Something I heard re: QB's and Ruddock

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

Just show up, eat about six servings of refried beans, have 5 jumbo margaritas, then proceed to grill Kirk. If the drunken questions don't drive him to the edge your stink *** will.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Of the 124 football teams in FBS Iowa is the ONLY team that has played 1 quarterback thru 8 wks of the season. source: http://ncaa.org
Retweeted by marcmorehouse

Guess this isn't just all in our heads, then.

1 team in college football (124 teams) has not played it's backup QB at some point - Iowa. The ONLY team. I just had to repeat that one more time to see how it sounds.

So quite literally: "Only at Iowa" does this happen.

WOW.

Now I'm convinced - it's on KF that our backups don't get reps, not because the other guys "aren't ready".

I can't believe for a second the other 123 teams in the country have a backup that is equal to their starter. Yet they still get some snaps! I'm not buyin' the "not ready" thing anymore.

 

[ThunderHawk]

If Ruddock is that futile, then free up his scholarship. If he's not, then give him a shot. This is not rocket science.

 

[ThunderHawk]

Guess this isn't just all in our heads, then.

1 team in college football (124 teams) has not played it's backup QB at some point - Iowa. The ONLY team. I just had to repeat that one more time to see how it sounds.

So quite literally: "Only at Iowa" does this happen.

WOW.

Now I'm convinced - it's on KF that our backups don't get reps, not because the other guys "aren't ready".

I can't believe for a second the other 123 teams in the country have a backup that is equal to their starter. Yet they still get some snaps! I'm not buyin' the "not ready" thing anymore.

Even pro teams put in their backup when they are pounding or getting pounded.

 

[Stogy]

This is the worst case scenario for Kurt, Rudock comes in, plays well and now he answers questions about a QB controversy from the media. And he chose to keep JVB over having to face difficult questions.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

 

[azhawkeyefan]

This whole "gap between QBs is huge" is pure garbage and is a self-perpetuating, echo-effect myth. We were told Banks wasn't ready in 2001 and he promptly leads us next season to our best season ever and finishes runner up in the Heisman. Either our coaching staff is blind or he made the greatest leap in the history of college football between those two years. I'll take the former.

We were told that the gap between Stanzi and Christensen was so great....yep, that turned out to be a complete lie.

Coker doesn't see the field at all until the bowl game and proceeds to go for 2 bills. Does anyone in their right mind think that Robinson would have run for anywhere close to that?

Weisman doesn't see ANY time at RB until an injury, he then proceeds to run for 4 straight 100yd games with a 200yd game thrown in for good measure.

I have full faith and confidence in KFs ability to spot and play the best OL. The number of all conference performers and NFL OL is a testament to that. But his ability to gauge the talent of skill position players is so obscenely bad that it borders on laughable.

I agree with this. I'll add another, Jordan Cotton. We've heard rumblings that he was one of the fastest and most explosive guys on the team. Cotton was buried on the bench and relegated to mop up duty, as soon as he got a chance he's done a great job at both WR and KR. I lose confidence in the staff when we find out our best kick returner has been not returning kicks for the past 3 years, instead he's been on the bench while "safe" guys are back fielding kicks. Weismann and Cotton are both great stories of guys who took their opportunity and made the most of it. Both have been the best at their respective positions (RB and KR) in games this year, however the staff felt that based on practice and who knows what else that prior to the season they were not suited for those roles.

None of us know if Ruddock/Sokol will be the answer and we won't know until one of them gets some legit game action. I don't think it creates a controversy if one of them is put in the game during a blowout. It would only create a "controversy" if that 2nd QB lit it up and torched the defense. And if that were to happen, then that controversy would be a good thing since it would mean that we have a legitimate 2nd option at QB. If the 2nd QB does just the same or worse as JVB, then nothing is hurt.

 

[goods10]

Even pro teams put in their backup when they are pounding or getting pounded.

Unless your pro team is called the Kansas City Chiefs

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Even pro teams put in their backup when they are pounding or getting pounded.

Yep, that's what I mean. I'm sure that the other 123 teams have backups that are a dropoff from their starter - but they still get in the game at some point. But not at Iowa. Even in the past when Iowa is beating Kent State or someone by 30 in the 2nd half and the backup QB finally gets some snaps, it's just to hand off 3-straight times followed by a punt. Drives me nuts.

I'm not sure what's worse - our QB recruiting or the player development at that position once we have those guys on campus. I'm starting to think it may be the latter.. That said, it's gotta be hard to recruit a top-flight Quarterback when he knows he probably won't see the field until he's a JR or SR.

 

[SpiderRico]

Clearly he doesn't. If you're going to call him out for not having teh stones, however, why don't you do it? If the media is too whipped, why don't the fans take him to task? He is contractually obligated to talk to stoopid fans. He makes 4mil, make him earn it.

I don't have a problem with you calling me to the floor....more power to you. But I do have a problem with you misquoting what I said. I didn't say that he didn't have the stones, I said, let's see if he does. Big difference.

Carry on now.

