Bye, bye, Brendan

[SDHawkDoc]

This is just a reflection of the new pay to play atmosphere. I don't think it is a wise strategic decision to put your eggs in the qb development basket anymore. I think it is much more obvious this is a year-to-year situation and long term planning is useless. So saying that, no matter the budget, a team is going to have to budget for qb1 and the more you pay here the better you will be and then devote a much smaller amount to qb2. Beyond qb2 has to be no pay players. Even if you have 3 guys you like, it is only smart to pay 2 of them and go through the season that way.

I wish Sullivan well and hope he can go get a little money and a starting gig somewhere in a mac or mountain west school or something like that.

Yes.
This is pro ball. Payroll concerns are as big an issue as player evaluation and development.
Sullivan was highly unlikely to stay. He's not a great QB by any stretch, but has potential to start at a non power conference school and make a decent buck.

 

[Zooropa_NCR]

Exactly, he had happy feet that got him in trouble. If you watched the UCLA game, their defense wanted him to run and their safeties put a licking on him. Eventually knocked him out of the game. He took some Bob Sanders type hits.

Any QB in the Iowa offense the last 5 years would have happy feet if they didn’t wear 250lbs or reconstructive knees…

Petras was the same. Literally turning his back to the LOS cause he was running for his life. Never seen it

If the OL doesn’t improve with pass blocking this year we’ll see the same

3-6 yard passes
Constant scrambling putting any QB at risk of injury

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

Lol, he would have gotten himself hurt before the 3rd game. Coaches said they couldn't reign him in (to play smart) if they tried.

Guy was an airhead. Could be argued he cost Iowa the UCLA game.

One of the more overrated players in a while. Why? Fans love them some backup QB

And the Village Idiot returns to offer more brilliance....

Not surprising that a KF apologist who thinks shitty offense is some master strategy to win games would call the QB with the highest QB rating since Stanzi and the only QB who has made the offense look good since Stanley "overrated."

Please provide links to the coaches making these claims.

The only airhead here is you, and that's me being kind on Palm Sunday.

 

[eyesofhawk]

And the Village Idiot returns to offer more brilliance....

Not surprising that a KF apologist who thinks shitty offense is some master strategy to win games would call the QB with the highest QB rating since Stanzi and the only QB who has made the offense look good since Stanley "overrated."

Please provide links to the coaches making these claims.

The only airhead here is you, and that's me being kind on Palm Sunday.

It was discussed on the UCLA broadcast.

They made mention of asking Lester (I believe) if he had emphasized safety with Sullivan, given the thin QB depth going into that game.

His response was to the effect of they "couldn't reign him in if they tried"

 

[kceasthawk]

Actually a little surprised by this one. Thought he’d be a strong QB2 with playing time every game and was one play away from being QB1. I’m afraid we’re going to miss him more than any of the other plethora of QB’s that have left the last several years…

I'm really not. I think its been made clear that come June theres a new starting QB at Iowa for next season..

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

It was discussed on the UCLA broadcast.

They made mention of asking Lester (I believe) if he had emphasized safety with Sullivan, given the thin QB depth going into that game.

His response was to the effect of they "couldn't reign him in if they tried"

TBH, that sounds more like Lester saying that BS played hard and his way and wasn't going to change who he is as a player just to avoid getting hurt - really more of a compliment than a condemnation on how he is stupid and uncoachable, as you suggested.

But nice try.

 

[eyesofhawk]

TBH, that sounds more like Lester saying that BS played hard and his way and wasn't going to change who he is as a player just to avoid getting hurt - really more of a compliment than a condemnation on how he is stupid and uncoachable, as you suggested.

But nice try.

Perhaps fair.

Poor wording, on my part, to say "smart" instead of "safe". I certainly didn't mean to imply BS was uncoachable. Although I stand by my opinion that he was a bone-head play waiting to happen.

I'll see if I can find a link so we can get the exact wording and context

 

[eyesofhawk]

TBH, that sounds more like Lester saying that BS played hard and his way and wasn't going to change who he is as a player just to avoid getting hurt - really more of a compliment than a condemnation on how he is stupid and uncoachable, as you suggested.

