Rudock

[Foval21]

Your post is good except the part where you say that if people say Kirk is wrong then he is wrong intentionally. People make mistakes all the time and it's rarely on porpose. Now I honestly think the qb's are close enough that it's tough to say picking one over the other is a mistake. But I do think leaving Rudock in when he is struggling so badly is a huge mistake.

I am curious your thoughts on what I said in my previous post. Do you think every coach would always come to the same conclusion on which player they think is better?

I said people that say he doesn't see what they see in cjb are saying he is intentionally going with the worse qb.

i think different coaches come to different conclusions. I am saying that I (as a coach) would have come to the same conclusion. I think playing beathard has just as much chance imploding as it does going the other way. I also think this game is far from the one to claim rudock should lose his job. I think many coaches would have chosen rudock...I also believe many coaches that many think would have gone with beathard actually would have gone with rudock. My view is that 60% of coaches would go with rudock. Close enough to give cjb opportunities but far enough to say it is rudock's job.

 

[PCHawk]

I said people that say he doesn't see what they see in cjb are saying he is intentionally going with the worse qb.

i think different coaches come to different conclusions. I am saying that I (as a coach) would have come to the same conclusion. I think playing beathard has just as much chance imploding as it does going the other way. I also think this game is far from the one to claim rudock should lose his job. I think many coaches would have chosen rudock...I also believe many coaches that many think would have gone with beathard actually would have gone with rudock. My view is that 60% of coaches would go with rudock. Close enough to give cjb opportunities but far enough to say it is rudock's job.

I'm pretty sure no one thinks it's intentional. The way I see it is we were going to finish somewhere between 7-5 and 9-3 with Rudock. If we started Beathard from the first game (or even the second) we could go as low as 6-6 if it went bad and as high as 11-1 if it went good. I would be willing to risk 1 more loss for the reward of possibly winning 2 more games.

 

[Foval21]

I'm pretty sure no one thinks it's intentional. The way I see it is we were going to finish somewhere between 7-5 and 9-3 with Rudock. If we started Beathard from the first game (or even the second) we could go as low as 6-6 if it went bad and as high as 11-1 if it went good. I would be willing to risk 1 more loss for the reward of possibly winning 2 more games.

I disagree on the win loss prediction. I dont think we could have won 10 games with beathard or with rudock...not after seeing how the run game and defense have played. Also I think we had the possibility of being a below 500 team with cjb. I won't say you are wrong...but my assessment is that rudock is better.

 

[PCHawk]

I disagree on the win loss prediction. I dont think we could have won 10 games with beathard or with rudock...not after seeing how the run game and defense have played. Also I think we had the possibility of being a below 500 team with cjb. I won't say you are wrong...but my assessment is that rudock is better.

Actually we could have won 10 games with Rudock I guess. The only game we had no chance in is Minnesota.