If he doesn't surpass Hill, he should transfer. Hate to say that, but what's his upside at Iowa?If Marco can’t surpass Hill - that’s a swing and another miss at QB recruiting/development.
If he doesn't surpass Hill, he should transfer. Hate to say that, but what's his upside at Iowa?If Marco can’t surpass Hill - that’s a swing and another miss at QB recruiting/development.
That is it right there. This line is experienced, been under the same coach for several years. There is no reason they should not be really good. If it was scheme, well that is changing. Just plain running out of excuses aren't we???? (no way you are going to tell me it is a talent issue when not one single OL player is standing out. If anything that would make it much easier for someone to really stand out)I think it went from worst in the country to just worst in the Big10. Progress my man. Progress. Now we get to see if it was partially a function of Brian's inability to design an offense or Barnett needs to follow him out the door.
???23 O-line was clearly better than 22
The scheme IS changing?That is it right there. This line is experienced, been under the same coach for several years. There is no reason they should not be really good. If it was scheme, well that is changing. Just plain running out of excuses aren't we???? (no way you are going to tell me it is a talent issue when not one single OL player is standing out. If anything that would make it much easier for someone to really stand out)
Kind of a low bar to clear, wouldn't you say?23 O-line was clearly better than 22
If scheme isn’t the biggest part of the problem then that means we’ve also been facing a severe development issue as well as scouting high school recruits.That is it right there. This line is experienced, been under the same coach for several years. There is no reason they should not be really good. If it was scheme, well that is changing. Just plain running out of excuses aren't we???? (no way you are going to tell me it is a talent issue when not one single OL player is standing out. If anything that would make it much easier for someone to really stand out)
Except we're comparing an actual qb to whatever you call Deacon Hill.
Sidenote..I saw a tee shirt in some Hawkeye gift shop that said "Sneaken Deacon".
Funny thing is, he's not even good at that!
I think the gift shop pays you $6 to take it off their inventory.
Ineptitude on so many levels.As I recall he did sneak a couple of time against Michigan, and then later when forced with a 4th and short, across from him was like 11 defenders in the box, and he or the coaches never thought to change a play or call a TO and he got stuffed.
Respectfully, it’s takes like this that infuriate me.Ineptitude on so many levels.
My biggest fear is KF doesn't want a DRASTIC jump in offensive production this year because it just makes Jr look even worse.
If he wasn't happy, he would have canned Barnett and put BF in charge of something he could handle.Respectfully, it’s takes like this that infuriate me.
You think Kirk was happy with the offense the last couple years?
Everything we’ve ever seen from Kirk says he doesn’t like to make drastic changes; he’s only ever done so when he’s faced pressure to do so.If he wasn't happy, he would have canned Barnett and put BF in charge of something he could handle.
Of course he was happy...he's got Phil covering his ass.
Brian's gone because of BG, not KF.Everything we’ve ever seen from Kirk says he doesn’t like to make drastic changes; he’s only ever done so when he’s faced pressure to do so.
The idea that he was happy with his son doing badly is simply ludicrous to me.
This is the first I've heard that PP was actually the head coach last seasonBrian's gone because of BG, not KF.
As I said, they won 10 games in spite of the offense and because of PP.
KF was happy or he would have done something on his own.
Ludicrous to me everyone doesn't see that.
So ultimately since Kirk is the top dawg, we won 10 because of him and could have been better if not for him.Brian's gone because of BG, not KF.
As I said, they won 10 games in spite of the offense and because of PP.
KF was happy or he would have done something on his own.
Ludicrous to me everyone doesn't see that.
IMO (from being on this site the entire time it was run by TK), Tom Kakert provides a homogenized version of the company line. If Hill is still there second string QB after Spring practice (behind injury-prone Cade McNamara), it will be necessary to look at the portal. Every MAC conference QB is way better than Hill-- go get one of them.Kakert mentioned on the podcast two things of interest. O line is extremely motivated by the whole Proctor debacle. And Lainez hasn’t shown to anyone in practice that he’s better than Hill. I still find that hard to believe. But he would be surprised if the don’t hit the portal for a qb.
Thank you for backing up what I saidDeacon has nothing to do with Nate. He had a better win-loss record every year he started. 8-4, then 9-3, then 10-3 with a big win over USC to end his career. My favorite Stanley memory wss him throwing a touchdown to Hockenson with a d-lineman hanging on to his legs.
I am not sure how much of a role the scheme plays, certainly some. I am going to say 30-40%, while the “horses” makes up the other 60-70%. We were extremely thin at WR and TE. Our O line was slightly better but still historically bad. Throw in the worst backup in D1 and I am not sure what scheme would have saved us. I would have built packages for Lainez at a minimum but we were a shitshow.I think last year established beyond any shadow of a doubt that scheme was a far bigger part of the problem than talent.
