QB Room

[RomanHawk]

It is accurate in the sense of that's how they practice. It's standard practice at every level of college/pro football, because the risks far outweigh the positives.

If your QB gets hurt going live in practice, you're basically ****ed. They've taken starters' reps, developed a rapport with the OL/WRs, makes their reads a certain way, understands the offense and audibles, etc. If you have to go to the 2nd guy, not only are you likely getting a downgrade in play, but now you have to get the rest of the offense used to his cadence, timing, throwing style, etc.

It's not even close to worth it. If it was, more teams would ditch the red jerseys, but they don't.

This post appears to be a combination of ignorance with maybe a copy of a report by one of our opponents on how Iowa can "maintain their offensive underperformance".

An attempt is made to make the parts of offensive football fitting together sound like the parts of a swiss watch. They aren't, especially not Iowa's. Part of the reason players get to this level is their ability to adapt-to different styles, timing, leadership. etc. That adaptation is accomplished at practice. Any setback is far exceeded by even a 10% improvement in QB play. And Iowa's offense needs strong QB performance more than most teams because of the need to offset scheme deficiencies.

So Iowa MUST find their most productive QB and the one with the broadest skill set. The only way to do that is game=conditions environment. A risk? Yes, but one they can't afford not to take.

Not that what others do should be followed because WE need to find solutions to OUR problems, but you're also wrong about others. OSU won a NC with a third string QB. The starter got hurt in fall practice (not in the spring when he would have had time to heal). They took a risk because risks have to be taken when aiming for the top. And because of their overall talent, finding the best QB is more critical to Iowa's sucess than it is to OSU's.

There are countless other examples of teams doing whatever is necessary to find the best guy in spite of some risk--college spring games, NFL preseason games,... The largest risk possible is not doing whatever needs to be done to truly find the best option.

 

[Frosty7130]

This post appears to be a combination of ignorance with maybe a copy of a report by one of our opponents on how Iowa can "maintain their offensive underperformance".

An attempt is made to make the parts of offensive football fitting together sound like the parts of a swiss watch. They aren't, especially not Iowa's. Part of the reason players get to this level is their ability to adapt-to different styles, timing, leadership. etc. That adaptation is accomplished at practice. Any setback is far exceeded by even a 10% improvement in QB play. And Iowa's offense needs strong QB performance more than most teams because of the need to offset scheme deficiencies.

So Iowa MUST find their most productive QB and the one with the broadest skill set. The only way to do that is game=conditions environment. A risk? Yes, but one they can't afford not to take.

Not that what others do should be followed because WE need to find solutions to OUR problems, but you're also wrong about others. OSU won a NC with a third string QB. The starter got hurt in fall practice (not in the spring when he would have had time to heal). They took a risk because risks have to be taken when aiming for the top. And because of their overall talent, finding the best QB is more critical to Iowa's sucess than it is to OSU's.

There are countless other examples of teams doing whatever is necessary to find the best guy in spite of some risk--college spring games, NFL preseason games,... The largest risk possible is not doing whatever needs to be done to truly find the best option.

You do realize Braxton Miller's torn labrum was a non-contact injury, right? Or that JT Barrett broke his ankle in a game?

Ohio State QB Braxton Miller out for season with torn labrum

Ohio State QB Braxton Miller is out for the 2014 season with a torn labrum injury in his throwing shoulder.

www.si.com

QBs don't get hit in college spring games either. Starting NFL QBs rarely get touched in preseason games, and the only reason the backups are live is because NFL teams can go out and sign another one, which colleges cannot do.

Again, find me ONE concrete example of any college or professional team that allows their QBs to be hit in practice. If it was a good idea, somebody would already be doing it. But they're not, because it's stupid.

Of all the proposals I've ever heard to improve QB play, "let them get hit in practice" is the most nonsensical.

But you won't listen because you somehow have it figured out despite never doing an ounce of coaching, and I suspect never having played past the HS level.

 

[cidhawkeye]

This post appears to be a combination of ignorance with maybe a copy of a report by one of our opponents on how Iowa can "maintain their offensive underperformance".

An attempt is made to make the parts of offensive football fitting together sound like the parts of a swiss watch. They aren't, especially not Iowa's. Part of the reason players get to this level is their ability to adapt-to different styles, timing, leadership. etc. That adaptation is accomplished at practice. Any setback is far exceeded by even a 10% improvement in QB play. And Iowa's offense needs strong QB performance more than most teams because of the need to offset scheme deficiencies.

