The 6 best QB's we've seen this year...

I

Ickehawk

Well-Known Member
In order:
1. Easton Stick 11/19 124 57.9 6.53 24 1 1 3 119.6
2. Billy Bahl 19/29 266 9.2 2 0 67.4
3. Nate Stanley 2/2 45 22.5 0 0 99.5
4. CJ Beathard 11/22 152 6.9 3 1 35.0
5. Jacob Park 8/20 40.0 86 0 1 66.1
6. Joel Lanning 6 15 40.0 79 0 0 84.2

CJ FOR HEISMAN, CJ FOR HEISMAN........LOL. You guys GET IT yet????
 
After having to put up with Jake rudock and jake christensen not to mention a bunch of no names in the early to mid 2000's, cj is a god.
 
Going this route does not fit the personality you're trying to troll with. You're pretending you are some football genius the whole time, now out of nowhere you're switching up and pretending to be an idiot who thinks the backup QB is better after seeing two throws. You call everyone an idiot for not trusting the coaches were playing the right QB two years ago, now you're calling the coaches out for playing the wrong QB now. Not that I ever had much doubt what you've been doing here the whole time but this pretty much clears it up for the one guy on here that actually thought you were legit. I'm looking at you Dean.
 
Ickehawk said:
In order:
1. Easton Stick 11/19 124 57.9 6.53 24 1 1 3 119.6
2. Billy Bahl 19/29 266 9.2 2 0 67.4
3. Nate Stanley 2/2 45 22.5 0 0 99.5
4. CJ Beathard 11/22 152 6.9 3 1 35.0
5. Jacob Park 8/20 40.0 86 0 1 66.1
6. Joel Lanning 6 15 40.0 79 0 0 84.2

CJ FOR HEISMAN, CJ FOR HEISMAN........LOL. You guys GET IT yet????
Click to expand...

You think yesterdays loss was on CJ? LOL man, I am embarrassed that I actually thought you understood football. PC was right all along, you are a fraud/troll who literally knows nothing about football.
 
deanvogs said:
You think yesterdays loss was on CJ? LOL man, I am embarrassed that I actually thought you understood football. PC was right all along, you are a fraud/troll who literally knows nothing about football.
Click to expand...

I wish Gamefilm didn't want to take the high road and would point out all the things that's wrong with what he said when throwing out football terms.

He most be getting bored with his act tho to be so obvious now. He makes fun of people all the time for thinking certain players are better than others when they don't have enough to go off of. Now he says Stanley is better because he made the same throw CJ missed one time. There is no way that is anything else than a blatant attempt to push trolling to another level because he's getting bored.
 
Not trolling, but if you guys are going to 'live by the sword', then you have to 'die by the sword'...
1. These are the type of games we lost in 2014 and they were ALL JR's fault according to some of you, so this game is ALL on CJ...Live by the sword, die by the sword.

2. According to you some of you and the announcers of the game, CJ has full reins over the 'play calling', so you can't blame the OC because CJ didn't get us into 'good plays'. You claim we won all those games last year because HE got us into 'good plays', so when we lose, obviously he didn't get us into 'good plays'. Can't have it both ways. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

3. I told you guys NUMEROUS times that our success last year was based on a strong run game, stopping the run, and turnover margin and capitalizing on turnovers. Some of you said it had nothing to do with that, it was ALL because of CJ, so we can't blame this lose on running the ball, stopping the run and losing the TO battle (yes, we lost the TO battle because they scored off our turnover) it is ALL on CJ....Live by the sword, die by the sword.....

4. When we won all those games last year, even when CJ played like crap (NW, Wisc, Neb, Stanford) we won because of his LEADERSHIP and couldn't have won those games with any other QB. Well, apparently, he wasn't a great LEADER yesterday, so the loss is on him. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

5. Anyone who thinks CJ played a great game yesterday certainly probably doesn't know what they are looking at or just sees what they 'want' to see. He didn't make good 'checks'. He was horribly inconsistent accuracy wise (yes there were a couple drops on one series). He missed hot routes and was slow in his progressions (which is his biggest weakness). And he doesn't look very 'mobile' this year. You will say 'oh, but he's hurt', well that 'excuse' doesn't appear to work for JR or anyone else....Live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you folks are going to CONTINUE to insist that we won all those games because of your hero CJ, then when we lose be willing to fall on your sword and blame it on CJ....Live by the sword, die by the sword....you can't have it both ways
 
Ickehawk said:
In order:
1. Easton Stick 11/19 124 57.9 6.53 24 1 1 3 119.6
2. Billy Bahl 19/29 266 9.2 2 0 67.4
3. Nate Stanley 2/2 45 22.5 0 0 99.5
4. CJ Beathard 11/22 152 6.9 3 1 35.0
5. Jacob Park 8/20 40.0 86 0 1 66.1
6. Joel Lanning 6 15 40.0 79 0 0 84.2

CJ FOR HEISMAN, CJ FOR HEISMAN........LOL. You guys GET IT yet????
Click to expand...

