BirdistheWord
HB Legend
I’m skeptical as well. Just reporting what Kakert said.
And no one else seems able to challenge any of the starters. Low ceiling group. But we do seem able to attract 4 star talent, yet still a weak spot for this team.
I’m skeptical as well. Just reporting what Kakert said.
Stanley wasn't bad. He was decent,but he never got better. Which has been the story of Iowa QB's. What drove me nuts about Stanley were the wide open throws he blew that would have been scores.You could pretty much say this about every single QB that has arrived at Iowa in the last 7 years. Bad QB recruiting combined with bad QB development yields really bad QB play and really bad offense to go along with it.
Stanley wasn't bad. He was decent,but he never got better. Which has been the story of Iowa QB's. What drove me nuts about Stanley were the wide open throws he blew that would have been scores.
Stanley was good. I was referring to every QB that's arrived on campus since Stanley.Stanley wasn't bad. He was decent,but he never got better. Which has been the story of Iowa QB's. What drove me nuts about Stanley were the wide open throws he blew that would have been scores.
It would be nice to get some updates/news about what is going on. The hawk women are rightly dominating the UI sports world but it is still good to hear some football news.
Has anyone heard anymore besides they are snapping the ball in shotgun a lot?
I’m skeptical as well. Just reporting what Kakert said.
True. Hill should be getting zero reps. I can’t believe that we don’t have better walk-on QBs.If Marco starts every game and never completes a pass, he will be better than Deacon. I am not joking.
and not turn over the ball 3 X a game...Well Marco's throws in the bowl game weren't any better. That's all we have to go by. Obviously his running skills were way way greater than Hill.
yes they were and that should have been more than enough motiv for last year let a lone this yr. Heard from someone who had an in,,,,,,,that in 7 on 7 drills the offense is really looking pretty good---said there was quite a bit of scheming guys open and that was foreign to the defense at this time.If I recall this Oline class was called soft by other Big 10 team coaches or staff not many years ago.
Would think that would be enough motivation more than KP.
Are you sure? Because we've got a new flavor out that I think you're really going to love.Agreed. I’m not drinking any more offensive kool aid. I’m not getting Jonestowned again.
This could be encouraging news considering another poster said the defense as usual is ahead of the o. Hope it means there is Improvement going on, also appreciate all of the insightyes they were and that should have been more than enough motiv for last year let a lone this yr. Heard from someone who had an in,,,,,,,that in 7 on 7 drills the offense is really looking pretty good---said there was quite a bit of scheming guys open and that was foreign to the defense at this time.
But I too am one who says i believe what I see come next Sept--I do not pay to watch practice--I have been to many practices in the past and the best QB I ever saw at a practice was Randy R. so what does that tell you?
Yep.Stanley was better than not bad. He was good, not great. Durability, completion percentage, TD/INT, wins = pretty good effort
Yep.
The problem with Stanley wasn’t that he was not good(sorry for the double negative.) The problem was that his floor was so low, he literally lost a couple games by himself.
he also won 2 games in Ames and was arguably our best player in both of them--that 3rd and 18 scramble and throw to M-Smith and his leaping grab was an amazing big time play under pressure--they then went down and scored the winning points in that game...Don’t remember that but not doubting it. He had a solid cast around him. My favorites were still those 4-5 yard sneaks. Epic.
He had some nice games against OSU, USC, etc.
Hill makes Stanley look like Lamar Jackson
Probably won a few also. The ISU game his first year (5 tds including the game winner to ISM), and the OSU game in 2017 he was damn good. Dude could make some throws that NO Iowa QB ever could make. Banks, Long, anybody. Then he miss guys wide open as well. Still almost 9000yds and 70 TD's career. We go 13-0 last year with Stanley at QB....Yep.
The problem with Stanley wasn’t that he was not good(sorry for the double negative.) The problem was that his floor was so low, he literally lost a couple games by himself.
Nate told us that there is NO QB development at Iowa. That is why he and others went outside for a QB coach. Nate said Iowa only teaches the Xs and Os and no mechanics etc. The QBs come to Iowa with valid stats but then just languish here it seems. Regression has been pointed out many times over the years. It is not all on the QBs we have brought in.There are so many directions we can go with this. To say the least, that is very disappointing to read.
So, how do we make sense of this? Is Kirk and staff just this bad at evaluating high school quarterbacks or is there a developmental issue at play? It’s gotta be one or the other, right? Or both?
Spencer Petras was supposedly a 4-star who broke all kinds of passing records at his school that were previously held by Jared Goff. Deuce Hogan was also supposed to be a stud and then Marco Lainez is apparently someday going to remind us Iowa fans of Brad Banks.
And yet, Spencer Petras actually got worse his last two years, Deuce Hogan never came close to cracking the two deep, and Marco Lainez apparently looks worse than an overweight QB with no mobility, no pocket awareness, and very poor accuracy.
I don’t get it.
Either Brian Ferentz’s move to quarterback coach completely ****ed these guys up and/or there has been some absolutely atrocious evaluations of quarterbacks the last five years. Pathetic.
I don’t get it.
Nate Stanley? And who is “us” that he told?Nate told us that there is NO QB development at Iowa. That is why he and others went outside for a QB coach. Nate said Iowa only teaches the Xs and Os and no mechanics etc. The QBs come to Iowa with valid stats but then just languish here it seems. Regression has been pointed out many times over the years. It is not all on the QBs we have brought in.
