Time to Start a Mobile QB Who Can Use His Legs

ChosenChildren

ChosenChildren

Well-Known Member
We have that guy on our roster. When he has played, he has played well. Rudock has limited arm strength, limited mobility, and very little poise when pressured. Beathard is faster with a stronger arm. Will Beathard make mistakes? Of course he will, but so has Rudock. What is the down side now?

Come on Coach, it's time to make a change. Play Mr. Beathard. Send a message to this team that you will think outside of the box a little bit. Take some risk. Play Beathard in the first half of the Illinois game. If he plays well, leave him in there. If he doesn't, put Rudock back in.

Coach Ferentz, this is an average team that needs a spark. Beathard could be that spark. Wake up, Coach
 
Mobile quarterbacks give you a HUGE advantage, at the college level. Does not always at the pro level, where everyone runs a 4.6. However, CJ's potential is too high for the likes of a guy like KF. He will have to 'wait his turn' like everyone else in his program.
 
It's far too late. Like every change he's ever made. Wait until it's a burning heap. We're 6-3 in Kirk's mind. Said it himself. "Every 3 games we play poorly."
Pay no attention to the fact we haven't beaten a ranked team in 3 years or been ranked in 4 or beaten a team with a winning record this year. Bottom line is 6-3. Right where we want to be. With a chance to win the mac division of the big ten.
 
The defense isn't good enough to be constantly put into bad spots. Putting in a QB that takes many more risks, which could potentially put the defense in bar spots is, playing with fire.
 
I'm not often a player in the jake vs CJ game but given our o lines issues with protection it seems s more mobile QB might be smart. We'd probably get a few more INTs but the risk might be worth it.
 
Eda said:
The defense isn't good enough to be constantly put into bad spots. Putting in a QB that takes many more risks, which could potentially put the defense in bar spots is, playing with fire.
Click to expand...


You mean like 51-14 fire? Or like close loss fire? Or like best win of the season (pitt) fire?
Ultimately I agree it won't fix our problems at this point. The time to make the change was ball state. It's too late now. I don't think putting CJ in as the starter right now would be good for him.
 
Drive summary with Rudock against Minnie: 7 punts, 2 fumbles, 1 INT and 1 TD.
Rudock really seems to struggle on windy cold days. I doubt it would have been that bad with CJ playing whole game. I think CJ has a big advantage on days like that.
 
Eda said:
The defense isn't good enough to be constantly put into bad spots. Putting in a QB that takes many more risks, which could potentially put the defense in bar spots is, playing with fire.
Click to expand...

Huh? Minnesota scored almost every drive so I don't see how it could have been any worse, risks or not. We could have given them the ball on the Iowa 10 yard line every drive and the results wouldn't have changed much. Actually, it might have been better because our D wouldn't have been gassed and we might have held them to a field goal here and there.

The worse the defense plays the more risks you should take on offense. We aren't good enough to rely on a game manager. We never are at Iowa, with very few exceptions.

Besides it's not about taking risks, it about having the talent to complete passes, not just checkdowns.
 
Last edited:
clim said:
I'm not often a player in the jake vs CJ game but given our o lines issues with protection it seems s more mobile QB might be smart. We'd probably get a few more INTs but the risk might be worth it.
Click to expand...

Do people know that the weakness of the oline is one of the reasons jc got the nod. He was more mobile than stanzi and they knew they needed the mobility. Yet he still got sacked like 50 times. Switching won't ensure victory or better results. In fact the limited amount we have seen beathard doesn't give me any ease to think anything will get better. Ryan leaf supposedly had more talent than Peyton manning. How did that work out for the two? I am not saying that beathard shouldn't play, but everyone that think that miraculously everything will be better is wrong. There are fixes that need to be made. Yet a guy like rudock has played better and has earned his spot. I find it hysterical that people really think coaches intentionally play someone knowing they are not as good as another player. Djk had great talent and was always in the KF doghouse yet he seemed to always be playing outside of losing a starting snap here or there. When players earn their position KF plays them.
 