But nice try.

1:37:25 mark speaks of Lester saying, "we couldn't stop (Sullivan) from running if we tried."

Interpret it as you will

 

[2D_]

Leave it to Eyes of Retard to not only act like Sully wasn't an improvement to our offense, but to also laugh at the idea of Hank Brown being the starter next year. Gotta keep up the delusion that bad offense is actually a good thing I suppose.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Leave it to Eyes of Retard to not only act like Sully wasn't an improvement to our offense, but to also laugh at the idea of Hank Brown being the starter next year. Gotta keep up the delusion that bad offense is actually a good thing I suppose.

Last season was last season. Doesn't matter what BS was or wasn't last season. He wasn't going to be the starter this season.

I have nothing against Brown. But next season is next season. Brown is not of primary concern. The 1st string offense is.

I'm much more concerned with Mark being able to get a rhythm coming off injury. Much more concerned with Mark getting a rhythm in a brand new offense. Much more concerned with all of the 1st stringers gaining a rhythm together in their 1st season playing together. Every rep together is crucial. These guys need a chance to grow in their "easier" games.

Some of you guys will be quick to judge the offense, yet don't want them to have the necessary reps to be any good.

And again, a lot of you just love backup QB's. You know there is actually a saying that, "the fan favorite is the backup QB"? There's a lot that can be taken from that saying. None of it paints fans it a very good light.

If Brown wants reps he has to win the job. Welcome to football

 

[hullie]

Leave it to Eyes of Retard to not only act like Sully wasn't an improvement to our offense, but to also laugh at the idea of Hank Brown being the starter next year. Gotta keep up the delusion that bad offense is actually a good thing I suppose.

I've been involved with the Special Olympics for over 40 years. You know, the retards. What a wonderful human being you are.

 

[BirdistheWord]

I dunno he doesn't have great instincts. That UCLA game was brutal to watch. He was running into bone crushing hits. He likely gets injures early on.

Maybe so. But Deacon and Cade were some of the worst QB’s in the conference. We will never know but he was generally harder to defend against. He was a stop gap and I am excited about where we are headed. Appreciate his efforts.

 

[2D_]

Last season was last season. Doesn't matter what BS was or wasn't last season.

No, it actually does matter. Anyone has the right to look back and analyze the decisions made and criticize them accordingly. Cade, as much as I wished he was the QB we wanted him to be, wasn't the guy. Sully showed in the games he did play that he was a much better choice. His ability to run only improved our run game's performance, because the defense had to take into account another runner. What happened to "run the ball" big guy? Got tired or spamming it?

He wasn't going to be the starter this season.

You figure all that out on your own? Or was it the million dollar QB with one season remaining that tipped you off?

I have nothing against Brown. But next season is next season. Brown is not of primary concern. The 1st string offense is.

I'm much more concerned with Mark being able to get a rhythm coming off injury. Much more concerned with Mark getting a rhythm in a brand new offense. Much more concerned with all of the 1st stringers gaining a rhythm together in their 1st season playing together. Every rep together is crucial. These guys need a chance to grow in their "easier" games.

Eventually, the starters need to be pulled if we are up enough. It's a matter of keeping them healthy. Mark will get plenty of reps against the three teams I mentioned. But at one point, there's no further need to have the 1's in. This happens every season, and every coach does it. Have an issue? Hit up ol' Kirk about it.

Some of you guys will be quick to judge the offense, yet don't want them to have the necessary reps to be any good.

Nice fallacy. No one has stated that they shouldn't be getting necessary reps. Crap time is crap time. When we're up by 40 with 10 minutes left, there's no reason to keep guys out there who have a chance of getting injured. Giving the 2's and 3's some real game time is a healthy thing. The offense will always be judged, just like every part of football, no matter how many reps they get.

If Brown wants reps he has to win the job. Welcome to football

No one is beating Mark for the job. Everyone knows this. Simply hoping for Hank to get some real game time snaps is a good thing, whether you like it or not. It means that Mark and the starters are playing well enough that our backups have a chance to play. Welcome to reality.