That is some strange revisionist history right there. Stanley did NOTHING but get better through each year as a starter.Stanley wasn't bad. He was decent,but he never got better. Which has been the story of Iowa QB's. What drove me nuts about Stanley were the wide open throws he blew that would have been scores.
Yep. That was the point. He was capable of being very good. Then he’d have a game like at PSU in 2018 that Iowa would have won if they just played with 10 guys on offense, sans QB.Probably won a few also. The ISU game his first year (5 tds including the game winner to ISM), and the OSU game in 2017 he was damn good. Dude could make some throws that NO Iowa QB ever could make. Banks, Long, anybody. Then he miss guys wide open as well. Still almost 9000yds and 70 TD's career. We go 13-0 last year with Stanley at QB....
Other than him being injury prone, where are you catching the drift he won’t be healthy?Translation to all these stories...the offense will once again stink and any games Iowa wins will be courtesy of Phil Parker.
Also catching the drift that McNamara won't be healthy.
His completion percentages were not good.Stanley was better than not bad. He was good, not great. Durability, completion percentages, TD/INT, wins = pretty good effort
Yep. That was the point. He was capable of being very good. Then he’d have a game like at PSU in 2018 that Iowa would have won if they just played with 10 guys on offense, sans QB.
Iowa was lucky to have Nate, but had his floor just been in the basement, and not in the core of the earth, Iowa would have played in a couple more B1G title games.
His completion percentages were not good.
Maybe so, but in an offense thats NOT pass heavy dude still threw for 9000 yds and 70 freakin TD's. HAD to be throwing the ball and completing it to somebody, don't you think?His completion percentages were not good.
Yep always the revisionist history. Banks had some holes in his game as well, and he had more talent around him then pretty much any Iowa QB ever except Long...I would describe them as “good” but not very good or great. His junior and senior year percentages were 2 points higher than Brad Banks heisman runner up year, as an example.
I think these "reports" that the staff feels good about OLine progress is nothing but psychologically trying to build confidence that they can protect CM. Nothing has changed other than they're all a year older. And that certainly didn't hold true as far as improvement from 2022 to 2023.Other than him being injury prone, where are you catching the drift he won’t be healthy?
There is an article about the non development when he signed with Minnesota as a UFANate Stanley? And who is “us” that he told?
Dual threat? I’d kill for a single threat QB.
Maybe so, but in an offense thats NOT pass heavy dude still threw for 9000 yds and 70 freakin TD's. HAD to be throwing the ball and completing it to somebody, don't you think?
If the o line is not motivated by their sucking for two years……Well Marco's throws in the bowl game weren't any better. That's all we have to go by. Obviously his running skills were way way greater than Hill.
Banks had arguably the best season of any Hawkeye QB in history with a passer rating of 157 along with an incredible ability to make plays with his feet gaining 5.2 yards per rush.Yep always the revisionist history. Banks had some holes in his game as well, and he had more talent around him then pretty much any Iowa QB ever except Long...
Banks had arguably the best season of any Hawkeye QB in history with a passer rating of 157 along with an incredible ability to make plays with his feet gaining 5.2 yards per rush.
Yeah. Stanley had good seasons. Banks was just on another level.I brought up that season as context as I was being told that Stanley’s 59% completion percentage was not good. Not great or very good either but still good IMO. There are just not that many seasons where Iowa QB’s were 60% and above - there are some of course but Banks was at 57% as an example. It’s not just all about completion percentage, agree, but that is what was singled out by others in my analysis of Stanley.
So the answer is no.I think these "reports" that the staff feels good about OLine progress is nothing but psychologically trying to build confidence that they can protect CM. Nothing has changed other than they're all a year older. And that certainly didn't hold true as far as improvement from 2022 to 2023.
McNamara is always one hit from being knocked out.
Haven't read or heard one, single thing that makes me think the offense won't be a flaming dumpster fire again.
His floor happened in games, not seasons.Not exactly sure why you associate Nate with having SUCH a low floor. If you look at his stats and progression I might argue the opposite.
Someone with that low of a floor would be extremely rough coming in, to the point where they probably are not seeing the field until the tail end of their career or rocket up the depth chart.
If you look at his stats for example, he played full time for 3 years and completion percentage went from 56 to 59 to 59.
He always seem to have a strong arm and largely made good decisions. He seemed to struggle some with deep ball accuracy and occasionally missing layup type throws. But that seemed to be consistent through his 3 year stint.
I feel like he had a relatively high floor (look at is soph stats) but somewhat of a low ceiling. He did improve and was a practice squad guy for Vikings but his lack of foot speed and quickness/elusiveness did not help him.
Nathan Stanley College Stats, School, Draft, Gamelog, Splits | College Football at Sports-Reference.com
Check out Nathan Stanley's College Stats, School, Draft, Gamelog, Splits and More College Stats at Sports-Reference.comwww.sports-reference.com
It's a message board for opinions and reading some of the stuff coming out of spring practice that's my effing OPINION.So the answer is no.
I asked if you had heard anything suggesting he won’t be healthy. You did indeed supply opinions.It's a message board for opinions and reading some of the stuff coming out of spring practice that's my effing OPINION.
Comprende?
It was a published interview article shortly after he graduated and was picked up by Vikings. That's who.The public. It was mentioned on these boards in the past.Nate Stanley? And who is “us” that he told?