Lanning vs Park as starting QB moving forward

[cyclonespiker33]

If we continue the offensive play-calling from the first two games, I think Park should be the guy. Lanning can be successful in a heavy run offense but we don't have the offensive line for that.

 

[Gunnerclone]

JL right now has zero touch on short passes and isn't going thru his progressions..JL is a running QB who should be used like Klein accept we are trying to use him like Tom Brady..

Stop trying to run the football ove tackle and up the gut and Start a QB that has thrown 10x the passes in his career. in HS JL was a running QB..Park was an Army All AMerican..Park isnt' a 5 star QB but he knows how to QB better than JL. I don't care if Iowa had scrubs in what I saw was a QB that went thru his progressions and had better touch on the football..Easy decision if you want to win games.

That was my big takeaway as well with the progressions. the other thing is that Park knows where he can miss.

 

[ghettocowboy4cy]

Park should get the nod for TCU... IMO can't get any worse right now.

 

[heitclone]

I say play them both, Lanning is our only successful inside runner, use him as a wildcat type of QB. We need production in the running game, he's the best power back on the team.

 

[CloneFan4]

Start Park and bring JL in for a "Belldozer" type package. I was appalled we didn't run JL more against the purple hoks. Last night when we ran him he gained at least 3 on his draw plays. We need to take advantage of his size. He's the type to be met at the line and still fall forward for 3.

 

[awd4cy]

Park definitely has talent. I think he should be taking roughly 80% of the snaps and Lanning around 20ish.

 

[UNIGuy4Cy]

Not a fact. Not looking to start fights but can we just try to keep this objective for once?

Well 2 of Lanning's interceptions against UNI were two totally uncalled for passes that cost us the game.

 

[GoClones123]

I believe it's more about who can be the leader of this team.

Penalties, turnovers, and playing a lot of freshmen requires someone who can get in a face or two and still have respect.

I think that could prove a better quality than statistics, tendencies, and presence.

 

[cyclones12321]

Park should have been put in in the 2nd quarter imo. Lanning had plenty of chances and showed he couldn't get it done. I like lanning and he seems to go 100% all the time but his 100% doesn't seem to be good enough. Only thing that pissed me off last night was how long it took to put park in the game.

 

[ISUCubswin]

I like the idea of letting Park have the ball unless we are within 10 yards of a touchdown, then letting Lanning take over.

Why?

Because Lanning is a ******* tank when running, and it's a shorter field for him to throw an interception.

 

[chuckd4735]

QV play isn't about running. It's about good feet in the pocket, sliding and extending plays. Lanning is a fullback with a strong arm. As "good" as Lanning is running it, he is really bad in the pocket, often runs right into the pressure and rarely extends plays. We have nothing to lose. Park has to be the guy. Not because we're panicking but because Lanning just isn't a Big 12 QB.

However, its really nice to have a QB who can run when the pocket collapses and WR are not open, since that seems to happen about every other play for ISU.

 

[Rabbuk]

Lanning can't hit check down routes

 

[SolarGarlic]

However, its really nice to have a QB who can run when the pocket collapses and WR are not open, since that seems to happen about every other play for ISU.

But that's the point. Lanning could smoke Beathard in a 40-yard dash, but who is more effective with their feet? Being elusive and subtle is a greater requirement for a QB than being powerful. Lanning could be a good FB or TE.

 

[State43]

Instead of having this discussion in various threads, I thought we could have just one thread. So who gives us the best shot to win games? Would starting Park somehow open up the running game?

Park saw most of his playing time against backups and he wasn't being pressured like Lanning was, so it's hard to give a fair comparison of who looked better tonight. Personally, I liked what I saw from Park and I want to see how he handles certain situations and how he plays in a full game. His arm strength looked good and he put nice touch on the ball. His accuracy may not look good on paper, but there were 3 completed passes (for nearly 50 yards) that were called back. The 36 yard pass to Lazard was impressive. I like how comfortable Park looked in there, especially for a kid who hasn't played in a game in 3 years. I think Park did enough to earn more PT next week, but does he deserve to start? Eh, I'm not sure about that. Lanning is more experienced, but on the other hand he is just playing really bad. He holds on to the ball too long and misses far too many open passes. His decision making is often questionable as well.

I'll first say it doesn't matter who starts because this team has so many problems, QB is only a piece of the problem. Only at ISU, we consistently see our QBs get worse as they progress in experience.
At the moment, Park does appear to be more of a threat as Lanings passing ability will only bring more defenders to the line of scrimmage making our ability to run even more difficult than it already is.

 

[Althetuna]

We don't have the horses up front to run the ball straight up. Need to spread it out with Park at the QB position.

 

[sheepplucker]

I remember when lanning took over.. His passes were cringe worthy some times. Expecting him to turn into a legit QB in just one off season was a little far fetched. I Like the guy a lot and hope we find a way to keep him involved, but I hope to see park running things from now on.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Not saying that Park shouldn't take over for Lanning. Not saying that Park isn't better than Lanning.

What I am saying is last season (and the season before that) we were talking about Lanning the same way we're talking about Park now.

Until we find our next Rosenfels or Wallace, the backup QB will always be the most popular player on the roster.

 

[acody]

With Park as a starter we would be 1-1. Fact.

Theory is not fact. It's speculation.

 

[CyTwins]

After seeing this I vote Park

 

[CascadeClone]

I'm not sure how much difference it would make. Still no running game or O-line. At least Lanning can take a beating - he's a big strong dude. Park looked a little more fragile to me, kind of SBR build. Maybe they are just trying to keep him in one piece until reinforcements arrive.

When they were stopping the run with only 5 in the box, that told me I could probably be the QB and the results would be the same.