I've been involved with the Special Olympics for over 40 years. You know, the retards. What a wonderful human being you are.

Cry, burner account.

 

[eyesofhawk]

No, it actually does matter. Anyone has the right to look back and analyze the decisions made and criticize them accordingly. Cade, as much as I wished he was the QB we wanted him to be, wasn't the guy. Sully showed in the games he did play that he was a much better choice. His ability to run only improved our run game's performance, because the defense had to take into account another runner. What happened to "run the ball" big guy? Got tired or spamming it?


You figure all that out on your own? Or was it the million dollar QB with one season remaining that tipped you off?



Eventually, the starters need to be pulled if we are up enough. It's a matter of keeping them healthy. Mark will get plenty of reps against the three teams I mentioned. But at one point, there's no further need to have the 1's in. This happens every season, and every coach does it. Have an issue? Hit up ol' Kirk about it.


Nice fallacy. No one has stated that they shouldn't be getting necessary reps. Crap time is crap time. When we're up by 40 with 10 minutes left, there's no reason to keep guys out there who have a chance of getting injured. Giving the 2's and 3's some real game time is a healthy thing. The offense will always be judged, just like every part of football, no matter how many reps they get.


No one is beating Mark for the job. Everyone knows this. Simply hoping for Hank to get some real game time snaps is a good thing, whether you like it or not. It means that Mark and the starters are playing well enough that our backups have a chance to play. Welcome to reality.


Cry, burner account.

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of Sully. Even if they did and your criticism is 100% accurate, what does that do for anybody now? IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Keeping guys healthy is one thing. That won't be happening midway through the 3rd quarter, as you suggest in your 1st post, lmao. And Kirk isn't concerned with getting Hank reps. Have an issue with that? Hit him up. I can guarantee at no point will his focus be to blow someone out for the purpose of getting backups reps. Winning is hard enough.

You say at some point there's no need for the 1's to get reps, yet Brown will need all he can get? A rep is important to everyone. I'd rather the guys that actually play get them.

Giving 2's and 3's game reps is not necessarily a healthy thing. That's why it doesn't always happen, even with a game in balance. Growth from the guys that actually play is always a healthy thing.

No matter how much of a priority it should be to get reps for backups, your fascination with it is laughable. Classic fan shit

 

[2D_]

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of Sully. Even if they did and your criticism is 100% accurate, what does that do for anybody now? IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Whether or not someone agrees with me is irrelevant. But looking back, analyzing and criticizing is a normal topic of discussion, whether you like it or not. And when the topic is specifically about Sully and his time at Iowa, it's all the more relevant.

Keeping guys healthy is one thing. That won't be happening midway through the 3rd quarter, as you suggest in your 1st post, lmao. And Kirk isn't concerned with getting Hank reps. Have an issue with that? Hit him up. I can guarantee at no point will his focus be to blow someone out for the purpose of getting backups reps. Winning is hard enough.

Again, another silly fallacy. Why would Kirk's main focus be to play backups? That's just stupid. Playing UMass, Albany, and for the most part, Rutgers, isn't going to do wonders for the 1's when we're up 3+ scores . They'll get a majority of the reps, as expected. My hope is that we can blow them out early to give the younger guys some time to play. That would mean the starters did a great job. Everyone wins. No idea why you would be against letting younger guys get some time on the field. We did it last season, too. Got an issue with that? Hit up ol' Kirk.

You say at some point there's no need for the 1's to get reps, yet Brown will need all he can get? A rep is important to everyone. I'd rather the guys that actually play get them.

Giving 2's and 3's game reps is not necessarily a healthy thing. That's why it doesn't always happen, even with a game in balance. Growth from the guys that actually play is always a healthy thing.

Again, you present such silly nothing burger arguments. Brown will seldom see the field. The highest probability of him seeing the field will be against bad teams. So why not hope that our offense will be successful enough to let our most likely starter get some reps with minutes left in the game? Remember, the backup is always one injury away from being the starter.