So Iowa MUST find their most productive QB and the one with the broadest skill set. The only way to do that is game=conditions environment. A risk? Yes, but one they can't afford not to take.

Not that what others do should be followed because WE need to find solutions to OUR problems, but you're also wrong about others. OSU won a NC with a third string QB. The starter got hurt in fall practice (not in the spring when he would have had time to heal). They took a risk because risks have to be taken when aiming for the top. And because of their overall talent, finding the best QB is more critical to Iowa's sucess than it is to OSU's.

There are countless other examples of teams doing whatever is necessary to find the best guy in spite of some risk--college spring games, NFL preseason games,... The largest risk possible is not doing whatever needs to be done to truly find the best option.

Urban took a huge risk playing his 3rd string quarterback after the first two got hurt. Very courageous and very visionary to take that bold move. Everyone knows the 4th string quarterback would have been the more logical choice. Who would have known that the 12 ranked pro style quarterback in his class could have performed like that? He went out on a ledge there.

 

[wondergrape]

In an attempt to create an olive branch:


Can we all agree that if SP has not drastically improved and if he truly still is the best option our "QB room" as the OP discusses is in dire straits?

Be positive fans, there is no way a tenured coach such as Ferentz would have allowed an entire year of free agency to go by, where he could have brought in a fairly plug and play QB, and not seen drastic improvement over the shower of shit that was 14 of the last 16 halves.

I think we should just all agree never to use the phrase "qb room" ever again and go from there.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Your first two are really puzzling. I was in the stadium for the Michigan game that boos rained down every time Kirk trotted McCann back out for another 3rd and out. Banks scored 10 points on 3 possessions.

Go look at Stanzi's stats compared to Jake's in the Pitt game. Stanzi got benched all second half Jake was a trainwreck the whole 2nd half. Had that game been at Kinnick, KF would have been booed off the field

I was also in the stadium. You had to see the plays where Brad was moving his head around like cat in a room full of rocking chairs. So did you see both times Brad ran OB short of the line to gain without pressure, once on 3rd down, or were in the pisser for those? You're also cherry picking Brad's best game and projecting that performance in every other game. We don't need to do that because we actually saw Brad in other games where his play was unlike any other thing.

I did look at the stats before I posted anything. This "because he had the audacity to try to score in the last 2 minutes before half" is a fundamentally absurd thing to defend. The players do not decide the game plan. Ricky had been previously told that he had to stick to the game plan. He didn't, again-and mismanaged the clock according to the game plan. You want to turn the game plan over to a 19 year old playing in his third game, you think that's a way to winning football games? That's certainly how it reads. There have to be consequences for ignoring the coaches, even by the starting QB.

Your statement was either made without any thought for its implications on team discipline or betrays a fundamental hostility to the KF administration so you're willing to jump on anything, regardless of its implications or sensibility, to attack Ferentz. Either way the argument fails because it lacks merit.

 

[jon55]

I was also in the stadium. You had to see the plays where Brad was moving his head around like cat in a room full of rocking chairs. So did you see both times Brad ran OB short of the line to gain without pressure, once on 3rd down, or were in the pisser for those? You're also cherry picking Brad's best game and projecting that performance in every other game. We don't need to do that because we actually saw Brad in other games where his play was unlike any other thing.

I did look at the stats before I posted anything. This "because he had the audacity to try to score in the last 2 minutes before half" is a fundamentally absurd thing to defend. The players do not decide the game plan. Ricky had been previously told that he had to stick to the game plan. He didn't, again-and mismanaged the clock according to the game plan. You want to turn the game plan over to a 19 year old playing in his third game, you think that's a way to winning football games? That's certainly how it reads. There have to be consequences for ignoring the coaches, even by the starting QB.

Your statement was either made without any thought for its implications on team discipline or betrays a fundamental hostility to the KF administration so you're willing to jump on anything, regardless of its implications or sensibility, to attack Ferentz. Either way the argument fails because it lacks merit.

He was 5/8 passing with 1 TD and had 19 yards on 3 carries that game. That's a 173 passer rating. Not bad for a cat on a rocking chair. Oh and the out of bounds run short of the 1st was the only time Michigan stopped him unlike the 2 TOs and half a dozen punts McCann caused.

But by all means Kyle McCann and his 96 passer rating that game with 0 TDs and 2 Ints was better. Good grief.