 

[BigD]

Even though I agree with what everyone is saying isn't time to give it a rest and get off JV's back? Jon is right in that the coach should be taking the heat here and a lot of it. Jon have you interview Kirk and asked him on camera why he is not giving his backups a chance? I know you are part of the paid network and so it must be difficult to bite the hand that feeds you, but don't you sometimes just want to ask the real questions? "Coach your one of the top paid coaches in the NCAA do you think your record reflects what it should?" "Coach do you ever think the game has passed you by and that maybe it's time to hang up the spurs and let another coach come into Iowa and give it try? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do for a university that has been so good to your family? Your contract is so large it hinders Iowa from replacing you, do you ever consider just willingly resigning and helping a new coach make the transition?" There Jon how's that for putting the heat on KF?

On another note I have been thinking about sending KF and his family a gift. Large brown grocery bags with the holes cut in them for the eyes and nose. That way the family will feel more comfortable when they are out shopping around Iowa City.

I really hope things can get turned around and that I have to eat my words and that next season we have a great year. I won't be proud and I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong and I hope with all sincerity that I am proven wrong and Iowa's football program comes back and kicks *** in the next several years. I would rather for Iowa to be really good again and eat crow.

 

[UIHawkGrad]

This whole "gap between QBs is huge" is pure garbage and is a self-perpetuating, echo-effect myth. We were told Banks wasn't ready in 2001 and he promptly leads us next season to our best season ever and finishes runner up in the Heisman. Either our coaching staff is blind or he made the greatest leap in the history of college football between those two years. I'll take the former.

We were told that the gap between Stanzi and Christensen was so great....yep, that turned out to be a complete lie.

Coker doesn't see the field at all until the bowl game and proceeds to go for 2 bills. Does anyone in their right mind think that Robinson would have run for anywhere close to that?

Weisman doesn't see ANY time at RB until an injury, he then proceeds to run for 4 straight 100yd games with a 200yd game thrown in for good measure.

I have full faith and confidence in KFs ability to spot and play the best OL. The number of all conference performers and NFL OL is a testament to that. But his ability to gauge the talent of skill position players is so obscenely bad that it borders on laughable.

Coker played in 6 games before the bowl game and started two of them. He had 129 yards against Indiana, 90 against Minny and 70 against OSU. In total, he had 81 carries for 403 yards in the regular season prior to his 219 yards in the Insight Bowl.

KF indicated they moved Weisman to RB in practice and planned on getting him PT at RB prior to Bullock and Garmon being injured.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of a good message board rant.

Why do you think it is that we manage to keep plugging in RB's after all of the attrition at that position and still have success running the ball? For the KF haters, it is because he keeps overlooking the talent of the 10th running back on the depth chart. However, I think the correct answer is that KF and coaches have consistently developed an offensive line and running game that can have success with many different types of running backs. The system and the coaching are just as much, if not more, responsible than the talent of the individual RB.

 

[SpiderRico]

Coker played in 6 games before the bowl game and started two of them. He had 129 yards against Indiana, 90 against Minny and 70 against OSU. In total, he had 81 carries for 403 yards in the regular season prior to his 219 yards in the Insight Bowl.

KF indicated they moved Weisman to RB in practice and planned on getting him PT at RB prior to Bullock and Garmon being injured.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of a good message board rant.

Why do you think it is that we manage to keep plugging in RB's after all of the attrition at that position and still have success running the ball? For the KF haters, it is because he keeps overlooking the talent of the 10th running back on the depth chart. However, I think the correct answer is that KF and coaches have consistently developed an offensive line and running game that can have success with many different types of running backs. The system and the coaching are just as much, if not more, responsible than the talent of the individual RB.

Please, by all means, don't let the big picture get in the way of parsing a few incorrect facts....as if the big picture and the point still doesn't stand. If you're okay going into next season with 3 QBs that have never taken a snap in a college football game, then that's cool. I, on the other hand, would prefer that the signal caller have at least a couple of meaningful snaps to give him a flavor of what to expect next year. But apparently that's asking too much at Iowa....not so much at the other 123 FBS programs across the country.

 

[clicheusername3]

Unless your pro team is called the Kansas City Chiefs

Generally NFL teams have QB's that they want to protect from injury, not so in KC.

 

[NCHawker]

I think I'd rather have 2 QB's that stink than 1 QB who stinks.

 

[UIHawkGrad]

Please, by all means, don't let the big picture get in the way of parsing a few incorrect facts....as if the big picture and the point still doesn't stand. If you're okay going into next season with 3 QBs that have never taken a snap in a college football game, then that's cool. I, on the other hand, would prefer that the signal caller have at least a couple of meaningful snaps to give him a flavor of what to expect next year. But apparently that's asking too much at Iowa....not so much at the other 123 FBS programs across the country.

I get it. It doesn't matter if the facts used to back up your argument are false, it is the argument itself that matters.

The point of your post was that KF doesn't recognize the talent of back-ups which is why he is hesitant to play them. You then give some false examples to back up your argument.

I didn't even address the Banks/McCann and Stanzi/Christensen examples. We now have the advantage of hindsight but I would argue, at the time, neither of these was a slam dunk decision. Remember the Michigan game where Banks ran out of bounds well short of the first down marker at a critical portion of the game? The point is that the coaches did recognize Banks' ability and he played in several games in situational circumstances. He just wasn't ready to handle the full load of the game plan in 2001.

