Rudock Update

[GesterHawk]

You're right. No other fan base in the country ever thinks the back up should play. heavy sarcasm.

Hate to break it to you, but you're not unique, neither are the coaches or the general fan base.

Actually yeah, I think this solution is pretty dang unique.
We have a fanbase calling for the head of a QB when the team is 11-5 (regular season) when he starts and is off to one of the statistically best starts in the last in the last 20 years without a running game.
The team is 3-1 this season.
This is a QB that half of the league would probably swap for.

Yep, this is an odd situation.

 

[franstheman]

Actually yeah, I think this solution is pretty dang unique.
We have a fanbase calling for the head of a QB when the team is 11-5 (regular season) when he starts and is off to one of the statistically best starts in the last in the last 20 years without a running game.
The team is 3-1 this season.
This is a QB that half of the league would probably swap for.

Yep, this is an odd situation.

Yeah it is odd to want a QB change when you average 22ppg

 

[GesterHawk]

Yeah it is odd to want a QB change when you average 22ppg

Odd that some fans pin all of the offensive woes on the QB.

 

[PCHawk]

Rudock not practicing and still day to day.

Can you please try to stay on topic. This thread is for internet wars not Rudock updates

 

[franstheman]

Odd that some fans pin all of the offensive woes on the QB.

Yeah and when the backup hasn't had an unsucessful series yet its probably not even worth giving him a shot

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Can you please try to stay on topic. This thread is for internet wars not Rudock updates

My four-four make sure all your kids don't grow

 

[HawkIPA]

Yeah and when the backup hasn't had an unsucessful series yet its probably not even worth giving him a shot

Bethards first series of the year, against Ball State, ended in a punt.

 

[franstheman]

Bethards first series of the year, against Ball State, ended in a punt.

Because powell dropped a perfectly thrown ball. It was also our only downfield throw of that game.

 

[GesterHawk]

Because powell dropped a perfectly thrown ball. It was also our only downfield throw of that game.

And your point is? The drive still didn't end in points?
How many drops has Jake been the victims of?

What would you feeling of Jake's half had been had Powell not lateralled the ball to the other team?

 

[GesterHawk]

Because powell dropped a perfectly thrown ball. It was also our only downfield throw of that game.

Also, according to Gamefilm, there were 6 deep passes against Ball State, granted one.was.CJ's.

 

[PCHawk]

My four-four make sure all your kids don't grow

Remember when I used to let you sleep on the couch and beg a ***** to let you sleep in the house?

 

[DJL]

Also, according to Gamefilm, there were 6 deep passes against Ball State, granted one.was.CJ's.

Tell me honestly. Do you believe Iowa has moved the ball better when CJ is in the game or when Jake is in the game? For whatever reason, the offense looked horrible with him running it. With that said, it was a little better against Pitt, and he was a victim of a bad drop that caused an INT. BUT, in the 3 meaningful drives that CJ was in, we scored. Jake had just as much opportunity against the same opponent and only scored once. Jake has done some really good things at Iowa, but CJ has earned the opportunity to play a full game. If he continues to move the team, you have to stick with CJ. Bottom line, he has more ability.

 

[GesterHawk]

Tell me honestly. Do you believe Iowa has moved the ball better when CJ is in the game or when Jake is in the game? For whatever reason, the offense looked horrible with him running it. With that said, it was a little better against Pitt, and he was a victim of a bad drop that caused an INT. BUT, in the 3 meaningful drives that CJ was in, we scored. Jake had just as much opportunity against the same opponent and only scored once. Jake has done some really good things at Iowa, but CJ has earned the opportunity to play a full game. If he continues to move the team, you have to stick with CJ. Bottom line, he has more ability.

I will flip the question back at you, did the offense under CJ move the ball better than the offense under Jake in the 4th quarters of the UNI and Ball State games - keeping in mind that he had no support from the running game except for his own two feet.

Now to answer your question - yes, yes it did look better under CJ than it did under Jake that day. But as I stated in a different thread, the running game really picked up when CJ was in there. I have also posted that we can't really ascertain the reason for this as fans, as there are several possible reasons - CJ's presence is one of those possibilities.

I have posted that I want CJ to get the start. I want him to play the entire game. I want to see what he can do and how he handles a game for 60 minutes. Right now he has a very limited body of work - including last year where I think he was 9 for 37.

I am a fan of Jake. I am also a fan of CJ. Heck, I am a fan of Wiegers and he is just on the scout team right now. I am a fan of all of them as they have chosen to he Hawkeyes.

What I am not a fan of is the revisionist history some of the vocal minority.