No matter how much of a priority it should be to get reps for backups, your fascination with it is laughable. Classic fan shit

There is no fascination. It was just a side comment that acknowledged that we no longer have an experienced QB as our backup, and that Brown could be our starter next year. It's very relevant with Sully's departure. You just focused on it like the weirdo you are. I will continue to thank God every day that you aren't our coach or on Iowa's staff in any capacity.

 

[eyesofhawk]

Whether or not someone agrees with me is irrelevant. But looking back, analyzing and criticizing is a normal topic of discussion, whether you like it or not. And when the topic is specifically about Sully and his time at Iowa, it's all the more relevant.


Again, another silly fallacy. Why would Kirk's main focus be to play backups? That's just stupid. Playing UMass, Albany, and for the most part, Rutgers, isn't going to do wonders for the 1's when we're up 3+ scores . They'll get a majority of the reps, as expected. My hope is that we can blow them out early to give the younger guys some time to play. That would mean the starters did a great job. Everyone wins. No idea why you would be against letting younger guys get some time on the field. We did it last season, too. Got an issue with that? Hit up ol' Kirk.


Again, you present such silly nothing burger arguments. Brown will seldom see the field. The highest probability of him seeing the field will be against bad teams. So why not hope that our offense will be successful enough to let our most likely starter get some reps with minutes left in the game? Remember, the backup is always one injury away from being the starter.


There is no fascination. It was just a side comment that acknowledged that we no longer have an experienced QB as our backup, and that Brown could be our starter next year. It's very relevant with Sully's departure. You just focused on it like the weirdo you are. I will continue to thank God every day that you aren't our coach or on Iowa's staff in any capacity.

Again, even if you're criticism is accurate, what now? Why does it matter?

Let me put it another way. At no point does Kirk even think about reps for backups until that time comes. Just not a concern in any way.

Just a side comment? No fascination? It was the entire subject matter of your post #31. You even said you were thinking of starting a thread for it, lmao.

For what reason does anybody even have a thought about a backup at this point? Especially at QB. More than any other position, if you want any reps at all at QB, including in-season practice, you better win the job. Again, welcome to football. That's the nature of being a backup QB. No concessions are made for one

 

[Titanhawk2]

Weirdly I thought he might go through the year and if he didn’t play, he would use 2025 as a redshirt year and then take over in 2026.
Maybe that wasn’t even an option.

I agree, Iowa wins at least 2 more games last year if he had started all along. Because he did not get into the starting role until over halfway through the season, he didn’t have the advantage of the whole season to progress. Then he got hurt. I thought he was a good QB, and would have been better if he had started from the beginning.

Redshirt in 2021 already

 

[2D_]

Again, even if you're criticism is accurate, what now? Why does it matter?

Let me put it another way. At no point does Kirk even think about reps for backups until that time comes. Just not a concern in any way.

Just a side comment? No fascination? It was the entire subject matter of your post #31. You even said you were thinking of starting a thread for it, lmao.

For what reason does anybody even have a thought about a backup at this point? Especially at QB. More than any other position, if you want any reps at all at QB, including in-season practice, you better win the job. Again, welcome to football. That's the nature of being a backup QB. No concessions are made for one

You fundamentally misunderstand or mischaracterize every single point I've made. Whether it's intentional or not is up for debate. I posted the comment here because I knew the topic didn't warrant its own thread, as it was relevant to the topic of Brendan's departure. Now I see you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You say nothing of consequence and continue to be disengenious.

I usually ignore your blatant stupidity, but couldn't let it slide this time. Now I remember why I stopped engaging with the hot garbage you post. When the backups are inevitably put in at some point this year, I'll be there to laugh in your face.

 

[eyesofhawk]

You fundamentally misunderstand or mischaracterize every single point I've made. Whether it's intentional or not is up for debate. I posted the comment here because I knew the topic didn't warrant its own thread, as it was relevant to the topic of Brendan's departure. Now I see you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You say nothing of consequence and continue to be disengenious.

I usually ignore your blatant stupidity, but couldn't let it slide this time. Now I remember why I stopped engaging with the hot garbage you post. When the backups are inevitably put in at some point this year, I'll be there to laugh in your face.

Of course the backups will get some reps. Never said they wouldn't. Did you misunderstand or mischaracterize, or both?