You missed something huge. How does a Big Ten team not have several legit receivers? Vandenberg is a fine #2. When the TE is the main target it had better be because the D has more than they can handle and are concentrating on the very fine receiver and not because they've completely shut down the receivers. You also need D1 starting speed at RB. Btw, Wadley averaged 5 yards on a sore knee in limited action. LOL.... Get it?
 
Ickehawk said:
Not trolling, but if you guys are going to 'live by the sword', then you have to 'die by the sword'...
1. These are the type of games we lost in 2014 and they were ALL JR's fault according to some of you, so this game is ALL on CJ...Live by the sword, die by the sword.

2. According to you some of you and the announcers of the game, CJ has full reins over the 'play calling', so you can't blame the OC because CJ didn't get us into 'good plays'. You claim we won all those games last year because HE got us into 'good plays', so when we lose, obviously he didn't get us into 'good plays'. Can't have it both ways. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

3. I told you guys NUMEROUS times that our success last year was based on a strong run game, stopping the run, and turnover margin and capitalizing on turnovers. Some of you said it had nothing to do with that, it was ALL because of CJ, so we can't blame this lose on running the ball, stopping the run and losing the TO battle (yes, we lost the TO battle because they scored off our turnover) it is ALL on CJ....Live by the sword, die by the sword.....

4. When we won all those games last year, even when CJ played like crap (NW, Wisc, Neb, Stanford) we won because of his LEADERSHIP and couldn't have won those games with any other QB. Well, apparently, he wasn't a great LEADER yesterday, so the loss is on him. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

5. Anyone who thinks CJ played a great game yesterday certainly probably doesn't know what they are looking at or just sees what they 'want' to see. He didn't make good 'checks'. He was horribly inconsistent accuracy wise (yes there were a couple drops on one series). He missed hot routes and was slow in his progressions (which is his biggest weakness). And he doesn't look very 'mobile' this year. You will say 'oh, but he's hurt', well that 'excuse' doesn't appear to work for JR or anyone else....Live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you folks are going to CONTINUE to insist that we won all those games because of your hero CJ, then when we lose be willing to fall on your sword and blame it on CJ....Live by the sword, die by the sword....you can't have it both ways
Click to expand...

Iowa won those games last year because he played more wreckessly on a team that was very solid as opposed to a QB who didn't take chances. Senior QBs at Iowa that started in years past don't play the way they did previously. What is missing is a lock down D, great line play, and a break away receiver. Knowing very well about knee injuries, I would expect that has an impact. And yes you are very good at trolling.
 
There are only two things that are certain in Life, Death and Icke being a douche. This thread coming after Icke explained how great our run defense was against Iowa State...despite the Miami game warning and the fact that Iowa State still averaged over four yards a carry despite the limited number of runs.

I wonder if CJ would have performed better if he wasn't under pressure on every pass play. You are right, he gets us in and out of plays, but when you have no protection...it's an issue regardless.
 
Don't waste thought out responses on icke. Just give him enough so he writes another book, or his super duper impressive resume.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
There are only two things that are certain in Life, Death and Icke being a douche. This thread coming after Icke explained how great our run defense was against Iowa State...despite the Miami game warning and the fact that Iowa State still averaged over four yards a carry despite the limited number of runs.

I wonder if CJ would have performed better if he wasn't under pressure on every pass play. You are right, he gets us in and out of plays, but when you have no protection...it's an issue regardless.
Click to expand...
Two things...show me where I said our run defense was so 'great' against Iowa St.? And show me 'all the pressure' CJ was under. You can't and you won't.....and I've no doubt that my 'live by the sword' post went beyond the ken of people like yourself who have very limited cognition. Always good hearing from you. Thanks for your 'opinions', lol....
 
HawkeyeWalker said:
Lots of words.
Click to expand...
I know, right! The 'attention span' of the average american, like yourself, has dwindled to between 10-30 words. That's all people of your 'means' can somewhat decipher at any given time, and normally struggle with that. The dumbing down of america continues, and message boards are living proof of it. Oops, I went over 30 words, you'll be 'lost'...
 
Ickehawk said:
Two things...show me where I said our run defense was so 'great' against Iowa St.? And show me 'all the pressure' CJ was under. You can't and you won't.....and I've no doubt that my 'live by the sword' post went beyond the ken of people like yourself who have very limited cognition. Always good hearing from you. Thanks for your 'opinions', lol....
Click to expand...

Here are your words, IckeDouche. Read em' and weep. You posted this in the "Defense" thread from last week.