 

[83Hawk]

I will flip the question back at you, did the offense under CJ move the ball better than the offense under Jake in the 4th quarters of the UNI and Ball State games - keeping in mind that he had no support from the running game except for his own two feet.

Now to answer your question - yes, yes it did look better under CJ than it did under Jake that day. But as I stated in a different thread, the running game really picked up when CJ was in there. I have also posted that we can't really ascertain the reason for this as fans, as there are several possible reasons - CJ's presence is one of those possibilities.

I have posted that I want CJ to get the start. I want him to play the entire game. I want to see what he can do and how he handles a game for 60 minutes. Right now he has a very limited body of work - including last year where I think he was 9 for 37.

I am a fan of Jake. I am also a fan of CJ. Heck, I am a fan of Wiegers and he is just on the scout team right now. I am a fan of all of them as they have chosen to he Hawkeyes.

What I am not a fan of is the revisionist history some of the vocal minority.

And how well did Jake play in the first 3 quarters of those games? 6 points vs. mighty Ball State in the first 55 minutes. 3 points in the second half against Iowa State.

Jake hasn't played bad....he is just not able to put points on the board consistently. The offense looks lackluster and dull.

 

[GesterHawk]

And how well did Jake play in the first 3 quarters of those games? 6 points vs. mighty Ball State in the first 55 minutes. 3 points in the second half against Iowa State.

Jake hasn't played bad....he is just not able to put points on the board consistently. The offense looks lackluster and dull.

And this is the point I was trying to make earlier- it is odd that we have what we have in Jake (solid, not actually playing bad) yet some of the fan base is chomping at the bit to replace him.

No, the offense as a whole did not look good against UNI outside of the 4th quarter. The offense could move the ball against Ball St, they just couldn't get it in the end zone. Jake played his part in both of those, but the inability to run block and some dropped passes can't be pinned on Jake. Before the next poster brings up the lack of deep threat allowed the defense to stack the box and that is why we could run - teams always stack the box on us. We have still always been able to run against the Little Sisters of the Poor regardless. This year we couldn't.

 

[SpiderRico]

I will flip the question back at you, did the offense under CJ move the ball better than the offense under Jake in the 4th quarters of the UNI and Ball State games - keeping in mind that he had no support from the running game except for his own two feet.

Now to answer your question - yes, yes it did look better under CJ than it did under Jake that day. But as I stated in a different thread, the running game really picked up when CJ was in there. I have also posted that we can't really ascertain the reason for this as fans, as there are several possible reasons - CJ's presence is one of those possibilities.

I have posted that I want CJ to get the start. I want him to play the entire game. I want to see what he can do and how he handles a game for 60 minutes. Right now he has a very limited body of work - including last year where I think he was 9 for 37.

I am a fan of Jake. I am also a fan of CJ. Heck, I am a fan of Wiegers and he is just on the scout team right now. I am a fan of all of them as they have chosen to he Hawkeyes.

What I am not a fan of is the revisionist history some of the vocal minority.

Sometimes, though, it's more than stats. Look at MSU from 2012. Their starter was Maxwell....had a pretty good year, statistically.....2,600 yards and 13 tds. Unforunately, MSU only scored about 21 ppg that year and finished 110th in the country. The next year, they let the QBs compete and, even though Maxwell, by all accounts, looked better in practice (more than likely due to him getting a full year of 1st team reps the year before and throwing all but 16 passes that year)....D'Antonio went with the guy who, while may have been a little "high risk" at first, gave them a MUCH bigger ceiling in terms of potential. The end result being that they beat every B1G team that year by 10 or more and won the Rose Bowl. Sometimes, especially with QBs, that "it" factor is enough to put them over the top. We've seen enough of JR that, while he's a good QB, CJ just seems to have "it" and the team feeds off that. CJ is definitely gives the team a higher ceiling and that's why he should take over.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

And this is the point I was trying to make earlier- it is odd that we have what we have in Jake (solid, not actually playing bad) yet some of the fan base is chomping at the bit to replace him.

No, the offense as a whole did not look good against UNI outside of the 4th quarter. The offense could move the ball against Ball St, they just couldn't get it in the end zone. Jake played his part in both of those, but the inability to run block and some dropped passes can't be pinned on Jake. Before the next poster brings up the lack of deep threat allowed the defense to stack the box and that is why we could run - teams always stack the box on us. We have still always been able to run against the Little Sisters of the Poor regardless. This year we couldn't.

Well, what we can do against the little sisters of the poor is one thing. Doing it against better opponents is something else.

Not sure if you saw Jon's article the week after the ISU loss, but it broke down Iowa's running stats year by year, and most of the time, Iowa was in the bottom half of the country. It's an urban legend that Iowa's running game is its "bread and butter". The running game really hasn't been very good at all, with the exception of a couple years.

