How good can Jake Rudock be?
There was a diary several days ago about how productive Rudock or Morris could be. It compared Jake to other UM's senior QBs of the past. I am not sure that is very useful because so many factors have to be taken into account. It is very difficult to predict either QBs' likely performance but more so for Morris because we have so little evidence. However, we have a lot of evidence about Jake
The best way to predict how Jake is likely to perform is to look at this own progress: Here are his numbers from the last two years:
2013: games: 13 Effic: 126.5 A/C/Int: 204-346-13 %: 59.0 Yrds: 2383 TD: 18 Av: 183.3
2014: games: 12 Effic: 133.5 A/C/Int: 213-345-5 %: 61.7 Yrds: 2436 TD: 16 Av: 203.
Jake made substantial improvements. Still, I cannot understand why he was benched. If he continues the same improvement (especially under Harbaugh), he should be 2nd All BIG next year and better than most QBs, including the 2014 version of Conner Cook.
Here are the figures for Conner:
2013: 14 135.53 223-380-6 58.7 2755 22 196.8
2014: 13 149.4 212-365-8 58.1 3214 24 247.2
I understand that Conner had good supporting casts both years, but I think UM's offensive supporting cast of 2015 is not that much below MSU's cast of 2013/2014.
If he makes the same progress as he did from 2013 to 2014, we should see a significant improvement in our offensive output. May be 10 wins.
It's going to be hard to predict Rudock's ability based on how incompetent and archaic Iowa's offense has been.
Hmmmm. That statement makes me want to punt
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
If the statement makes you want to go four wide except with tight ends and throw screens on 3rd and 5 into decent coverage, it might be a good idea to seek some professional assistance. "Iowa Playcalling Syndrome" is a thing, you know. It is never too late....except if the full transformation into Greg Davis is now complete, that is.
One of these times. There's no way a screen on 3rd and 5 is going to be perfectly covered 118 times in a row..."
as good as the OL...we have seen what happens when you have a bad one.
Oh so good...
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Raback it.
Rudock it.
Heisman Trophy. Boom.
Two Heismans, for the same season good
He's going to be so good since we have Harbaugh coaching him up!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
"If you think we're having fun now, wait until we start talking about assholes and knuckles."
with 10 wins and if Harbaugh didn't think he had a chance to be very good I don't think he would have wanted him. JH knows what he's doing and Jake will reach his full potential under Harbaughs Coaching. I mean Harbaugh did make Alex Smith look good.
I definitely think Rudock is the answer. His experience will help make the transition to the new regime easier.
The rest is just, you know, details, man.
man.
be based on his Iowa experience, because he wasn't asked to do more than manage the offense and was never a prolific thrower in their run-oriented attack. I see why Harbaugh would like him because his efficiency numbers are decent and he knows when to kill a play and not extend it when you really don't have a guy to throw to.
If Michigan is running a West Coast offense that relies on efficiency passing to spilt receivers and tight ends and backs out of the backfield instead of longer downfield throws, then I think Rudock is the ticket. I think he had more drops and interceptions at Iowa when he was throwing deeper passes, fades and seam routes. But again, Iowa has never been a pass heavy team and Rudock is no gunslinger.
The thing is, Connor Cook is not the primary reason MSU wins. The defense is. Cook is more of a game manager, albeit one who makes some clutch plays at times. But he's not the type of QB who just picks apart defenses, and he has no business showing up in the first round on some mock drafts like he has. So I'm not sure that saying Rudock could be as good as Cook means very much.
That was true in '13 but not as much last year as MSU's defense took a substantial step back.
In most mock drafts Cook is projected as a third round pick, that's not a game manger.
I don't know what mock drafts you're looking at
My bad its first round and top ten pick.
into the chest of DBs and LBs and still have the ball fall harmlessly to the turf.
because people check out Dawkins at mgoblog not NFL scouts opinions. Cook can play ball, he gets better every year and is a clutch playmaker. There is a reason he is compared to Carson Palmer. If Rudock is as good as Cook he'd of made a monumental leap and wouldn't of had to transfer to be a starter.