Regarding Stanzi/Christensen, remember the ISU game? JC had to relieve RS and we won that game. I also recall in Ricky's first full year starter (2009), some of our fans were calling for JVB because of the significant number if INT's, including several Pick 6's, that RS threw during that season.

 

[tm3308]

I get it. It doesn't matter if the facts used to back up your argument are false, it is the argument itself that matters.

The point of your post was that KF doesn't recognize the talent of back-ups which is why he is hesitant to play them. You then give some false examples to back up your argument.

I didn't even address the Banks/McCann and Stanzi/Christensen examples. We now have the advantage of hindsight but I would argue, at the time, neither of these was a slam dunk decision. Remember the Michigan game where Banks ran out of bounds well short of the first down marker at a critical portion of the game? The point is that the coaches did recognize Banks' ability and he played in several games in situational circumstances. He just wasn't ready to handle the full load of the game plan in 2001.

Regarding Stanzi/Christensen, remember the ISU game? JC had to relieve RS and we won that game. I also recall in Ricky's first full year starter (2009), some of our fans were calling for JVB because of the significant number if INT's, including several Pick 6's, that RS threw during that season.

Sticking with JC also lost us the Pitt game that year. But Stanzi should have been the guy. O'Keefe saw it. Why couldn't Ferentz?

 

[theboat]

Coker played in 6 games before the bowl game and started two of them. He had 129 yards against Indiana, 90 against Minny and 70 against OSU. In total, he had 81 carries for 403 yards in the regular season prior to his 219 yards in the Insight Bowl.

KF indicated they moved Weisman to RB in practice and planned on getting him PT at RB prior to Bullock and Garmon being injured.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of a good message board rant.

Why do you think it is that we manage to keep plugging in RB's after all of the attrition at that position and still have success running the ball? For the KF haters, it is because he keeps overlooking the talent of the 10th running back on the depth chart. However, I think the correct answer is that KF and coaches have consistently developed an offensive line and running game that can have success with many different types of running backs. The system and the coaching are just as much, if not more, responsible than the talent of the individual RB.

Why does it only happen due to injury though? Do we need to call on the AIQBHG to make Ferentz look like a QB developer?

 

[SpiderRico]

I get it. It doesn't matter if the facts used to back up your argument are false, it is the argument itself that matters.

The point of your post was that KF doesn't recognize the talent of back-ups which is why he is hesitant to play them. You then give some false examples to back up your argument.

I didn't even address the Banks/McCann and Stanzi/Christensen examples. We now have the advantage of hindsight but I would argue, at the time, neither of these was a slam dunk decision. Remember the Michigan game where Banks ran out of bounds well short of the first down marker at a critical portion of the game? The point is that the coaches did recognize Banks' ability and he played in several games in situational circumstances. He just wasn't ready to handle the full load of the game plan in 2001.

Regarding Stanzi/Christensen, remember the ISU game? JC had to relieve RS and we won that game. I also recall in Ricky's first full year starter (2009), some of our fans were calling for JVB because of the significant number if INT's, including several Pick 6's, that RS threw during that season.

You want to talk about wrong facts or wrong premise? Banks made one bad play that Michigan game. One. The only reason we were in that game was because of Banks. KF's refusal to let an obviously gifted and talented athlete work through a few of those mistakes cost us 2 games outright that year. Michigan and Wisconsin.

KFs refusal to play Stanzi in the 2nd half against Pitt outright cost us that game.

And I don't know what group of fans you were running around with in 2009, but I never heard one peep about putting JVB in for Stanzi. We were 9-0 at one point for heaven's sake.

That's 3 games FOR SURE, that were losses because of KFs stubborness. There are, no doubt, more.

 

[hawkincal]

Heard from a buddy that the drop between Ruddock and JVB is pretty steep, but that the staff is EXTREMELY high on Sokol and expects him to win the competition handily next year.

Anyone else with real connections hear anything similar?

No faith in the staff's ability to evaluate and develop talent at the QB position, so I'll be the "wet blanket" on optimism regarding Sokol, Beathard, or Rudock.

 

[okeefe4prez]

You want to talk about wrong facts or wrong premise? Banks made one bad play that Michigan game. One. The only reason we were in that game was because of Banks. KF's refusal to let an obviously gifted and talented athlete work through a few of those mistakes cost us 2 games outright that year. Michigan and Wisconsin.

KFs refusal to play Stanzi in the 2nd half against Pitt outright cost us that game.

And I don't know what group of fans you were running around with in 2009, but I never heard one peep about putting JVB in for Stanzi. We were 9-0 at one point for heaven's sake.

That's 3 games FOR SURE, that were losses because of KFs stubborness. There are, no doubt, more.

And yet whenever we have a QB struggle, everyone wants to go with the backup. It didn't take many games into the 2006 season for people to start calling for Jake or many games into the 2010 season for people to call for JVB. Kurt protects us from ourselves. If it was up to the idiots on this board, by week 10 we'd be playing the guy who quarterbacked the best intramural team on campus.