"Like I said, why do you post things when you obviously know little about football and Iowa's technique? The D-line is not supposed to 'penetrate' in the 'run game'. The are supposed to fight to heel deep and control their gap responsibility. Stalemating the O-line is acceptable, penetrating to deep opens up 'natural' holes. And they blitzed at least 3 times that I remember (I can probably find more if I go back and look) so why would you say 'no blitzing'? We have 'depth' on our defensive line, do you mean 'better' depth? Faith played well. We gave up like 60 yds. rushing and no TD's and you're complaining about the defense, lol. What would it take for you to think they played good defense? -100 yds. rushing and 5 safeties??? We were favored heavily the last time we played Iowa St. at home, AND GAVE UP 20 POINTS and LOST with Jim Reid coaching us. Please enlighten us more with your 'brilliant' opinions, lol. You're a hoot!!!"

You don't think CJ was under pressure yesterday. Hell, one of the TD's to Vandenburg was a play he made, avoiding the rush, rolling right and making a play. How many sacks yesterday?...the INT...hit during the throw. You are flat out a very bad troll. Can you give me your resume again...and how many clinics you have been to...it just reinforces what a moron you are.
 
Ickehawk said:
I know, right! The 'attention span' of the average american, like yourself, has dwindled to between 10-30 words. That's all people of your 'means' can somewhat decipher at any given time, and normally struggle with that. The dumbing down of america continues, and message boards are living proof of it. Oops, I went over 30 words, you'll be 'lost'...
Click to expand...

Usually when morons point out others faults, it's because they emulate them. Here I'll help you:

EMULATE: match or surpass (a person or achievement), typically by imitation.
"lesser men trying to emulate his greatness"
synonyms: imitate, copy, mirror, echo, follow, model oneself on;
 
Ickehawk said:
I know, right! The 'attention span' of the average american, like yourself, has dwindled to between 10-30 words. That's all people of your 'means' can somewhat decipher at any given time, and normally struggle with that. The dumbing down of america continues, and message boards are living proof of it. Oops, I went over 30 words, you'll be 'lost'...
Click to expand...

Oh icke. Too easy. Just entertainment for ya, right?
 
Ickehawk said:
Not trolling, but if you guys are going to 'live by the sword', then you have to 'die by the sword'...
1. These are the type of games we lost in 2014 and they were ALL JR's fault according to some of you, so this game is ALL on CJ...Live by the sword, die by the sword.

2. According to you some of you and the announcers of the game, CJ has full reins over the 'play calling', so you can't blame the OC because CJ didn't get us into 'good plays'. You claim we won all those games last year because HE got us into 'good plays', so when we lose, obviously he didn't get us into 'good plays'. Can't have it both ways. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

3. I told you guys NUMEROUS times that our success last year was based on a strong run game, stopping the run, and turnover margin and capitalizing on turnovers. Some of you said it had nothing to do with that, it was ALL because of CJ, so we can't blame this lose on running the ball, stopping the run and losing the TO battle (yes, we lost the TO battle because they scored off our turnover) it is ALL on CJ....Live by the sword, die by the sword.....

4. When we won all those games last year, even when CJ played like crap (NW, Wisc, Neb, Stanford) we won because of his LEADERSHIP and couldn't have won those games with any other QB. Well, apparently, he wasn't a great LEADER yesterday, so the loss is on him. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

5. Anyone who thinks CJ played a great game yesterday certainly probably doesn't know what they are looking at or just sees what they 'want' to see. He didn't make good 'checks'. He was horribly inconsistent accuracy wise (yes there were a couple drops on one series). He missed hot routes and was slow in his progressions (which is his biggest weakness). And he doesn't look very 'mobile' this year. You will say 'oh, but he's hurt', well that 'excuse' doesn't appear to work for JR or anyone else....Live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you folks are going to CONTINUE to insist that we won all those games because of your hero CJ, then when we lose be willing to fall on your sword and blame it on CJ....Live by the sword, die by the sword....you can't have it both ways
Click to expand...

CJ won us lots of games we easily could have lost because he made plays necessary to win. You need that from the QB position and Rudock didn't provide it. He wasn't the reason we lost games, he just was never a reason we won either. CJ could have made plays in those games and got us wins.

CJ never had a chance to win the game against MSU because there was no time left when they took the lead. Against North Dakota State, he never really had a chance either because we had the ball for 3 plays in the last 12 minutes or so of the game. Those 3 plays were run, run, quick sack. You can say he should have checked out of the runs but in that situation there is a good chance he was told not to.

You like to talk about our run defense last year but it got absolutely gouged the last 4 games or so and we still won them.

It's one thing to say we lost because of CJ (we didn't, he just didn't do anything to win it either). But it's another to say Stanley is better.

Your post rips on CJ worse than most of the posts you call out for ripping players. Another example of why you're full of crap.
 
Now he's saying CJ wasn't under pressure lol. He also said CJ "gave the other team the ball" on the int.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top