C.J. Beathard has been told to tone down the risk-taking at QB.
- Thread starter QChawks
- Start date
I didn't need to read anything to know this. Heck I posted as much in the Moorehouse thread. Kirk turns qb's into robots. I can't wait for him to get out of town.
Ya don't say! (raise your hand if you didn't see this one coming ...................... OK, you 2 can put your hands down now..............).
You all realize they just mean don't throw a deep ball just for the sake of a deep ball, especially into double, triple coverage, right? They want Beathard to take the deep passes that rudock didn't (if they didn't, rudock would still be our starter), just not try to hit players down field or force balls if someone is open. Not the same as checking down even if someone is open downfield
I could not be more disappointed IF this means not to be aggressive and push the envelope. That's the major thing I was looking forward to, CJ playing with his hair on fire. I get that you do not want a ton of stupid turnovers but we need to be aggressive and a turnover is the outcome sometimes. Live with that.
Someone please look up our turnover ratio in 2012's 4-8 season. I think we were close to being in the top 10 at something like +12 for the year. Others have already said this but we had 3-4 first half turnovers against Nebby while building a 17 pt lead. I'm not sure we turned it over in the second half? How many turnovers did OSU have against Oregon in the title game and won?
Doing nothing on a possession should be factored in as a turnover!
Someone please look up our turnover ratio in 2012's 4-8 season. I think we were close to being in the top 10 at something like +12 for the year. Others have already said this but we had 3-4 first half turnovers against Nebby while building a 17 pt lead. I'm not sure we turned it over in the second half? How many turnovers did OSU have against Oregon in the title game and won?
Doing nothing on a possession should be factored in as a turnover!
[QUOTE="Cougar63, post: 621264, member: 6028"]You all realize they just mean don't throw a deep ball just for the sake of a deep ball, especially into double, triple coverage, right? They want Beathard to take the deep passes that rudock didn't (if they didn't, rudock would still be our starter), just not try to hit players down field or force balls if someone is open. Not the same as checking down even if someone is open downfield[/QUOTE]
No, they don't realize it. What I have come to realize is that the average fan/poster on this board is one of the least informed and lack a understanding of football that has become embarrassing. There was a time not that long ago that you could have an intelligent back & forth conversation with other fans that had a good grasp of the game. Over the past couplethree years much of that has been lost and this board has devolved into mostly fools talking to even greater fools.
No, they don't realize it. What I have come to realize is that the average fan/poster on this board is one of the least informed and lack a understanding of football that has become embarrassing. There was a time not that long ago that you could have an intelligent back & forth conversation with other fans that had a good grasp of the game. Over the past couplethree years much of that has been lost and this board has devolved into mostly fools talking to even greater fools.
No, they don't realize it. What I have come to realize is that the average fan/poster on this board is one of the least informed and lack a understanding of football that has become embarrassing. There was a time not that long ago that you could have an intelligent back & forth conversation with other fans that had a good grasp of the game. Over the past couplethree years much of that has been lost and this board has devolved into mostly fools talking to even greater fools.[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with the statement.
The Ferentz is the devil poster doesn't have simple football logic. Anything he says or is repeated by some one on the team will be made to fit their narrative of everything he does hurts the team.
I'd be interested in seeing a quote from an offensive coordinator who has not told his quarterback to limit turnovers.
This should worry you more. A coin flip as to whether he completes a pass.
Beathard has completed 51.3
No, they don't realize it. What I have come to realize is that the average fan/poster on this board is one of the least informed and lack a understanding of football that has become embarrassing. There was a time not that long ago that you could have an intelligent back & forth conversation with other fans that had a good grasp of the game. Over the past couplethree years much of that has been lost and this board has devolved into mostly fools talking to even greater fools.[/QUOTE]
Does that fan with a good grasp of the game grasp not being ranked in the top 25 in 5 years, losing to MAC teams at home, a .500 record at Kinnick, losing all of your trophy games and losing to some of the worst ISU teams they have had in a decade one of which beat no other power 5 teams besides Iowa last year?
