Rudock and Leshun Daniels bits

[hwk23]

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.

Funny I thought the same about you. YES, again, it should be based on on-field performance but not necessarily 1 game.

JC was known to be very poor. Yes, he threw very few INTs and he probably managed the game OK but he only averaged about 6.0 yards per attempt over his career. That's about like JVB last year. That's not going to win very many games unless we dominate in every other area. You could almost choose a random QB off the roster and teach him not to throw INTs and he's probably pretty close to that.

 

[tm3308]

AJ McCarron was a 4star QB who averaged 8 yards per attempt his 1st year. How is he like Rudock and our situation again?

Tell me, how does mop up time tell us anything important about a player? He had no significant experience when he was named the starter. And in any case, how do you figure he was named the #2 as a freshman without ever having played a snap? Could it be that Saban evaluated him based on his performance in practices?

No, that just makes too much Goddamn sense for someone like you to believe it.

 

[tm3308]

Funny I thought the same about you. YES, again, it should be based on on-field performance but not necessarily 1 game.

JC was known to be very poor. Yes, he threw very few INTs and he probably managed the game OK but he only averaged about 6.0 yards per attempt over his career. That's about like JVB last year. That's not going to win very many games unless we dominate in every other area. You could almost choose a random QB off the roster and teach him not to throw INTs and he's probably pretty close to that.

So Stanzi should have been named the starter BEFORE the season, since we already knew we had average at best Christensen?

The bottom line is that it's usually best to pick a guy before the season. If he flops, you can make a change later. But rotating guys within a game is rarely a formula for success, and with a team like this will probably lead to losses because we lack the talent to make up for that lack of cohesiveness.

 

[hwk23]

So Stanzi should have been named the starter BEFORE the season, since we already knew we had average at best Christensen?

The bottom line is that it's usually best to pick a guy before the season. If he flops, you can make a change later. But rotating guys within a game is rarely a formula for success, and with a team like this will probably lead to losses because we lack the talent to make up for that lack of cohesiveness.

At some point it's based on on-field performance. The sooner the better. The problem is if our best QB never gets a chance to see the field because the rest of team is good enough to mask his poor play. That's how JC played so long. Statistically, he was never good, except in the INT category.

 

[hwk23]

Tell me, how does mop up time tell us anything important about a player? He had no significant experience when he was named the starter. And in any case, how do you figure he was named the #2 as a freshman without ever having played a snap? Could it be that Saban evaluated him based on his performance in practices?

No, that just makes too much Goddamn sense for someone like you to believe it.

The point is AJ McCarron is a very obvious pick. I don't think Rudock is. We will see but I doubt I'm wrong on this. If he comes out averaging 8 yards per attempt or close through the ISU game, then you can say I'm wrong.

 

[tm3308]

The point is AJ McCarron is a very obvious pick. I don't think Rudock is. We will see but I doubt I'm wrong on this. If he comes out averaging 8 yards per attempt or close through the ISU game, then you can say I'm wrong.

Stanzi wasn't an obvious pick over Christensen, either. Which is EXACTLY why I don't want to see a rotation. Pick one guy, and if it's not working with him after a couple games, try another guy. But don't do the every couple series switch-a-roo. That's a recipe for disaster with a team like this (we don't have Shonn Greene or an elite defense keeping us above water this time).

 

[PCHawk]

At some point it's based on on-field performance. The sooner the better. The problem is if our best QB never gets a chance to see the field because the rest of team is good enough to mask his poor play. That's how JC played so long. Statistically, he was never good, except in the INT category.

The reason JC didn't throw many interceptions is because normally the defender is in the same general area as the intended receiver. If he was a little more accurate of a passer his interceptions probably would have doubled.

 

[hwk23]

The reason JC didn't throw many interceptions is because normally the defender is in the same general area as the intended receiver. If he was a little more accurate of a passer his interceptions probably would have doubled.

Lol, good point. I was trying to pick out his 1 positive stat.