You can move the ball between the 20's all you want, but if it doesn't result in points, then what's that really worth? I'm not sure how much of it to attribute directly to CJB, but the offense scored 17 points in the second half with him in the game. Not bad in a road game against a solid opponent. No, Rudock hasn't played horribly by any stretch, but the points just haven't been there, and at the end of the day, it's what the scoreboard says that counts, regardless of whether JR hits a career high in passing yards or not (like against Ball State).

It's not that I think Rudock *deserves* to be replaced, but if CJB is ultimately the better option, then I'm OK with the change.

 

[DJL]

I will flip the question back at you, did the offense under CJ move the ball better than the offense under Jake in the 4th quarters of the UNI and Ball State games - keeping in mind that he had no support from the running game except for his own two feet.

Now to answer your question - yes, yes it did look better under CJ than it did under Jake that day. But as I stated in a different thread, the running game really picked up when CJ was in there. I have also posted that we can't really ascertain the reason for this as fans, as there are several possible reasons - CJ's presence is one of those possibilities.

I have posted that I want CJ to get the start. I want him to play the entire game. I want to see what he can do and how he handles a game for 60 minutes. Right now he has a very limited body of work - including last year where I think he was 9 for 37.

I am a fan of Jake. I am also a fan of CJ. Heck, I am a fan of Wiegers and he is just on the scout team right now. I am a fan of all of them as they have chosen to he Hawkeyes.

What I am not a fan of is the revisionist history some of the vocal minority.

Yes Iowa moved the ball better with CJ in the game because on all of his drives that weren't just burning clock at the end of the game, the team scored. I'm not saying it's 100% because of him, but he provided the spark the team needed. There has also been a lot of talk by JM and other football analyst that know the game that talk about how Iowa was operating in a phone booth on offense. The defensive backs clearly reacted differently once CJ was in the game. They know he can and will throw it over 10 yards consistently, therefore giving the offense more room to operate. For whatever reason (maybe he is being told to) Jake is checking down all of the time. Some say receivers aren't getting open, others say he is giving up on deeper routes too soon. Jake threw a couple of deep balls in the game Saturday, so maybe he could turn the corner. I just have more faith in CJ right now based on what I've seen THIS season. Last season CJ was not ready, he seems to be now.

 

[GesterHawk]

Sometimes, though, it's more than stats. Look at MSU from 2012. Their starter was Maxwell....had a pretty good year, statistically.....2,600 yards and 13 tds. Unforunately, MSU only scored about 21 ppg that year and finished 110th in the country. The next year, they let the QBs compete and, even though Maxwell, by all accounts, looked better in practice (more than likely due to him getting a full year of 1st team reps the year before and throwing all but 16 passes that year)....D'Antonio went with the guy who, while may have been a little "high risk" at first, gave them a MUCH bigger ceiling in terms of potential. The end result being that they beat every B1G team that year by 10 or more and won the Rose Bowl. Sometimes, especially with QBs, that "it" factor is enough to put them over the top. We've seen enough of JR that, while he's a good QB, CJ just seems to have "it" and the team feeds off that. CJ is definitely gives the team a higher ceiling and that's why he should take over.

I have no beefs with anything you wrote here, nor do I think I have posted anything to contradict it.
I just want to see how CJ handles a full game before I decide who I want as starter.

 

[GesterHawk]

Well, what we can do against the little sisters of the poor is one thing. Doing it against better opponents is something else.

Not sure if you saw Jon's article the week after the ISU loss, but it broke down Iowa's running stats year by year, and most of the time, Iowa was in the bottom half of the country. It's an urban legend that Iowa's running game is its "bread and butter". The running game really hasn't been very good at all, with the exception of a couple years.

You can move the ball between the 20's all you want, but if it doesn't result in points, then what's that really worth? I'm not sure how much of it to attribute directly to CJB, but the offense scored 17 points in the second half with him in the game. Not bad in a road game against a solid opponent. No, Rudock hasn't played horribly by any stretch, but the points just haven't been there, and at the end of the day, it's what the scoreboard says that counts, regardless of whether JR hits a career high in passing yards or not (like against Ball State).

It's not that I think Rudock *deserves* to be replaced, but if CJB is ultimately the better option, then I'm OK with the change.

And there is the rub, we weren't able to run against the Little Sisters this year, which points to bigger inefficiencies than just Jake. The ability to make field goals would have also made those two games feel different - like they weren't just squeekers.

I am all for and I want CJ to get the start this game. He might come out and tear it up, or he might come out and struggle. But I think he has earned a chance for us to see which outcome it will be. The worst outcome will be if he comes out and looks okay.

I just find the entire beginning of this season to be odd.