Starting QB Tomorrow?
- Thread starter WinOneThisCentury
- Start date
No, I won't because I know for a fact Beathard will have to earn it. Really I think there is almost no way Beathard could play well enough to overcome the built-in disadvantages. Still he is only a redshirt freshman and he will have more than enough time to play, not so with Sokol.
With Rudock I am remaining skeptical until I see him play. I have read an overwhelming amount of hype about Rudock on these boards. Sure he was a high profile player in HS but still he's a three star QB and his offers weren't really any better than Sokol's. He got a lot of publicity in HS so his offers should have been better if the hype is true.
whammer33024
Well-Known Member
lol, you obviously haven't been reading very carefully then. i've been refuting points you have been making for weeks now. there are just so many people that disagree with you that maybe our opinions seem the exact same. but nice try
how would you know for a FACT. For that matter how would you know for a FACT that rudock DIDN'T earn it. You ASSUME a bias that I do not believe is there. Banks was a juco that hadn't been around as long as other qbs. Stanzi hadn't been in the program as long as jc. KF will play the best QB if they prove they are the best. If Sokol out performs rudock in practice he will play.
i guess the question I should of asked was if Sokol plays in the first game and lays an egg would you be ok with rudock taking his place?
or maybe the question would be if rudock and Sokol split time in the game and rudock out performs Sokol would you be ok with him getting the job?
if your answer to either or both is yes then why is it so hard to believe he won the job in practice?
If you truly believe there isn't a bias towards Rudock then you are in the minority. ALmost everyone in the media has been saying since day 1 Rudock has the advantage, Morehouse for example. Some based on time in the system and some in the media have said he was better in the Spring game. Fine, they have their opinion and I have mine but really some of them are no more qualified than anybody on this board.
If they were all equal going into camp, I don't like the idea of them deciding a kid's future in a few days of practice (or based on entitlement). Everyone has good or bad days. I hope it's decided on the field in real games.
YES, I would feel better about the decision if Rudock actually outperforms Sokol in a game or maybe a series of two or three games. I think Greg Davis said it took them 3 games of alternating every 3 series to decide on Colt McCoy at Texas. There are also a lot of teams that play two QBs all year, so that's another myth to argue about.
Last edited:
I heard it was the Illuminati. Chr**t, my sources are completely unreliable.
FreedComanche
Banned
Nope, it's the trilateral commission now days. The Illuminati was very influential about 100 years ago.
Totally off topic too, but we have been and are currently being lied to about many, many things. Hitler did not die in the bunker............ (Part 1 of 3) 'Nazis Escape to Argentina' - 21st Century Wire TV Episode 1 - YouTube
FreedComanche
2xer
Well-Known Member
Brilliant!
1) There is a built in bias because the media has said that Rudock has the advantage? Even though, according to you, they are not qualified to make that assessment.
2) We should decide the opening day starter, not based on practice, but based on real games?
3) How many GOOD teams play two QB's all year?
1. According to the media NOT because of the media. KF said they were all equal going into camp.
2. YES, we should determine the eventual starter based on real games. Don't care about day 1 starter.
3. NW is one good team that plays two QBs all year. I'm sure there are quite a few others. I think Stanford played two QBs most of last year. Iowa played two QBs in 1981, the Rose Bowl team.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I watched enough of the QB carousel with Christensen and Stanzi. The coaches can make a change if their choice doesn't pan out, but I don't want to see a set rotation again. That cost us at least one game in 2008.
Stanford played one QB at a time last year. They made a switch with like 5 games to play (not sure if it was injury-related or not), but the QB who came in relief had almost no stats on the year before becoming the starter. NW is not a comparable example. They don't play two QB's because they can't figure out which one they should use. They play two QB's because Colter is a weapon they can use all over the field. That's not what we're dealing with right now. And Iowa in 1981 had an average (at best) offense. They won because of defense and Reggie Roby.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
WTF?? Seriously?? You have seen the exact same amount from Rudock as you have Sokol, but you need to see more from one but not the others. You act like Sokol was Tom Bradyesque....The sh1t that comes out of your mouth would be funny if you actually weren't serious....
FreedComanche
Banned
dean, just curious, does your face get red when you angrily reply like this?
FreedComanche
coralville
Well-Known Member
After kid's day- beatherd is my choice
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I just get tired of people that spout the same stuff over and over, and I get tired of ISU trolls. We get it 23 you feel Sokol should start. No red face from me, I just call out trolls, and people like 23 posting the same stuff over and over. I used to do the same to you Freed, but then the stupid repeating posts keep coming and coming, so I eventually drop it.
Wait, I haven't actually seen Rudock play better than Sokol yet so remaining skeptical is the best I can do. Skeptical meaning please show me in a game that he actually plays better. What did you think? We will see in game 1 how well he plays.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
You've been all over Sokol without having seen anything to suggest he's better. It's one thing to be skeptical of all three guys because we haven't seen them play. It's completely different to favor one guy over the others when we've seen nothing from any of them, especially when there are no other significant factors to support your choice (Rudock having seniority and knowing that's something Ferentz prefers lends support to those who think he will win the job).
I disagree about NW not being comparable. I think only one of our QBs is physically capable and durable enough to run the ball by design. Didn't Wisconsin rotate QBs throughout the year to?
Also, if the rest of the Iowa team was just a little better in 2007 and 2008 and produced just slightly better results, or if JC was just barely better, we might not see Stanzi until 2010.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
If Colter didn't have so much value playing all over the place, he would be the QB full time (or the other guys would). But he does, so he isn't. He brings a lot of value at several positions, including quarterback; but to actually take advantage of what he brings as a wideout or running back, you have to play a second QB by necessity. We don't have anyone like that. Again, apples and oranges.
And yeah, Wisconsin took a while to settle on a QB. They also lost 6 games last year.
Last edited:
FreedComanche
Banned
leroylee3d
Member
I could see Donnal moving to right guard. From what I understand Boffeli is very athletic, perhaps the best on the o-line and with Kirk mentioning after kids day he has "turned the corner" it's his position to keep. I would not be surprised to see Van Sloten, Scherff and Boffeli in the NFL next year.
