Was it me or did he seem reluctant as heck to throw the ball? Glad the hawks won but man take some chances and see if your receivers can make a play. That all
Damn Stanley
- Thread starter Kurt Warner
- Start date
Stanley knew the ball was slippery and hard as a rock.
It was not a good weather situation for a quarterback.
The game should never have been played in a cold
weather state.
It was not a good weather situation for a quarterback.
The game should never have been played in a cold
weather state.
But yea he was slow to pull the trigger several times. It's like he goes hypnotic sometimes in the pocket. Slow responses to rushers and slow to throw it. Maybe still a confidence thing, doesn't want to make a mistake. Really need him to get some of that figured out. Look what he's done with what we have. He'll progress with a full year under his belt.
he held the ball too long, period
football has been/will be played in colder weather!
Their shorter QB had over two hundred yards so it was there to be had, they just had a better passing plan and I think it was their TE that had over 100 yards...first 100 yard receiver of the year.
Except for the throw to Easley, Stanley was painful to watch today. Had the reaction time of my grandmother. Hope he learns that anticipation thing or else Mansell be the best player next year.
He's from Wisconsin and plays in the Big Ten. Weather should not have been an issue with his hesitation to throw the ball.
His slow decision-making resulted in a couple of costly sacks.
He definitely needs to improve his processing speed to become an elite QB. And, he needs to run on occasion, too.
will he?
He took good care of the football. That is the most important thing in those elements.
I think he 1) didn't want to turn the ball over and 2) wasn't trusting his footing. He made enough plays to win the game though. Those were unique playing conditions.
Agreed. Neither QB was all that good, which isn't surprising given the elements. Stanley didn't turn it over and the BC QB turned it over 3 times. Which QB helped his team more? BC had a good gameplan with all the crossers underneath. Once Iowa adjusted in the second half BC had nothing going in the passing game. Stanley made a couple of good throws (the deep ball to Stanley and the bootleg to Wieting). That was enough.
My biggest complaint wasnt that we were throwing, it was that we were calling WAY too many long developing plays. Looked like if we had a little more time, we had some dudes coming open.
He gave up a ton of yards with sacks that didn't need to happen he has got to learn to get rid of the football
I would say he needs to trust his feet more. There are a lot of plays where he could tuck it and get 4-5 yards but he seems reluctant to commit.
That was a consistent theme all season. Beathard, Rudock, JVB, were all capable of picking up a few yards here and there.
Stanley's a good enough athlete, and certainly strong enough, to do the same.
If you're gonna have cold weather sites for bowl games, why not have a bowl here in Denver? Its frequently sunny and chances of 50's and 60's are pretty good this time of year. It was sunny and 55 yesterday.
Except for the tipped TD pass, most of his passes were short over the middle or screen, most yards came after the catch. I don't remember plays where Stanley had a quick/short option, and his sacks occurred way to fast, never had time
Yea then everybody can get mile high for the game too! Not just beer at the tailgate.
Denver would be great destination imo....better than nyc imo
He was playing turnover-adverse football (aka Rudockball). Thought he managed the game well which was required of him last night given the conditions and being down a few receiving weapons.
It was a forgettable performance.
Most of the same issues that were present all year were still there at the end. Conditions didn't help, but both teams had to play in them.
My overall verdict for Stanley yesterday is the same as it was for the season, Meh.
He didn't turn the ball over much, took some dumb/unnecessary sacks, had a few really nice throws, failed to recognize pressure several times, is leaden in his movements in the pocket. A mixed bag.
Is he going to the the next great B1G QB that some posters claim? I don't know, but I haven't seen it yet.
He doesn't have a great receiver corps, that's obvious.
I'm neither high nor low on him for next year.
Most of the same issues that were present all year were still there at the end. Conditions didn't help, but both teams had to play in them.
My overall verdict for Stanley yesterday is the same as it was for the season, Meh.
He didn't turn the ball over much, took some dumb/unnecessary sacks, had a few really nice throws, failed to recognize pressure several times, is leaden in his movements in the pocket. A mixed bag.
Is he going to the the next great B1G QB that some posters claim? I don't know, but I haven't seen it yet.
He doesn't have a great receiver corps, that's obvious.
I'm neither high nor low on him for next year.
The Coors Light Rocky Mountain Bowl has a great ring to it.
From what I watched he was slow to his reads...It was painful and hopefully he won't continue this into next year. The second half he looked better but still held the ball for the 3 plus seconds they say to get rid of the ball. His arm is as strong as anyone, he can be accurate at times. Those are things he needs to work on and with Ken back maybe he will work on those things with him.
Yes we won and great come back by a team that looked lifeless in the first half.
Yes we won and great come back by a team that looked lifeless in the first half.
A
anon_8rcdnbko1jbe0
Guest
Agree with this post Doc. I think the receiving core is good enough to get the job done. I MO he is extremely risk-adverse to the point of not throwing up the 50-50 ball. Also seems slower on his progressions than CJ was. That combination makes him look like a statue back there and take too many Sacks. I love his potential as he does have a rocket for an arm and has shown flashes this year. However I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an open competition with Mansell in the spring. There is an element of something lacking IMO. I believe that's why it took them so long to name him starter as well . TW may have had that missing element but not the arm talent of NS. Hopefully that can be brought out via competition this spring or PM gets a serious look.
Play the game in giants stadium with a heated field.. if the big ten wants to play in New York City.. playing on a baseball field is dumb and last night game should kill the bowl.. that was a bad product
He was being pressured all night. Everyone seems to love the fact that he threw 26 TDs vs. only 6 ints for the season, but now apparently he needs to take more chances and force things even if they're not there. Makes zero sense. The BC QB had better stats because our DC refuses to bring pressure aside from the front four. He had all day in the pocket and burned us continuously on underneath routes because that's what we give them to avoid getting burned deep.
You also need to add "their shorter QB had over two hundred yards and THREE TURNOVERS in that "better passing plan"
Comprehend much..I said better passing plan. Interceptions nor fumble were a product of the routes they were running hence why I referenced yardage that was there to be had.
I apologize. You are correct. Iowa's "passing plan" like BC's should have included a ball deflecting off a defensive back's hand for a 40 yard TD.
Wow!!! After reading these posts from all the armchair qbs, I would think Iowa lost the game. What would the posts be if they did? Nathan Stanley is a good quarterback just shy of the all time passing records at Iowa and with only 6 interceptions. All the negative posts make a person consider ditching the forums.
Was it me or did it seem as if the BC QB's two interceptions and fumble allow Iowa to win the game? Stanley's job last night was to not turn the ball over and to make enough plays to win the game, which is exactly what he did.
Without question. The same people would have been on here complaining if he was checking down all night, just as they were when Rudock did that. You remember check down Jake right? Yes the kids got some things to work on, like most first year players do. By the way 26tds to 6 int is pretty damn good, and would rate as one of the best in Iowa history. I'd also bet if you look it up, he took less sacks this season then CJ did in either of his two years as a starter. I don't think anyone has mentioned that it may have been very hard for the receivers to get seperation with the field conditions. There were also times he had almost no time to get rid of the ball, with early pressure from Paulsens side.
I believe the sack numbers were 30 in 2015, 30 in 2016, and 22 prior to the bowl this year.
Was he slow in his reads? Yes, BUT and this is key, I truly believe the coaching staff wisely accounted for that joke of a playing surface and instructed Stanley to make sure the receiver was wide open or just eat it. It was obvious almost immediately that the game was going to be won on turnovers and field position. That surface was as bad as it gets. While ugly, it was a winning offensive game plan in those conditions.