The guys in the pisser hearing the 60 thousand boos apparently were more in tune with which QB was having the better game than you.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

He was 5/8 passing with 1 TD and had 19 yards on 3 carries that game. That's a 173 passer rating. Not bad for a cat on a rocking chair. Oh and the out of bounds run short of the 1st was the only time Michigan stopped him unlike the 2 TOs and half a dozen punts McCann caused.

But by all means Kyle McCann and his 96 passer rating that game with 0 TDs and 2 Ints was better. Good grief.

The guys in the pisser hearing the 60 thousand boos apparently were more in tune with which QB was having the better game than you.

Starting with the last sentence first. The crowd reaction doesn't really prove anything. The entire audience in Kinnick lacks the collective knowledge of football that the coaches possess. Arguing the truth of something by appealing to the popularity of the crowd (fallacy ad populum-been around since my Greek ancestors invented organized logic along with the rest of Western Civilization) is right after ad hominem attack as a fatally flawed argument.

You are making the common mistake of the Banks 2001 position. You are projecting 20-25 downs as the norm we would have seen all season. But Brad played in other games and did not reproduce that level of play, anytime. It was just a flash of the future, but a flash nonetheless.

Its like saying Jack Nunge was a good three point shooter but take away only 3 maybe 4 games of a 22 game season and he's in the teens.

A good rule of life, few are as bad as they are on their worst day nor as good as their best day. BB had potential but he was not as reliable and stable as Kyle...and that team had no margin for "potential". The entire season proved that, and anything else is the wildest of optimistic speculation asserted as fact.

 

[RomanHawk]

You do realize Braxton Miller's torn labrum was a non-contact injury, right? Or that JT Barrett broke his ankle in a game?

Ohio State QB Braxton Miller out for season with torn labrum

Ohio State QB Braxton Miller is out for the 2014 season with a torn labrum injury in his throwing shoulder.

www.si.com

QBs don't get hit in college spring games either. Starting NFL QBs rarely get touched in preseason games, and the only reason the backups are live is because NFL teams can go out and sign another one, which colleges cannot do.

Again, find me ONE concrete example of any college or professional team that allows their QBs to be hit in practice. If it was a good idea, somebody would already be doing it. But they're not, because it's stupid.

Of all the proposals I've ever heard to improve QB play, "let them get hit in practice" is the most nonsensical.

But you won't listen because you somehow have it figured out despite never doing an ounce of coaching, and I suspect never having played past the HS level.

You'd be wrong again but I love it when those without a valid argument revert to the "you haven't coached or played" shelter.

This boils down to nothing more than risk/ reward analysis. If the returning QB is clearly outstanding, then yes, it makes sense to provide some elements of protection. But when the returner has underperformed, it's absolutely essential to find out what else may be available. To not do so is beyond risk adverse; it's derelict. We don't know if we have better, but when we have 2 untested QBs
who had SEC offers, it makes a lot of sense to find out. We will never do better than 8-4 without QB play at a higher level. That's the risk.

In addition to the competition, we need the improvement that comes only from live play. The lack of that has been apparent at the QB position for years. Our last guy became good at QB sneaks after 2 years but probably cost us at least one game his first year because he had such poor technique. There has been a sprinkling of other "deer in the headlights" situations that add to the inescapable conclusion that they are not being prepared for "the real bullets flying".

 

[Frosty7130]

You'd be wrong again but I love it when those without a valid argument revert to the "you haven't coached or played" shelter.

This boils down to nothing more than risk/ reward analysis. If the returning QB is clearly outstanding, then yes, it makes sense to provide some elements of protection. But when the returner has underperformed, it's absolutely essential to find out what else may be available. To not do so is beyond risk adverse; it's derelict. We don't know if we have better, but when we have 2 untested QBs
who had SEC offers, it makes a lot of sense to find out. We will never do better than 8-4 without QB play at a higher level. That's the risk.

In addition to the competition, we need the improvement that comes only from live play. The lack of that has been apparent at the QB position for years. Our last guy became good at QB sneaks after 2 years but probably cost us at least one game his first year because he had such poor technique. There has been a sprinkling of other "deer in the headlights" situations that add to the inescapable conclusion that they are not being prepared for "the real bullets flying".

And yet you have yet to name a single team that does it.

For like the 5th time, if it was a good idea, someone would be doing it already.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

You'd be wrong again but I love it when those without a valid argument revert to the "you haven't coached or played" shelter.

This boils down to nothing more than risk/ reward analysis. If the returning QB is clearly outstanding, then yes, it makes sense to provide some elements of protection. But when the returner has underperformed, it's absolutely essential to find out what else may be available. To not do so is beyond risk adverse; it's derelict. We don't know if we have better, but when we have 2 untested QBs
who had SEC offers, it makes a lot of sense to find out. We will never do better than 8-4 without QB play at a higher level. That's the risk.