Understandable but, we are talking about a guy in Ferentz who has had QBs that have taken risk aversion to what would seem to be an unproductive extreme.
We just went through a season last year with a QB that was afraid to throw the ball even when guys were open.
Obviously everyone wants to limit turnovers but It would be allot better to hear that scoring more points is going to be a focus for improvement.
KF's track record removes any benefit of the doubt that one could give him here
What do you think less turnovers will lead to? Statistically, it leads to more scoring.
Fify. Less turnovers doesn't lead to more scoring when you have such a conservative coach. Some of you guys need to pin your eyes open and rewatch some games from last year. I suggest starting with Ball State. Or Uni, Or Iowa State... Even more special is that the coaches haven't been able to find a guy capable of punting better than a high school kid but they still try to play the field position game.
Last edited:
The success rate of the current head coach is right in line with flipping a coin. Particularly in league games.
The "experts" on here have to realize that risk aversion has led to too many 3 yard out patterns on 3rd and 8, which leads to a punt giving the opponent great field position. This has been the pattern that drives many of us crazy. Sometimes risk aversion leads to winning the turnover battle at the cost of the game.
Factor in that KF went on fourth down in 2014 more than any time in his career. Baby steps for KF. Let's hope he can take some normal steps to advance the offence.
Hope not. Numbers for KF are over a much longer sample set than CJ so who knows.
I was not overly inspired hearing CJ say to a DSM register reporter that the number one msg for this year is taking less risk. I for one think that CJ can stretch the field and make more throws at different times in plays then his predecessor. I dont think throwing down field or using the middle of the field necessarily means being overly risky. I hope that is NOT what he is referring to.
Many want to suggest that the open practice that took place is just that - one practice. It is. But it is all that fans get to see. I dont think its too surprising when a team that has had 5 rough years against modest competition is unable to block anyone and protect the starting QB that fans get worried.
Lol right...Tate, Stanzi, JVB, JR...all got squozed down to lesser risks and the win totals dropped as well...every magic year with KF was a first year starter at QB in his first full year...heck of a trend...
While we can all argue the relative merits (or lack thereof) of KF's overall offensive philosophy....how Doodle reads this is that their basic belief system includes a pretty big differentiation between taking "chances" and taking "risks".
Chances in the KF vernacular are still relatively calculated opportunities that present themselves through work and preparation, result from effort, and have the potential to still succeed at a pretty high rate.
Risks in the KF vernacular are off-the-cuff opportunities that come about mainly as the direct result of applied pressure, and are typically of the "wing and a prayer" variety.
So in other words...
When you see a guy breaking open downfield, even if your footwork, set-up, and the overall development of the play isn't ideal.....go ahead and take that CHANCE.
When you see a guy downfield who is marginally open, but with two defenders in the neighborhood, and the rest of the play is rapidly breaking down all around you.....please try your best not to take that RISK.
At least that's how Doodle reads it.
Chances in the KF vernacular are still relatively calculated opportunities that present themselves through work and preparation, result from effort, and have the potential to still succeed at a pretty high rate.
Risks in the KF vernacular are off-the-cuff opportunities that come about mainly as the direct result of applied pressure, and are typically of the "wing and a prayer" variety.
So in other words...
When you see a guy breaking open downfield, even if your footwork, set-up, and the overall development of the play isn't ideal.....go ahead and take that CHANCE.
When you see a guy downfield who is marginally open, but with two defenders in the neighborhood, and the rest of the play is rapidly breaking down all around you.....please try your best not to take that RISK.
At least that's how Doodle reads it.
Hard to say. In each of those down years, the defenses were not as good in the following years. I remember with Tate and Stanzi (2005/2010) - they both left 4th quarter leads on the table that the defense gave up the leads. I would leave JVB out of the conversation and pin that one on GD.
BUT from just viewing the games- I did feel that Rudock was not as risk prone and left plays on the field when he chose the safer dump-offs. Rick Stanzi, of all people, was dumping it off in the last minute in the WIsc game to AR. He never would have done that in 2008/2009. Remember the 4th qaurter PI call against Penn St in 2008? I doubt that 20101 Stanzi makes that throw - game goes to Penn St.