Again, why does anyone even have a thought about backup QB reps at this point? I find it comical.

Have to say, overall though, your reading comprehension and ability to have a linear conversation have been much better so far this season

 

[2D_]

I hope Brown gets some snaps this season during crap time.
>"No, he has to earn the job. Welcome to football."
Backups getting reps is a good thing for multiple reasons
>"The starters need all the snaps they can get. Kirk isn't focusing on the backups. I'd rather the guys that actually play get them."
Easily picks apart the mischaracterization of my points
>Of course the backups will get some reps. Never said they wouldn't.

If you believe that the backups will get reps, why argue with me about it? Why act as though saying as such is factually incorrect? Why laugh at the idea that Brown might get some game time? Why consistently push back on the idea, but then after I pick apart your nonsense, you backtrack?

At least the intellectual façade you attempted to keep up has finally crumbled.

 

[Rocket_Fran]

Lol, he would have gotten himself hurt before the 3rd game. Coaches said they couldn't reign him in (to play smart) if they tried.

Guy was an airhead. Could be argued he cost Iowa the UCLA game.

One of the more overrated players in a while. Why? Fans love them some backup QB

I know the uncouth nature of unmoderated forums lends itself to unnecessary personal affronts, but you very easily could have said that more diplomatically. Considering what you do as a side gig, it's not only decent but pragmatic.

 

[eyesofhawk]

I hope Brown gets some snaps this season during crap time.
>"No, he has to earn the job. Welcome to football."
Backups getting reps is a good thing for multiple reasons
>"The starters need all the snaps they can get. Kirk isn't focusing on the backups. I'd rather the guys that actually play get them."
Easily picks apart the mischaracterization of my points
>Of course the backups will get some reps. Never said they wouldn't.

If you believe that the backups will get reps, why argue with me about it? Why act as though saying as such is factually incorrect? Why laugh at the idea that Brown might get some game time? Why consistently push back on the idea, but then after I pick apart your nonsense, you backtrack?

At least the intellectual façade you attempted to keep up has finally crumbled.

Ahh, the familiar 2Dense comprehension level has returned. It's actually somewhat comforting to recognize who I'm talking to.

Find it comical that mid-3rd quarter and crap time are in the same sentence for you.

Yes, a QB may get some crap time reps. To say he has to win the job to guarantee reps, though, is just to say his reps aren't a priority in any way. In other words, why is it a concern for you?

Yes, backups getting reps can be a good thing. Reps for starters is also a good thing for multiple reasons. My focus is more on the starters, especially Mark. Am I obligated to agree on everything, in every way, with you?

Whether or not backups deserve or get reps or not, the reason I gave a laughing emoji to your first post, is I find fans' fascination with backup QB's and them getting reps, comical. Thought I've explained that pretty clearly a couple of times now. Not sure where the confusion has come from

 

[eyesofhawk]

I know the uncouth nature of unmoderated forums lends itself to unnecessary personal affronts, but you very easily could have said that more diplomatically. Considering what you do as a side gig, it's not only decent but pragmatic.

I've already admitted to at least partial poor wording in the post.

I'd say I've pretty consistently tried on this board to protect players and coaches from unnecessary negativity. Certainly isn't something I would have said if BS were still a Hawk. But at this point, I think it's at least somewhat different.

And what exactly is my side gig?

 

[2D_]

Ahh, the familiar 2Dense comprehension level has returned. It's actually somewhat comforting to recognize who I'm talking to.

it genuinely warms my heart to know my arguments have bothered you this much. Especially when I use your own words against you.

Find it comical that mid-3rd quarter and crap time are in the same sentence for you.

Again, another odd fixation on a side comment that generally means nothing. You continue to fixate on something using it as a "gotcha" but fail to understand the overall conversation. Looks like I have to spell it out for you, you are the Eyes of Retard after all: The thread is about Brendan leaving, who leaves with a good amount of experience under his belt. I follow up that his likely replacement is Hank, and that I hope Hank could get some reps in the games against poor teams where we are expected to dominate. This is because Hank lacks that experience that we found comfort in with Sully. This of course, isn't hard to follow. It's relevant to the topic at hand and a valid follow up question. You either lack reading comprehension or purposefully mischaracterize my points because you don't like that I've brought it up. Either way, very sad.

