Lanning

[Clonefan32]

'Short leash' is a far cry from 'he should be benched'. I'm all for Lanning. I believe that game wasn't indicative of what he can do, but to say that Park shouldn't get a couple plays here and there is pretty absurd in it's own right. Your backup should always get a couple plays here and there in an actual game situation unless your starter is just far and away better than the 2nd string.

As far as Park not being able to make a read...that's a bit absurd as well.

I guess I fail to see how "short lease" and "should be benched" are a "far cry" from each other. What does short leash mean to you then? To me, it means if he makes another mistake or two he is on the bench.

And the read thing was absolute hyperbole, but it was meant to highlight the absurdity of even putting Lanning "on a short leash" in favor of Park, as he hasn't taken a snap of organized football in like 3-4 years. Let's not forget this is a guy we picked up from a junior college that doesn't even have a football team.

 

[MayorsCabinet]

I would have no issue sitting him. It's called a healthy competition. Who gives a damn about feelings. You've gotta perform...if park struggles put lanning back in.

So just go back and forth with the starting QB until one of them has a solid performance? If a coach actually did that he would get fired. Having a two QB system is one thing, but trotting out a new starter every week because the performance wasn't the best would be suicide. The offense can't get in to a rhythm like that.

 

[LincolnWay187]

So just go back and forth with the starting QB until one of them has a solid performance? If a coach actually did that he would get fired. Having a two QB system is one thing, but trotting out a new starter every week because the performance wasn't the best would be suicide. The offense can't get in to a rhythm like that.

Lanning didn't do much against one of our easiest opponents this year. How long do you give him to "get into rhythm"? Personally I'd rather see us take a chance than betting the whole season on a possible turnaround. Give him one more game in my opinion.

 

[MayorsCabinet]

Lanning didn't do much against one of our easiest opponents this year. How long do you give him to "get into rhythm"? Personally I'd rather see us take a chance than betting the whole season on a possible turnaround. Give him one more game in my opinion.

Leaving one QB in gives you a much better chance to pick up a rhythm than switching QBs every game. Quarterbacks aren't the same. You can't expect Park to have the same tendencies as Lanning and you can't expect them to do everything with the same timing. So switching QBs means you have timing issues and tendency issues. The WRs can't develop those timing routes with their QB if it's different every week.

And I know you're gonna say, "Well Joel's tendency is to throw it to the other team ha. ha. ha. I'm hilarious" but in all seriousness, going with 1 QB makes it easier on the rest of the team. So if you're going to bench Lanning for Park, bench Lanning. Don't keep bringing him into the game.

"If you have 2 quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks"

 

[Brandon]

Lanning didn't do much against one of our easiest opponents this year. How long do you give him to "get into rhythm"? Personally I'd rather see us take a chance than betting the whole season on a possible turnaround. Give him one more game in my opinion.

I'd say the staff gives joel till half of iowa game to get in "rhythm " and if he hasnt bring in jacob.

 

[Tre4ISU]

(Only at Iowa State) would fans push to give a QB more time (to develop) after a two interception, fumbled snap, safety, balls underthrown - game. We are pretty much the only Big 12 team that has consistently had below average QB play (and it shows in our win - loss record). Under thrown balls were a problem last year, and again in this game. Did anyone pay attention to J. Lanning's feet placement ? Once again, they were really not good (particularly in the fourth quarter).

We benching Warren too? He's cost us three games by your logic. Toledo, KSU, UNI.

 

[Stormin]

Leaving one QB in gives you a much better chance to pick up a rhythm than switching QBs every game. Quarterbacks aren't the same. You can't expect Park to have the same tendencies as Lanning and you can't expect them to do everything with the same timing. So switching QBs means you have timing issues and tendency issues. The WRs can't develop those timing routes with their QB if it's different every week.

And I know you're gonna say, "Well Joel's tendency is to throw it to the other team ha. ha. ha. I'm hilarious" but in all seriousness, going with 1 QB makes it easier on the rest of the team. So if you're going to bench Lanning for Park, bench Lanning. Don't keep bringing him into the game.

"If you have 2 quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks"

The best offense Iowa State ever had used 2 quarterbacks. Wayne Stanley was the starter but Buddy Hardeman played a lot that year of 1976. Ranked 2nd in the nation and scored over 35 points per game. Lot of points back then.

Chris Leak and Tim Tebow were a 2 headed monster at QB for Florida and they won the national championship.

The offense never got into any kind of rhythm the whole game. And we only played 1 QB.

Not throwing Lanning overboard. But if Lanning continues to struggle and makes bad decisions and turns the ball over then you need to try your 2nd string QB. A guy who evidently has beaten out everyone else to be 2nd string despite not having played football for a couple of years.

The last 6 minutes of the UNI game were terrible. There were a few good plays earlier.