 

[trj]

Banks mistook the LOS marker for the 1st down marker. One of those dumb mistakes that happen when you don't play very much.

That was in the famous Michigan game. McCann was doing *nothing* in that game, and they put Banks in. Iowa immediately took off and put Michigan back on their heels. After KF benched Banks and put McCann back in, Michigan went back to dominating the rest of the game. Afterwards, all the Mich fans were saying thank you for pulling Banks, as their D couldn't do anything to stop him. Banks stays in, we win that game.

The booing of McCann game.....the game where a certain local central Iowa radio sport host could not let go of.

 

[trj]

I think 3 yrs ago aj mccarron didn't have to win the job on the field...but I think saban chose the right guy. How has rotating qbs worked out for isu?

Ahhh, yes going with your gut watching a guy in pregame warmups.

 

[RocknRollface]

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.

Completely disagree.

It should never have taken that long. It was obvious that JC was not a capable QB 8 months before that and it was never more obvious than in the first half of that game in which Stanzi never got back in.

They shouldn't have been splitting time at all, and yes I know RS had a poor showing the week prior. Doesn't change anything.

 

[RocknRollface]

Christensen came in and won the ISU game. I guess you were saying we should have stuck with him after that game?

He came in and didn't lose it would be more accurate. He passed for like one first down.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

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.

This.

It's a real stretch...a REAL stretch to say JC "won that game". It was freakin' 10-3 with under 7 minutes to go before Brodell ran the punt back for a TD. Hardly a score that would indicate great QB play by either guy.

JC is credited with killing more snakes than St Patrick (for you younger guys that might be a reference that warrants a little research). No amount of revisionist history is going to change that fact.

 

[deanvogs]

Completely disagree.

It should never have taken that long. It was obvious that JC was not a capable QB 8 months before that and it was never more obvious than in the first half of that game in which Stanzi never got back in.

They shouldn't have been splitting time at all, and yes I know RS had a poor showing the week prior. Doesn't change anything.

Well we just disagree then. It isn't like JC was some walkon, he was a highly touted HS player, and an established starter. RS caught up to JC over the offseason, and earned split reps to determine the starter going forward. I think KF obviously made the right decision, which has been proven out by RS career. I think the first 3 games proved they were pretty even with the Pitt game being the turning point, and you seem to think that it should have been made sooner.

 

[Johnnyhawkeye]

Wow, 11 pages of useless arguments...it's starting to feel like football season is back.

 

[JonDMiller]

McCann Banks is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Even if Banks wasn't ready we were still a better team with him on the field.

Wow. this is just where I part ways...I've talked to several members of that team and they laugh when I bring this one up. Brad played as much as he was ready to play in 2001. Simple as that.

 

[JonDMiller]

What gives the team the best chance to win is the question.

Some seem to think experience and some other factors may be weighted a bit to heavily vs raw talent in the mind of the coach.

Some seem to think that not taking risks is the way to win, others would argue its the opposite.

'Some' are not former national coaches of the years, 'some' have never coached a game beyond the PS3 or XBox dynasties and 'Some' can't spell spiral let alone throw one

It doesn't matter what 'some' think here...they are on the outside. Suggesting that Kirk isn't doing all he can do to win games is a farce.

 

[tm3308]

Wow. this is just where I part ways...I've talked to several members of that team and they laugh when I bring this one up. Brad played as much as he was ready to play in 2001. Simple as that.

And people always talk about the seemingly countless instances of more talented players riding the pine, but Banks/McCann is just about always the only example that gets brought up.

 

[BroderickHawk]

'Some' are not former national coaches of the years, 'some' have never coached a game beyond the PS3 or XBox dynasties and 'Some' can't spell spiral let alone throw one

It doesn't matter what 'some' think here...they are on the outside. Suggesting that Kirk isn't doing all he can do to win games is a farce.

I'm sure the captain of the Titanic did all he could not to hit that iceberg as well.

Just because someone is doing "all he can" to accomplish something doesn't mean that he's succeeding at it.

 

[kmurp]

Iowa just needs more good players.