Yes, a QB may get some crap time reps. To say he has to win the job to guarantee reps, though, is just to say his reps aren't a priority in any way. In other words, why is it a concern for you?

Again, this is a thread about our backup QB leaving. So the conversation will naturally include the backup's replacement. My question was simple, you just didn't like that I asked it. Maybe it's time to log off, buddy?

Yes, backups getting reps can be a good thing. Reps for starters is also a good thing for multiple reasons. My focus is more on the starters, especially Mark. Am I obligated to agree on everything, in every way, with you?

Never said starters getting reps was a bad thing. Did you misunderstand or mischaracterize, or both? This thread is about the backups. Literally. It's in the title. Sully was our backup. Try to keep up.

Whether or not backups deserve or get reps or not, the reason I gave a laughing emoji to your first post, is I find fans' fascination with backup QB's and them getting reps, comical. Thought I've explained that pretty clearly a couple of times now. Not sure where the confusion has come from

I find you misunderstanding the entire point of this thread comical. What's the title say?

"Bye, bye, Brendan"​

@MeetTheFerentzes says "Actually a little surprised by this one. Thought he’d be a strong QB2 with playing time every game and was one play away from being QB1. ’m afraid we’re going to miss him more than any of the other plethora of QB’s that have left the last several years… "

This entire thread is about our backup who just left. Meaning, we will have a new backup to replace Sully. That's how football works. Welcome to football, as you say.

To summarize, I've not said anything about taking something from the starters, nor have I advocated for backups to get more playing time. Mark is the starter, he should be the starter, and he is the starter. I can't wait to see him play on Saturdays. Much to your chagrin, he's a very capable QB that has great accuracy, meaning Lester will utilize more passing plays. But because this is a thread about the backup QB, I simply stated that I hoped we will be successful enough against the few bad teams on our schedule to give him some real game time. There is no "obsession", stop projecting on me what you've seen from other users.

My question was simple, non-offensive, and relevant to the topic. You just come off as angry, vindictive, and petty because apparently you hate to hear fans talk about the backup QB, as you're attempting to conflate the conversation with the idea that "the fan's favorite player is the backup QB". Which doesn't make any sense if you bother to read. Everyone is 110% behind Mark, including me. If you don't like talking about the backups, then don't come to a thread that's specifically about one leaving. But I suppose that's why you've earned the name, Eyes of Retard.

 

[eyesofhawk]

it genuinely warms my heart to know my arguments have bothered you this much. Especially when I use your own words against you.



Again, another odd fixation on a side comment that generally means nothing. You continue to fixate on something using it as a "gotcha" but fail to understand the overall conversation. Looks like I have to spell it out for you, you are the Eyes of Retard after all: The thread is about Brendan leaving, who leaves with a good amount of experience under his belt. I follow up that his likely replacement is Hank, and that I hope Hank could get some reps in the games against poor teams where we are expected to dominate. This is because Hank lacks that experience that we found comfort in with Sully. This of course, isn't hard to follow. It's relevant to the topic at hand and a valid follow up question. You either lack reading comprehension or purposefully mischaracterize my points because you don't like that I've brought it up. Either way, very sad.


Again, this is a thread about our backup QB leaving. So the conversation will naturally include the backup's replacement. My question was simple, you just didn't like that I asked it. Maybe it's time to log off, buddy?


Never said starters getting reps was a bad thing. Did you misunderstand or mischaracterize, or both? This thread is about the backups. Literally. It's in the title. Sully was our backup. Try to keep up.


I find you misunderstanding the entire point of this thread comical. What's the title say?

"Bye, bye, Brendan"​

@MeetTheFerentzes says "Actually a little surprised by this one. Thought he’d be a strong QB2 with playing time every game and was one play away from being QB1. ’m afraid we’re going to miss him more than any of the other plethora of QB’s that have left the last several years… "

This entire thread is about our backup who just left. Meaning, we will have a new backup to replace Sully. That's how football works. Welcome to football, as you say.