In addition to the competition, we need the improvement that comes only from live play. The lack of that has been apparent at the QB position for years. Our last guy became good at QB sneaks after 2 years but probably cost us at least one game his first year because he had such poor technique. There has been a sprinkling of other "deer in the headlights" situations that add to the inescapable conclusion that they are not being prepared for "the real bullets flying".

Why does Ken O'Keefe make reference to how they'll learn more about the guys once Phil starts blitzing them?

The suggestion there is that they feel real pressure there ... even if they're less in a position to truly take a hit. In scrimmage situation where the QB wears the red-jersey ... the guy even gets touched and its ruled a sack. In many respects ... this makes things even more difficult on the QB. The guy has to prove that he can execute the offense that much better.

It seems like you're suggesting that practice reps cannot adequately duplicate game reps. However, in a controlled scrimmage situation ... it's not that hard for the D to throw a look at the O that they haven't seen before. All the same ... the QB needs to know how to respond.

Furthermore, there is the pressure that how well the guy scores out will impact his chances of earning playing time. If that isn't enough to get your competitive juices going ... then you're in the wrong sport.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

The bolded is unfair. IIRC, Padilia, in his ridiculously brief appearance, threw 2 passes: one was a difficult completion over the middle, the other was an intentional throw away out-of- bounds. He also had an 8 yard scramble. Frankly, with a tiny, tiny, tiny opportunity, I thought he showed more upside potential than any Iowa QB since Beathard.

It seems to me that a real key gets lost during QB discussions. The fan base, for years, has talked about QB accuracy and WRs not getting separation. They are related.

A straight drop-back gives the QB what, 3 seconds on average, to view the field and get rid of the ball and for receivers to get open? That can't be done successfully and consistently. But that's been our passing offense.

Each additional second of time the QB can buy by moving around in the pocket, increases his viewing opportunity and the receivers' separation opportunity exponentially. That dramatically reduces QB pressure and rushed throws, and increases WR separation.

IMO, a QB not having that movement ability is a non-starter and is someone I wouldn't consider as a starter because developing a strong and consistent passing game is impossible.

This post appears to be a combination of ignorance with maybe a copy of a report by one of our opponents on how Iowa can "maintain their offensive underperformance".

An attempt is made to make the parts of offensive football fitting together sound like the parts of a swiss watch. They aren't, especially not Iowa's. Part of the reason players get to this level is their ability to adapt-to different styles, timing, leadership. etc. That adaptation is accomplished at practice. Any setback is far exceeded by even a 10% improvement in QB play. And Iowa's offense needs strong QB performance more than most teams because of the need to offset scheme deficiencies.

So Iowa MUST find their most productive QB and the one with the broadest skill set. The only way to do that is game=conditions environment. A risk? Yes, but one they can't afford not to take.

Not that what others do should be followed because WE need to find solutions to OUR problems, but you're also wrong about others. OSU won a NC with a third string QB. The starter got hurt in fall practice (not in the spring when he would have had time to heal). They took a risk because risks have to be taken when aiming for the top. And because of their overall talent, finding the best QB is more critical to Iowa's sucess than it is to OSU's.

There are countless other examples of teams doing whatever is necessary to find the best guy in spite of some risk--college spring games, NFL preseason games,... The largest risk possible is not doing whatever needs to be done to truly find the best option.

You'd be wrong again but I love it when those without a valid argument revert to the "you haven't coached or played" shelter.

This boils down to nothing more than risk/ reward analysis. If the returning QB is clearly outstanding, then yes, it makes sense to provide some elements of protection. But when the returner has underperformed, it's absolutely essential to find out what else may be available. To not do so is beyond risk adverse; it's derelict. We don't know if we have better, but when we have 2 untested QBs
who had SEC offers, it makes a lot of sense to find out. We will never do better than 8-4 without QB play at a higher level. That's the risk.

In addition to the competition, we need the improvement that comes only from live play. The lack of that has been apparent at the QB position for years. Our last guy became good at QB sneaks after 2 years but probably cost us at least one game his first year because he had such poor technique. There has been a sprinkling of other "deer in the headlights" situations that add to the inescapable conclusion that they are not being prepared for "the real bullets flying".

While I may not agree with your position(s) ... I appreciate that you put thought into your posts and that you attempt to reason things out too.

Thanks.