Agreed. If weather holds I’ll be at the spring practice to see a little bit - also works out that there’s a baseball game in the afternoon as well.
There’s a wide gap between defending everything Kirk has done and saying he was happy to see the offense so utterly broken just to protect his son.The "defend everything KF" brigade out in full force today.
No doubt.The "defend everything KF" brigade out in full force today.
He needs someone yelling at him knees to chest dam it, knees to chest Or just run up and down the steps at Kinnick a few times this summer.It is kinda concerning that nobody has credibly reported that Deacon has lost even an ounce of the 25 or more pounds he really needs to lose if he wants to have a remote chance of being a serviceable backup ...especially after Deacon-apologist KF said a few months ago tht it was a program priority to get him into better shape in the off-season to improve his mobility etc.
YesYou think Kirk was happy with the offense the last couple years?
If he thought his son was doing badly he wouldn't have been happy about it. He didn't think Brian was doing badly.The idea that he was happy with his son doing badly is simply ludicrous to me
I thought players meet with strength and conditioning staff regularly with their results being shared with coaches, but I could be wrong.It is kinda concerning that nobody has credibly reported that Deacon has lost even an ounce of the 25 or more pounds he really needs to lose if he wants to have a remote chance of being a serviceable backup ...especially after Deacon-apologist KF said a few months ago tht it was a program priority to get him into better shape in the off-season to improve his mobility etc.
Totally agree. Kirk is all about winning. He isn't going to keep the offense down to prove a point. Idiotic someone would think that.Respectfully, it’s takes like this that infuriate me.
You think Kirk was happy with the offense the last couple years?
I just think that ultimately he was unable to just accept that the scheme needed to evolve, that the solution was simply better execution.Totally agree. Kirk is all about winning. He isn't going to keep the offense down to prove a point. Idiotic someone would think that.
At last--2 posts that are not what many on here post and think are humorous sarcasm.. They ain't.Totally agree. Kirk is all about winning. He isn't going to keep the offense down to prove a point. Idiotic someone would think that.
He has to see the Oline can't out muscle as in years past.so nothing has changed except the OC - which was forced upon him. Kirk is one stubborn dude. holy hell.
According to Kirk, they just installed Lester’s offense.so nothing has changed except the OC - which was forced upon him. Kirk is one stubborn dude. holy hell.
He was at the least content with it as he, personally, made no changes. Any other D1 coach would have cleaned house, or at the least fired the OC and OL coaches.Respectfully, it’s takes like this that infuriate me.
You think Kirk was happy with the offense the last couple years?
If the schematics and OL play haven't changed, it really won't matter who is at QB.IMO (from being on this site the entire time it was run by TK), Tom Kakert provides a homogenized version of the company line. If Hill is still there second string QB after Spring practice (behind injury-prone Cade McNamara), it will be necessary to look at the portal. Every MAC conference QB is way better than Hill-- go get one of them.
How can you say the OL was better when, as an overall offense, we did statistically worse according to the data?I am not sure how much of a role the scheme plays, certainly some. I am going to say 30-40%, while the “horses” makes up the other 60-70%. We were extremely thin at WR and TE. Our O line was slightly better but still historically bad. Throw in the worst backup in D1 and I am not sure what scheme would have saved us. I would have built packages for Lainez at a minimum but we were a shitshow.
For better or worse, we know that Kirk doesn’t fire coaches. I really do think he trapped himself with his constant emphasis on execution and couldnt see that scheme was also a part of the problem. You could argue I suppose he was content overall as they were winning games. But posters saying he was HAPPY with the offense’s performance are being ridiculous.He was at the least content with it as he, personally, made no changes. Any other D1 coach would have cleaned house, or at the least fired the OC and OL coaches.
I did say slightly better but am open to any specific data. The rushing for example went up from 2.9 per attempt to 3.3. I think we can agree that the O line was still far below average.How can you say the OL was better when, as an overall offense, we did statistically worse according to the data?
I'll say.Fair angle. As bad as our staff was our O line and receivers were just terrible, mostly after Lachey and All went down. I will say it was largely the same scheme with Stanley but he had weapons and an adequate O line.
His decision making, pocket awareness and relative accuracy vs Hill would have been worth 2+ wins IMO.
If he can't pass Hill, he needs to look at Div II or III. There are a huge number of FCS and Division II programs Hill would not start at.If he doesn't surpass Hill, he should transfer. Hate to say that, but what's his upside at Iowa?
Come on Mitch, you're better than that.Ineptitude on so many levels.
My biggest fear is KF doesn't want a DRASTIC jump in offensive production this year because it just makes Jr look even worse.