casade24
- Start date
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Agree 100%.
QuadCityHawkeye
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if Jake is being told to throw the safe pass or if he's just not willing to go over the middle at times. Saturday the TE's were open in the middle of the field often and he threw out passes. That last drive he was hitting guys left and right in the middle of the field but urgency had set in and Ball State was playing a soft defense which Jake took advantage of. I don't think Jake has a very strong arm for deep passes which limits Iowa somewhat, but I'm still trying to figure out if the coaches are telling him to throw the safe pass.
I think there might be some strategic value in playing Beathard two series or so in the first half of games. He offers a quick strike, vertical, attack. One, it hopefully would lead to some easy first-half TDs where we don't have to execute perfectly for 10+ plays. Two, it might take some men out of the box.
Ruddock moves the chains well and controls possession, but often that does translate to TDs. One off-schedule play or failed 3rd down conversation and no TD. But if we have 10-14 point advantage going into half. Ruddock is the perfect risk-averse, keep the chains moving quarterback needed to bleed out a game, especially with our defense.
Ruddock moves the chains well and controls possession, but often that does translate to TDs. One off-schedule play or failed 3rd down conversation and no TD. But if we have 10-14 point advantage going into half. Ruddock is the perfect risk-averse, keep the chains moving quarterback needed to bleed out a game, especially with our defense.
I am trying to remember when I have watched a football game when, at least early on, a defensive team has NOT focused on stopping the run. And, you might want to understand that you don't have to throw home run balls to get a defense to respect your passing game. Willes stated that when he scored his TD, he "read" the safety who was coming up in run support, so W just blew on by him...TD. Canzeri came out of the backfield and there was no one around until he had run 50 yards down the field. The tight end(s) for Iowa caught some key passes in the seam, including the second Iowa TD, when the LB's were in tight run support. No, I don't think the deep ball is JR's strength; I also know there is not a QB on any team that does not have some weaknesses. JR can throw deep enough...right now he needs to relax and trust that he can get the job done.
I agree 100%. Beathard can burn them with his long ball accuracy and much stronger arm. While his pass to Powell was close to perfect and would have been game changing TD...he had Bullock wide open in the flat for an easy first down. I sense the coaches wanted him to take the sure 1st down rather than the higher risk/reward shot to Powell. We have two very good QB's. Let's use their skills sets to attack the defense.
I completely disagree. He under threw Powell in bowl game in 1st Q, under threw it and then over threw Powell on Saturday, over threw Vandeberg twice...almost over threw Willies in UNI game, threw if out of bounds to T Smith against UNI....He doesn't throw an accurate long ball. He hit Powell one time for a long pass last year. He is great reading and throwing underneath and over the middle. First play of the game the BS safety blitzed and made the tackle. They were creeping up all game and we never had a pass completed over 20 yards. I understand that Beathard has weaknesses as well.
Some Iowa fans are insufferable.
They call chuck long, chuck save your percentage long, and call for Vlasic during long's soph and jr season.
They want Poholsky over Hartlieb. Hartlieb over Rogers. Reiners over Sherman and on and on, and on.
They now want a guy who got beat out twice, that has completed 10 of 30 passes to start over a guy who is -
10-5 with pretty competitive losses to NILL(ick), MSU,OSU, Wsky, LSU; is completing around 65% of passes, with no ints, and 2-two minute drives.
Not ure what there is to say about this.
I'm in the camp that Iowa has a great QB situation. A solid starter that is demonstrating clutch play and improved play, and a very promising back up.
It's more fun to take it in, rather than ******** about everything....and in this case, the wrong thing.
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
I'm going to go out on a limb here. How many times do you think we have thrown the long ball this year...or has Rudock opted to go long. I'm counting about 8-10 times. At UNI, we got a few interference calls and a long pass to Willies. Against Ball State, we should have had a few interference calls. Now good things have happened on 40% of those plays. Can it improve, yes.
That being said, Rudock needs some game experience throwing the deep ball. 10 throws aren't enough to condemn the guy. With all the talk, it's probably in his head a bit. Several commentators saw Rudock have good days throwing the ball deep in practice...sometimes it takes some time to get that feel within game conditions. I say, let's give him a few more games to see if he improves. I'm willing to bet he does since he's improved accuracy, he's played great under pressure, and he hasn't turned the ball over...all improvements from last year. Give the guy a break.
That being said, Rudock needs some game experience throwing the deep ball. 10 throws aren't enough to condemn the guy. With all the talk, it's probably in his head a bit. Several commentators saw Rudock have good days throwing the ball deep in practice...sometimes it takes some time to get that feel within game conditions. I say, let's give him a few more games to see if he improves. I'm willing to bet he does since he's improved accuracy, he's played great under pressure, and he hasn't turned the ball over...all improvements from last year. Give the guy a break.
ThunderHawk
Well-Known Member
I want to go on record here that I was ALWAYS in favor of Banks over McCann, and I was TOTALLY vindicated.
TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, UNAMBIGUOUSLY VINDICATED.
RE Riddick versus Beardhard, that's a tossup right now.
Sherman...now there's an interesting situation, because even though he was a premier choker, his back-ups were not world-beaters either. I think the solution to that situation would have been a bunch of direct snaps to Tim Dwight.
I think you are over-simplifying things. I'm certainly not saying Ruddock shouldn't start of even play less than 75 to 80% of the series. I'm saying is that we have two QBs who look capable of playing Big 10 football that bring different attributes. And there is no doubt the offense could look different depending on which is in the game.
I think it is worth finding out if we can use this to our advantage. It will give defenses more to prepare for. It conceivably could get us some some easier scores. Fans and QB egos shouldn't stop Iowa from winning football games. And right now I think Beathard, in some form, can help us win football games.
And at the very least, I think it is worth finding out if he can. Especially if we want to win the BIG West this year.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
I DO want CJB to get playing time. I DON'T want to risk BOTH of our QBs to injury.
Jake has, from my recollection, underthrown on ONE deep ball this year. And there SHOULD have been a PI on it. It's pretty hard to see people getting upset on overthrows of the deep ball. But, on this board...
What Jake did on the last two drives is in the league of Long, et. al.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Vindicated, except by Banks himself, who freely admitted to not being ready to be full-time, starting QB.
That said, that situation, alone, gives good evidence that playing two QBs isn't necessarily "bad". But, my guess is the staff fears exposing TWO QBs to injury. IF Jake gets hurt, CJB has pressure, but he knows he can't control it. If CJB gets injured? Jake has to be MUCH more conservative. Given the dislike for his current level of same, I'm not sure HOW this board would handle an injury to CJB. Other than, of course, the ******** that the staff is incompetent.
Banks just said that out of fear of getting blackballed from the CFL.
Still don't get your exposing two qbs to injury theory. Every series a backup qb takes is a series that your starter can't get hurt in. If anything that would be a good thing.
I think we just need to do what jake is good at. If you go back to the MSU game last year when we spread them out and dink and dunk we score 2tds in no time. The rest of the game we did exactly what they expected and they dominated us. We hav an O coordinator who is a dink dunker, a Qb who is. A non existent run game, yet our coaches choose to line us up and try to smash mouth people. Our game plans have sucked outside of the first series against UNI and the last 2 drives against BSU. It is not a coincidence when we easily score points and the style of play we are calling. Hopefully KFC will figure this out, and change like we did one year in his tenure with Drew Tate, I wouldn't bet on it though.
You don't think this is unique to Iowa fans I hope.
This goes on with virtually every fan base, don't let it bother you.