Does that fan with a good grasp of the game grasp not being ranked in the top 25 in 5 years, losing to MAC teams at home, a .500 record at Kinnick, losing all of your trophy games and losing to some of the worst ISU teams they have had in a decade one of which beat no other power 5 teams besides Iowa last year?[/QUOTE]
We all know the record. We all know, and feel, the disappointment. But none of that squares up the post I was commenting on.
Doodle, that's a good post that is well-reasoned, but my question would be "hasn't that always been the case?" Phrased differently, why does CJ feel a need to comment to the press about that?
FWIW, I think you have to stretch the field and keep the opponent from loading up the box. If that means a turnover or two per game, well, "that's football". If you don't loosen the defense and have a few 3 and outs, that's still losing possession of the ball.
So you're saying that the turnover in Nebraska territory that Rudock threw right to the LB because he was trying to squeeze in a tight pass for a touchdown would've resulted in a punt? That's at least three points off the board right there with that one interception. Guess how many points we needed to win that game in regulation? One point. If we had that interception back and kicked the field goal, we probably win the game and we probably beat Nebraska.
Take off the scarlet and white glasses.
Of course you don't want your QB to make stupid mistakes. On the other hand, if you have a QB who has the capability to make big plays, then it only makes sense to take advantage of that.
Some QB's are able to elevate the talent around them. Brett Favre was one, John Elway another. Not saying CJ is Favre or Elway, but we have seen indications on the field and in interviews with his teammates, where he COULD be the type of player who can elevate the play of others. Instead of trying to rein it in, Kirk should be encouraging it.
With this team, the last thing that needs to happen is to crawl into the usual conservative shell. I harbor no illusions that anything is going to change, but I still can't wait for the season to begin to see just how serious Kirk is about getting the football program back on track.
Some QB's are able to elevate the talent around them. Brett Favre was one, John Elway another. Not saying CJ is Favre or Elway, but we have seen indications on the field and in interviews with his teammates, where he COULD be the type of player who can elevate the play of others. Instead of trying to rein it in, Kirk should be encouraging it.
With this team, the last thing that needs to happen is to crawl into the usual conservative shell. I harbor no illusions that anything is going to change, but I still can't wait for the season to begin to see just how serious Kirk is about getting the football program back on track.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-turnover-margin-per-game
Keep in mind that you want to be negative on this one. Oregon is at the top - the same Oregon that's known for jacking up scores.
That's cool, you guys want more turnovers, have all the turnovers in the world. I'll take Stanzi's orange bowl season over the last season with Shonn Greene any day.
Keep in mind that you want to be negative on this one. Oregon is at the top - the same Oregon that's known for jacking up scores.
That's cool, you guys want more turnovers, have all the turnovers in the world. I'll take Stanzi's orange bowl season over the last season with Shonn Greene any day.
A coach who has no ability to manage a game clock and timeouts and one who continued to punt to their stud lost the game. That interception was just icing on the cake.
Ferentz has typically strived for a balance offensive attack, with the run game being the foundation. If you're looking for B10 teams that more closely fit the Woody Hayes mold then Wisconsin, Minnesota, or even Nebraska would be the best choice.
Jerry Kill is probably the current B10 coach closest in philosophy. In comparison to Bret Bielema, Ferentz looks like a pass happy coach.
Last edited:
KF coaches to field position moreso than he does points. That train of thought is obsolete in today's game and it's the reason why we can't recruit skill positions worth a damn.
He's a solid Sonny Liston while the rest are making Cassius Clays of themselves...
What does that have to do with what I stated about the interception costing points.
The opposing defenses are forcing us to take shots downfield by stacking sometimes 8 or 9 in the box. Pretty hard to run against and really hard to throw short passes on. That is why we have so many 3 and outs on offense, they know we won't or maybe can't take shots downfield to back up the secondary and so they continue to build a wall for us to run against. Must be frustrating for the rb's. It sure is to us fans.
Lucky for Bielema he actually had Tailbacks at the Tailback position. That has to help........................
Similar threads