To summarize, I've not said anything about taking something from the starters, nor have I advocated for backups to get more playing time. Mark is the starter, he should be the starter, and he is the starter. I can't wait to see him play on Saturdays. Much to your chagrin, he's a very capable QB that has great accuracy, meaning Lester will utilize more passing plays. But because this is a thread about the backup QB, I simply stated that I hoped we will be successful enough against the few bad teams on our schedule to give him some real game time. There is no "obsession", stop projecting on me what you've seen from other users.

My question was simple, non-offensive, and relevant to the topic. You just come off as angry, vindictive, and petty because apparently you hate to hear fans talk about the backup QB, as you're attempting to conflate the conversation with the idea that "the fan's favorite player is the backup QB". Which doesn't make any sense if you bother to read. Everyone is 110% behind Mark, including me. If you don't like talking about the backups, then don't come to a thread that's specifically about one leaving. But I suppose that's why you've earned the name, Eyes of Retard.

You've honestly never heard the saying that, "fans favorite player is the backup QB"?

I understand everything that you've said. It's not hard to follow.

All I did originally was give a laughing emoji to your post. You took offense, so to clarify, I said I was laughing at fans in general.

If you don't like the word, "fascination", fine, I'm laughing at the fact that this is a discussion at all.

It's pretty straightforward. Evidently you are the one that has been unable to follow, for some reason

 

[Dauminator]

That's a shame. The guy laid himself out for the Hawks, which is why he endeared himself to us. I was hoping they'd rotate him in frequently as a running threat, but oh well. Hope it works out for both sides.

 

[pistachio1999]

That's a shame. The guy laid himself out for the Hawks, which is why he endeared himself to us. I was hoping they'd rotate him in frequently as a running threat, but oh well. Hope it works out for both sides.

So did Deac.

 

[eyesofhawk]

That's a shame. The guy laid himself out for the Hawks, which is why he endeared himself to us. I was hoping they'd rotate him in frequently as a running threat, but oh well. Hope it works out for both sides.

Perhaps a goal line package, but I'm quite confident frequent rotation, in any form, was never in the plans

 

[AEG82]

it genuinely warms my heart to know my arguments have bothered you this much. Especially when I use your own words against you.



Again, another odd fixation on a side comment that generally means nothing. You continue to fixate on something using it as a "gotcha" but fail to understand the overall conversation. Looks like I have to spell it out for you, you are the Eyes of Retard after all: The thread is about Brendan leaving, who leaves with a good amount of experience under his belt. I follow up that his likely replacement is Hank, and that I hope Hank could get some reps in the games against poor teams where we are expected to dominate. This is because Hank lacks that experience that we found comfort in with Sully. This of course, isn't hard to follow. It's relevant to the topic at hand and a valid follow up question. You either lack reading comprehension or purposefully mischaracterize my points because you don't like that I've brought it up. Either way, very sad.


Again, this is a thread about our backup QB leaving. So the conversation will naturally include the backup's replacement. My question was simple, you just didn't like that I asked it. Maybe it's time to log off, buddy?


Never said starters getting reps was a bad thing. Did you misunderstand or mischaracterize, or both? This thread is about the backups. Literally. It's in the title. Sully was our backup. Try to keep up.


I find you misunderstanding the entire point of this thread comical. What's the title say?

"Bye, bye, Brendan"​

@MeetTheFerentzes says "Actually a little surprised by this one. Thought he’d be a strong QB2 with playing time every game and was one play away from being QB1. ’m afraid we’re going to miss him more than any of the other plethora of QB’s that have left the last several years… "

This entire thread is about our backup who just left. Meaning, we will have a new backup to replace Sully. That's how football works. Welcome to football, as you say.

To summarize, I've not said anything about taking something from the starters, nor have I advocated for backups to get more playing time. Mark is the starter, he should be the starter, and he is the starter. I can't wait to see him play on Saturdays. Much to your chagrin, he's a very capable QB that has great accuracy, meaning Lester will utilize more passing plays. But because this is a thread about the backup QB, I simply stated that I hoped we will be successful enough against the few bad teams on our schedule to give him some real game time. There is no "obsession", stop projecting on me what you've seen from other users.

