RocknRollface
Well-Known Member
Yeah he eventually switched them but he farted around with a guy who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn for way to long.
The way that scenario played out does nothing but support the idea that KF is to risk averse.
Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Yeah he eventually switched them but he farted around with a guy who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn for way to long.
The way that scenario played out does nothing but support the idea that KF is to risk averse.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
If anything the Pitt game was the game that showed who the starter should definitely be.....guess who was starting after that game? It shows exactly the opposite of what you think it does.
It shows the starter should be decided on the field in real games, not practice.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
So we should play all 3 QB's for the first few games to determine a starter, as your boy Sokol is 3rd string according to reporters.
Chuck Hartlieb was 3rd string going into 1987 but he turned out pretty well. Anyway, I don't believe the reporters. They consistently say one thing and KF says another, but admittedly maybe I got that the wrong way around. Anyway, I don't see how the QB who consistently has the best stats and looks the best can be 3rd string. We will see (or maybe we won't).
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
For those who were asking, this is how the Iowa football Media Guide says to pronounce "LeShun"--
Luh-SEAN
Luh-SEAN
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
"Consistently" = 2 scrimmages now? I'm pretty sure if Sokol was "consistently" better than both QB's he would have been running with the 1's on Saturday.
So now Rudock is like AJ McCarron. I think if we had AJ McCarron he probably starts for us to. Just guessing he beats out Rudock but you may disagree. He doesn't throw many picks but he averages like 9 yrds per attempt, so yeah, he's pretty good.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Christensen came in and won the ISU game. I guess you were saying we should have stuck with him after that game?
tm3308
Well-Known Member
That's not the player he was when he was named the starter; that's the player he is now. When he was chosen, he had no game real game experience and wasn't the Heisman-caliber quarterback he is today.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Nobody believed Paki O'Meara would be the starting tailback for the entire season in 2009, but Kirk kept listing him at the top of the depth chart. But I suppose they were completely uninformed and had no idea what they were talking about then, either.
These guys aren't clueless. Many of them have been around Kirk for 15 years and have a pretty solid grasp on how he operates, as well as what he's looking for in his players. Are they guessing? Sure. But they aren't uneducated guesses.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
DP5555
Well-Known Member
Boom. End of story.
Not one of these three have played in a real game. That's the point of this entire argument we've been having for the past 3 weeks. All Kirk Ferentz can go by right now is how the players perform in practice. He has to make an educated decision based off of that. Based upon practice (which none of us see) it sounds as if Rudock has elevated himself in position to be named the game 1 starter. That doesn't mean he will be the starter in week 3. It depends upon his performance. Let's wait until we see him perform before we start bashing Ferentz for simply picking the guy they feel has performed the best so far.
Hwk23, you're being a hypocrit simply because your pick hasn't performed well enough in practice to be named the starter. If Ferentz named Sokol the starter right now you wouldn't be singing the same tune about how he should make the decision based upon in game performance.
All we are saying is save your judgements until after the players have performed in front of 70,000 fans. If Rudock struggles, and one of the other two takes advantage of an opportunity then I'm sure we'll see a change. Just because Rudock may be named the starter this week doesn't mean it's etched in stone. It means he's earned the first opportunity, and he deserves the chance to show what he can do. There's no sensible reason to deprive him of that.
Whoa, no. Please let me make it clear it should be based on the QB's performance. The QB could play terrible and it's still possible to win the game, especially if you have a team like 2008. I think JC should have been out in 2007 at some point. I'm afraid this year we will be good enough on the OL to win with some pretty poor QB play but we aren't reaching our potential.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Stanzi played like crap against ISU.
So, is it based on on-field performance or not? Because you're chasing your own tail right now.
AJ McCarron was a 4star QB who averaged 8 yards per attempt his 1st year. How is he like Rudock and our situation again?
trj
Well-Known Member
Shonn Greene, andy Brodell, take your pick on who actually won the ISU game.........QB play wasn't stellar that game, Stanzi had the case of the nerves and JC was a calming influence late in the game and he completed the one pass late that needed to be completed.
