against purdue his receivers dropped 7 or 8 passes that hit them in the hands in the first half. despite the poor receiver play CJ led 4 scoring drives and 2 more drives that ended inside Purdue's 10 yard line when they went for it on 4th down and did not convert.
that's 6 scoring drives in my book if they take the extra point FG's in his first start. that is damn good. but again, you wouldn't have heard that out of the Head Coach. he had his favorite to promote and install back into the lineup.
KF did not treat CJB fair last year and he nearly left the damn program. if some of you can't get that through your thick skulls i can't help you.
thank God some folks stood up to Kirk including CJ's father.
Do you think it matters how players perform in practices? Do you think it matters how much time players spend watching film, studying the playbook, and in the weight room? If you do not believe these things matter, then we can end the discussion at that; we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, if you do believe those things matter, then my question (as I asked before) is: do you have knowledge about how CJ performed in practice, how well he knew the playbook, or how well he commanded the huddle last year?
Part of the culture of Iowa football (when we have excelled under Ferentz) is having a team full of hard working players. In order to produce that culture, sometimes coaches need to sit more physically gifted players if they are not doing well in practice, do not know the playbook, and/or do not demonstrate strong leadership qualities. If this weren't the case, then the most physically gifted players would have little incentive to work as hard as less physically gifted players because they know that they will still play regardless of how much effort they put into practice, studying the playbook, or watching gamefilm.
With that said, I think everyone can agree that it is obvious CJ is more physically gifted than Jake ever was. This was true from the moment he stepped on campus. However, what those outside of the football program don't know is how CJ performed in practice, whether he had a thorough understanding of offensive and defensive schemes, and whether he demonstrated intangible qualities that you look for in a leader.
From what we have heard from the coaches is that CJ has made tremendous strides in these intangible qualities, and that they are impressed with his quick maturation into a team leader. You don't seem believe them because you say this is just coach-speak. In certain situations, I would be inclined to agree with you. Coaches are careful with what they disclose to the media, and you can't take everything they say at face value. So in this situation, if we assume for hypothetical purposes that the coaches are wrong to say that CJ has matured since being named the starter, that means that he was (1) the most physically gifted QB on the team last year, and (2) he was as good of a leader (or better) than Jake and knew the playbook just as well (or better), and displayed that he could make as good of decisions with the ball as Jake (or better), and the coaches still chose to sit him.
Under such an assumption, there are only two possible reasons why the coaches would have sat CJ: (1) they were playing favorites, or (2) they are incompetent. All of these coaches have their jobs and reputation on the line if they don't win. I find it hard to believe that any of these coaches would jeopardize their jobs and reputations by playing favorites. Moreover, if they would play favorites to the extent it would jeopardize winning football games, then that would then essentially lead one to conclude that they are incompetent at their jobs (
i.e., winning football games). Obviously these coaches are not infallible. They make mistakes like anyone else. Since 2009, the results at Iowa have not been good. However, we have still gone to bowl games in 4 out of 5 seasons since then and have produced many NFL players. Kirk and his staff have finished in the top 10 four different times while at Iowa and have won two Big 10 championships. Incompetent coaches do not stumble into that kind of success, even with a lot of luck. Kirk may not be the best coach in the country, or in the Big 10, but given his track record, I think it is safe to say he is a good coach.
In summary, this does not mean that Kirk necessarily made the right decision to start Rudock last year. However, it is safe to say that Kirk had rational reasons for starting Rudock, and the decision is not as black and white as many portray it to be. There is little reason to disbelieve the coaches when they say CJ has matured tremendously in the last 11 months. To disbelieve this notion is to essentially believe that a team from Iowa ranked 5th in the country was assembled by a group of incompetent coaches. I find that theory far-fetched.
