Give me Park. I know Lanning is the better runner, but I'm sick of having a running QB. Running QB = injured QB in the Big12. We've been doing it for years thinking that those rushing yards make a difference. To me, it just means that the QB comes into each game at less than 100%. We seem to have 2 or 3 RBs that are capable. Let them run the ball.
Lanning vs Park as starting QB moving forward
- Thread starter demoncore1031
- Start date
Yet again people obsess on the defense. Is it good? Hell no. But the offense is soooooo pathetic they put all the pressure on the defense. Sound familiar? If not, it should - as that's been the issue in Ames for a long time now.
ISU got whipped hard in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Don't care who we got at QB - if that stays the same.
Controlling the clock goes a long long way helping the defense. Its not a coincidence that most great defenses are power running teams on offense with QB's who are game managers.
I agree with the Park supporters. I was a Lanning guy 100% before last night but now after seeing both in action I say Park. He needs 75-80% of the plays and give Lanning the go ahead if we need a few tough yards or a QB sneak for a TD.
I'm going to piggy off what other people said but we should do what Texas is doing. Have Park be the QB that is passing a lot. When you need those short yards throw in the Lan Ram in those 18 wheeler packages and have him pound it up the middle.
Doesn't mean we're wrong. Seem to me Iowa fans were screaming WE WANT BEATHARD. And we just got humiliated by the best Iowa QB since Chuck Long.
L
