The safety wasn't Lanning's fault. It was mostly Warren's, Lanning was tying to throw it to Mike but Mike didn't have his head turned around. I would have to rewatch the play but I wonder if Lanning could've just thrown it at Warren's feet.
Jacob Park
- Thread starter sweetnsourtower
- Start date
I don't think that it is about Lanning. He is tough and has done a good job. The thing is that Park has the potential to be special according to people who know what they are talking about. I don't see the harm in giving him a chance to prove himself in a game. If he comes in and beats Iowa that would be a nice start....Do we really have anything to lose?
Exactly, I was saying this when people didn't want to let go of CPR because we would be "starting over". What does it take for people to hit rock bottom? A loss at home to an FCS team? You would think so, but apparently not. When you don't make these kinds of drastic changes it makes it look like we're just trying not to get beat as badly.
Change for change's sake is a bad strategy. There were a lot of things that Lanning did right in that game (~65% completion percentage for example). I don't have an issue with bringing in Park for some snaps to see what he can do in a game situation but Campbell has already said he is going to do that. If the coaches don't see that he is ready to supplant Lanning, I'm not sure why just throwing him out there and benching Lanning would be a positive strategy.
I don't think Park is going to be ready to catch a pass as a hot read receiver. I don't think he is going to block correctly when the defense is bringing the house. I don't think he is going to block the defensive lineman or LB that is going to open the hole for the RB. I don't think Park is going to clean up the holding penalties on the OL. I don't think he is going to ensure that we don't have 12 players report in on special teams. Those were all issues that contributed to the loss that changing QB's is not going fix.
I don't think Park is going to be ready to catch a pass as a hot read receiver. I don't think he is going to block correctly when the defense is bringing the house. I don't think he is going to block the defensive lineman or LB that is going to open the hole for the RB. I don't think Park is going to clean up the holding penalties on the OL. I don't think he is going to ensure that we don't have 12 players report in on special teams. Those were all issues that contributed to the loss that changing QB's is not going fix.
Probably because spastic, drastic changes make your staff and entire program look even weaker than they already do, especially if they blow up in your face.
Park looks a lot better in practice, there's a decent chance he can do it in a game too. He has the elite arm that has more potential to win a game at the end.
I think someone earlier brought up the Kansas model of blowing it all up and starting over every two or three years instead of at least giving what they are doing a bit of a chance in turning it around. We aren't much better than Kansas Football but do we really want to be Kansas Football?
By instead of being able to blame just the players for poor performance, we can later blame the coaches for even poorer performance by adjustment. I see it now: Park starts... completes 40% off his passes, throws 3 INTs, 1 TD in garbage time, fumbles a handoff, and tosses 175 yards total. But hey, we didn't know what he was capable of, right?
Congrats, we gained literally nothing from that except the image of another incompetent coaching staff, two weeks into their coaching stint here. I'll take Joel's 3 TDs, 2 INTs, fumble, and 250 yards instead. You can dream all you want, but I'm sticking with the theory that Joel is the the better player until I'm proven wrong. If he was a worse player, he wouldn't be playing.
The only hung that separates us from KU is the fans and we've proven we aren't going anywhere no matter what. KU has bad fans which makes their situation look worse than ours but in reality on the field were the same. We have nothing to lose by basically making a season an open tryout and trying to catch lightning in a bottle by making bold decisions. People seem to think that if we go to Park and it doesn't work we can't go back to Lanning or something...it's this mindset of "good teams just have one QB so we need to do that" which is just stupid because we aren't there.
Ya know, you're right. Why stop at just two quarterbacks? Let's play three, maybe four this season! Start 'em all, let it ride. Pull some kids from campus to a QB tryouts. Winner starts next week!
lol...first thanks for the Park prediction psychic susanne. Then you go on to say you'll stick with Joel because he's the better player until you're "proven wrong". How are you going to be proven wrong if you don't get to see the alternative in a fair comparison? You make no sense. Get with #Parklife or gtfo.
Well, you're the one telling us Park is the second coming of Christ on Earth. Speak for yourself.
I'm not saying that...I'm saying I'd like to FIND OUT if he is the second coming of JFC...if he's not I don't give a **** at least we know.
Still dont' see a problem with playing two qb's if they are close, which only the coaches know right now. Yes Joel made a huge mistake by putting it up for grabs when we had the late lead, but he'll learn from it. If not it will and should cost him and we may need another qb in there at least at crunch time. Thats' where Lanning and Park could complement each other and if they do I just don't see any problem with playing two qb's and use their strengths in the right game situations, and/or go with the hot hand. That may take a few games to determine but what do we have to lose. We're basically building for the future anyway. Now if Joel plays great and we knock off the squawks tomorrow, never mind.
I think Coach has mentioned playing Park to get him acclimated. You will probably see him in pretty much every game from here on out. I don't think many posters are having a problem with that . What most posters have an issue with are the calls for Lanning's head based on a game that had significant errors from every position group and starting a QB who has never had so much as a college snap.
Ok, this dude has to be Park. Elite arm? Looks better in practice? You can apparently can gather a lot more from a highlight film than I can...
I mean, this is why Iowa fans make fun of us. Our 3rd string QB (2nd string due to injury) who was playing church league football two years ago, who has never played any D-1 football, who we plucked from a junior college who doesn't even offer football, is now tearing up practice and has an "elite" arm. Classic.
He may be a nice football player, but to come to such a sweeping conclusion based on nothing is absolutely laughable. He has literally been on campus like a month-and-a-half. I'd love to know what you are relying on to make these ridiculous claims.
It seems pretty clear to me at this stage that for the coaches its all based on results in practice. Hopefully Park had a good week of practice and that will allow him to see the field. If he doesn't have a handle on the offense, than you would think it would be tough to insert him in a hostile environment.