hwk23 said:
Drive summary with Rudock against Minnie: 7 punts, 2 fumbles, 1 INT and 1 TD.
Rudock really seems to struggle on windy cold days. I doubt it would have been that bad with CJ playing whole game. I think CJ has a big advantage on days like that.
Click to expand...
And one of those punts was at least partially blocked. What's worse is that MN capitalized on those turnovers. We needed CJ's arm in the swirly wind of TCFB instead we saw the under throw that everybody knew was eventually coming. Imagine if at least two of those turnovers had become successful drives! Totally different game. Instead we were out played, out coached and out quarterbacked.
 
Foval21 said:
Do people know that the weakness of the oline is one of the reasons jc got the nod. He was more mobile than stanzi and they knew they needed the mobility. Yet he still got sacked like 50 times. Switching won't ensure victory or better results. In fact the limited amount we have seen beathard doesn't give me any ease to think anything will get better. Ryan leaf supposedly had more talent than Peyton manning. How did that work out for the two? I am not saying that beathard shouldn't play, but everyone that think that miraculously everything will be better is wrong. There are fixes that need to be made. Yet a guy like rudock has played better and has earned his spot. I find it hysterical that people really think coaches intentionally play someone knowing they are not as good as another player. Djk had great talent and was always in the KF doghouse yet he seemed to always be playing outside of losing a starting snap here or there. When players earn their position KF plays them.
Click to expand...


Where did you get the idea that people think Kirk intentionally plays the worse player?
 
PCHawk said:
Where did you get the idea that people think Kirk intentionally plays the worse player?
Click to expand...

When players say the back up is better then they are saying the coach is playing the worse player. Since he chooses the players they are saying he is intentionally playing a worse player because he likes the kid more. Yet I believe djk was not kf's favorite yet he still played.
 
Foval21 said:
When players say the back up is better then they are saying the coach is playing the worse player. Since he chooses the players they are saying he is intentionally playing a worse player because he likes the kid more. Yet I believe djk was not kf's favorite yet he still played.
Click to expand...

Either that or they are saying exactly what has been written on here a million times. Kirk's way he evaluates players is jacked up. In his mind he is playing the better player. The better player to him is the one who over achieves his athletic potential. Not a single person ever realistically thinks he picks the player that is worse in his mind.
 
This mobile QB who can use his legs won't matter unless this mobile QB is moved to LB.
 
I absolutely believe CJ should have played after Jakes second turnover. I also believe JR is a "momentum / confidence " QB that can be effective, until he...isn't. KF and GD are paid to know when to make the switch...and they appear to NOT know....

That said, as much as most, including me, think JR needs a shorter leash, and CJ should play more...there are bigger issues that lead to getting pummeled the way we did.

But unless CJ can also play Dline, LB, and Safety, we still lose that game by 2+ touchdowns.
 
Last edited:
hwk23 said:
Huh? Minnesota scored almost every drive so I don't see how it could have been any worse, risks or not. We could have given them the ball on the Iowa 10 yard line every drive and the results wouldn't have changed much. Actually, it might have been better because our D wouldn't have been gassed and we might have held them to a field goal here and there.

The worse the defense plays the more risks you should take on offense. We aren't good enough to rely on a game manager. We never are at Iowa, with very few exceptions.

Besides it's not about taking risks, it about having the talent to complete passes, not just checkdowns.
Click to expand...

The defense didn't stop a thing. The oline let an undersized dline thru without much resistance. The running game was shut down. The kicking game was turrible. The coaches didn't make adjustments to counter any of minny's success. It doesn't matter who took the snaps. Even when CJ came in late in the game, he was still under duress nearly every down. It was an all around beatdown.

This thread shiuld not be.
 
When your opponent scores 51 points I would suggest that the quarterback position isn't where you look first for game changing results.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top