 

[khawk4]

He completed 55% of his passes last year and 65% of his passes in the first game. That's significant improvement albeit a small sample size. Deshaun Watson for Clemson only completed 55% of his passes in the first game. And a lot of other notable quarterbacks (Kizer for ND, and Buechele for Tex) were around 60% in their first game...

Uni's defense is equal to Auburns, Notre Dames, and Texas's?

 

[LincolnWay187]

I think everyone here wants to see him succeed, but he played half of last season too. I just don't buy th learning of timing etc bit.

 

[MayorsCabinet]

The best offense Iowa State ever had used 2 quarterbacks. Wayne Stanley was the starter but Buddy Hardeman played a lot that year of 1976. Ranked 2nd in the nation and scored over 35 points per game. Lot of points back then.

Chris Leak and Tim Tebow were a 2 headed monster at QB for Florida and they won the national championship.

The offense never got into any kind of rhythm the whole game. And we only played 1 QB.

Not throwing Lanning overboard. But if Lanning continues to struggle and makes bad decisions and turns the ball over then you need to try your 2nd string QB. A guy who evidently has beaten out everyone else to be 2nd string despite not having played football for a couple of years.

The last 6 minutes of the UNI game were terrible. There were a few good plays earlier.

That's using a two quarterback scheme as "one quarterback" one who runs, and one who throws. Not using two quarterbacks who virtually do the same things. If we're gonna go with two quarterback system and have Joel run and Park pass, sure give it a shot. But if you're just replacing them every time they make a mistake it won't work.

 

[MayorsCabinet]

I think everyone here wants to see him succeed, but he played half of last season too. I just don't buy th learning of timing etc bit.

We gave Sam Richardson 3 1/2 seasons to get it right. His best year was his RS Frosh year. He never got better. Give a guy who regressed 3 1/2 seasons but give the guy who replaced him just 6 games. Got it.

 

[LincolnWay187]

We gave Sam Richardson 3 1/2 seasons to get it right. His best year was his RS Frosh year. He never got better. Give a guy who regressed 3 1/2 seasons but give the guy who replaced him just 6 games. Got it.

This is my exact point! I don't want to give lanning 3.5 seasons either. Sam got more than his chance and should have been recruited over.

 

[VeloClone]

This sliding crap is for teams who can't win without a quarterback.

Fixed.

They have already talked about playing smart. You need a first down and have to run over someone to get it? By all means run him over. You already have the first down and are about to get trucked by a linebacker? Slide so that your backup doesn't have to finish the game. You have a cornerback stationary in the open field? Deliver the hit and make him hesitate when he next sees you coming.

 

[VeloClone]

"If you have 2 quarterbacks, you have no quarterbacks"

Just because something is said a lot doesn't necessarily make it true.

If it is true, if you have no quarterbacks you still have no quarterback when you choose to play only one of them.

 

[Stormin]

We gave Sam Richardson 3 1/2 seasons to get it right. His best year was his RS Frosh year. He never got better. Give a guy who regressed 3 1/2 seasons but give the guy who replaced him just 6 games. Got it.

Sam played very little his RS Frosh year until he came in for relief against Kansas in 2012. 2013 year he got injured part way through and Rohach played. 2014 he played the whole year as we won only 2 non-conference games. 2015 he played until replaced by Lanning. IMO one of the reasons for not replacing Sam was that the potential replacements were not too good.

And I am not talking about replacing Lanning. But if Lanning continues to struggle you have to make a change if Park has some talent. And it sounds like he does. You have to give him a shot.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Why not go with a 2 QB system. Normally I wouldn't question coaching decisions but after that game...

I'm pretty sure it's coming.

 

[CYKOFAN]

Agree, and maybe they each have their own strengths so maybe using both of them could take some of the pressure off each. Worked pretty good for Texas.

 

[Yellow Snow]

I just don't get this. Lanning had one bad game, and even in that he threw some real nice passes. I hope Park can sling it, but he hasn't played football in two years. His last action was in a freakin' church league. His last meaningful read was trying to find a way to isolate Fat Bill who was only on the team because he bought the team's jerseys. I hope Lanning can become more consistent, but the idea that Park should replace him, or really take any percentage of his snaps, is a bit absurd to me.

You keep talking about this church league as if he hasn't been at practice while at ISU.

I have a question for you.

How many "real nice passes" cancels out a total meltdown in crunchtime? I am curious.

I have no dog in the fight. All i want is the best guy to play. If that is Park... so be it. Better to get it over now than lose the next four games with him getting no experience other than his "church league". Right? If the best guy is Lanning? Whelp... we better start recruiting. I'll live either way. No biggie.

 

[CYKOFAN]

Agree, and maybe they each have their own strengths so maybe using both of them could take some of the pressure off each. Worked pretty good for Texas.

 

[CYKOFAN]

Agree, and maybe they each have their own strengths so maybe using both of them could take some of the pressure off each. Worked pretty good for Texas.