After the word "would", using "of" makes no sense. And what I don't get about Cook being projected as a 1st round pick is the fact that he has a 58% completion percentage, which definitely won't cut it in the NFL. I don't see how he's NFL starter material, at least not for a few years which would make him at 2nd or 3rd round pick up.
Matt Ryan 59 % completion rate and threw 19 picks his senior year, somehow he was a first round pick. Hackenberg had a 55% rate last season and had more picks than touchdowns, yet somehow is thought to be a 1st rounder as well. Maybe the guys that get paid to evaluate qbs watch the tape and factor other things in. Just because they play for the enemy doesn't mean they aren't up to snuff.
I've noticed that it has become somewhat common for people to say and write "could of", "should of" and, would of", instead of could have, should have and, would have, or the contractions could've, should've and, would've.
Before stomping around like a grammar Nazi stormtrooper you should probably look up the rule about starting sentences with conjunctions.
The rule that doesn't exist? It isn't actually a rule, similar to the idea of not ending a sentence with a preposition.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/can-i-start-a-senten…
http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/
The would of, could of, should of crap is really annoying, completely incorrect, and immediately makes me think of the writer as uneducated.
And I will just add here that starting a sentence with a conjunction often helps produce tighter, punchier prose.
One I was derelict in not pointing out.
It's talk to text, relax nerds.
Also I live in a god damn trailer park
I hate to admit it but thinking Rudock will surpass him this year is a bit of a stretch.
MSU had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
Obviously Rudock isn't Russell Wilson, but I'd be interested to see a comparison of Wilson's final year at NC State compared to his year at Wisconsin. I assume he had better coaching and supporting cast at Wisc, which is the situation Rudock is in.
Link.
What's interesting is that at least statistically Wilson seems to have regressed between 2009 and 2010 despite the fact that North Carolina State improved dramatically (going from 5-7 in 2009 to 9-4 in 2010).
He still made a hell of a jump in his only year in Madison.
Russell Wilson was all conference before he left NC State. He didn't leave NC State because he got benched, he left NC State because his coach said "knock it off" with the baseball stuff.
He'll be nominated for saint-hood. I hear he already is an Eagle Scout.
if he makes it on the field.
Deep thoughts...
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
To be honest, those numbers do not indicate "substantial improvement" but consistency is what we need so I'll take it
The drop in INTs from 13 to 5 is a really nice improvement. He won't be a QB picking apart defenses and winning games on his own, but he should take care of the ball, and be as good as the OL and running game allows him to be. My biggest concern on offense is the WRs without any real threats.
Taking care of the ball is so important. In the last five seasons, Denard threw 39 interceptions and then Gardner threw 32.
I love those guys. I always will. But I think we're all burned out on the number of turnovers we've been subjected to. A QB that can take care of the ball sounds like heaven right now.
I like that stat for Ruddock. Do we know what kind of offensive line he had to work with at Iowa? I assume it couldn't be the trainwreck we had.
The OL at Iowa was bad, similar to 2013 Michigan with 2 NFL players and others not very good at all. Which makes it all the more impressive.
Yes it does. That makes me feel even better about Rudock.
I don't see why everyone says Ruddock is a "safe", low-ceiling, "game manager". Sure he's not some stud 5 star athlete, but aren't those labels more of a reflection of playing at Iowa in a bad Ferenz offense? His film (the UFR) shows he has ability to make some great downfield throws and his accuracy and decision making are legit- visible both on film and in stats (low INTs). Just saying, if he wins the job don't assume he is just a vanilla QB. He has some ability and seems to be a real gamer. He could be just what we need if the line and running game improve and the D is legit.
Darboh chesson canteen butt norfleet and even Harris are not threats enough
Didn't iowa lead the nation in drop
Passes ?
in the conference is a huge plus. I cannot say he will be great but I am certain he will be very good for Michigan. The unknown is wheher he will start. Rudock is similar to Alex Smith and we all know what happened to him. JH opted for a gun slinger who can run sort of like Morris. It will be interesting.