My question was simple, non-offensive, and relevant to the topic. You just come off as angry, vindictive, and petty because apparently you hate to hear fans talk about the backup QB, as you're attempting to conflate the conversation with the idea that "the fan's favorite player is the backup QB". Which doesn't make any sense if you bother to read. Everyone is 110% behind Mark, including me. If you don't like talking about the backups, then don't come to a thread that's specifically about one leaving. But I suppose that's why you've earned the name, Eyes of Retard.

You've gotta stop enabling him brother. Responding to him only keeps him around longer and ruins it for the rest of us. I'd estimate anywhere from 50-75% on here ignore him. I'd imagine he's probably the most ignored honestly or at least close to it. It appears deliberate on his part. I mean, how can it not be with the statements he responds with. Regardless of his intent, you won't reach him. Stop trying. Best for all of us.

 

[eyesofhawk]

You've gotta stop enabling him brother. Responding to him only keeps him around longer and ruins it for the rest of us. I'd estimate anywhere from 50-75% on here ignore him. I'd imagine he's probably the most ignored honestly or at least close to it. It appears deliberate on his part. I mean, how can it not be with the statements he responds with. Regardless of his intent, you won't reach him. Stop trying. Best for all of us.

Advice from one guy who supposedly ignored me to another who supposedly ignored me 😂

 

[ottumwan in tx]

if you are a QB or WR, Iowa is non-sexy. very sexy if you are a TE or Defensive player

 

[ottumwan in tx]

So did Deac.

I liked this guy deac. he was a great bit of entertainment

 

[pistachio1999]

if you are a QB or WR, Iowa is non-sexy. very sexy if you are a TE or Defensive player

Haha, the state in of itself is non-sexy. We got corn and pigs baby! Lots of turkeys and cattle and soybeans!

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Haha, the state in of itself is non-sexy. We got corn and pigs baby! Lots of turkeys and cattle and soybeans!

Yeah but I've been gone for close to 40 years so Iowa is appealing to me in my retirement. Maybe get an RV and drive up there temporarily

 

[pistachio1999]

Yeah but I've been gone for close to 40 years so Iowa is appealing to me in my retirement. Maybe get an RV and drive up there temporarily

Don't get me wrong I love the state myself. Once retire we will probably locate elsewhere for a couple months of winter though. Just when you get sick of one season here it changes into the next, which I like. My favorite is the somewhat warm days in fall with the crisp nights. Nothing better.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Don't get me wrong I love the state myself. Once retire we will probably locate elsewhere for a couple months of winter though. Just when you get sick of one season here it changes into the next, which I like. My favorite is the somewhat warm days in fall with the crisp nights. Nothing better.

Also we gotta keep in mind we are talking about Ottumwa here.... Haha I love making fun of o town

 

[2D_]

Good discussion about Brendan's departure from actual professionals, Chad and Scott. And whaddayaknow? They then talk about the other backups and the pressure ramping up for Brown. It's almost like the topics correlate!

 

[eyesofhawk]

Good discussion about Brendan's departure from actual professionals, Chad and Scott. And whaddayaknow? They then talk about the other backups and the pressure ramping up for Brown. It's almost like the topics correlate!

View embedded media

I don't think anyone ever said they don't correlate.

Myself, I just find it funny that people are discussing the backup QB

 

[BigOHawk]

Michigan might be a landing spot.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

I don't think anyone ever said they don't correlate.

Myself, I just find it funny that people are discussing the backup QB

Why is it "funny" that people are discussing consequences of losing a QB who played in 9 games last year, started 4, was by far the most effective QB in at least 5 years by every objective measure, and was by far the best and most experienced QB in spring camp, leaving Iowa with a ton of question marks regarding what happens if they lose their injury-prone starter yet again, which has happened in each of the past 3 seasons?

Your "backup QB" narrative has been blown out of the water, and you are only showing how little you know about football. Now THAT'S what's funny.