ADVERTISEMENT

Deacon Hill QB1 for spring ball

In the HawkCentral Deacon interview, the reporter disingenuously told Deacon he 'looked lighter' and Hill non-convincingly said 'a little' and then segued into how you have to take it slow and do it the 'healthy way'. 💩...anyone can see he looks basically the same in the practice video wrt last year.

Given he is of Samoan ancestry there is an elevated likelihood of genetic markers for obesity. As many people know, obesity is a treatable condition with glp-1 ra meds (like ozempic) being very effective in addition to diet/exercise. Wonder if they have discussed that option with him, it could likely help him out.
Ozempic.
 
I will say it again. Cade has only played a few games and has had limited reps in over 2 years and we have nobody that can even come close to overtaking the starting position? Now, I am not a smart man, but something about that does not seem logical to me. I mean how is that even possible?
 
Of course Deacon has to be beat out for the spot. Just like every other spot on the team has to be earned. They aren't just given. Have you ever been involved in any sport in your life?

Yes, there is true competition for the spot and Marco is being given a fair chance. His reps aren't being limited, they are just mostly with the twos at this point. Of course spring is going to start with Deacon with the ones, as he was the starter for the bowl game. But that doesn't mean the spot isn't an open competition. It's just like any player at any other position that works his way up and passes someone in the depth chart.

This is the time when we expect Marco to start taking a leap in his development and to start passing DH in the depth chart. It has to play out though.

Your confusion comes from the fact that you don't accept that Deacon actually gave Iowa a better chance than Marco to win last year. As I've explained in my above post, it's all about things moving too fast for a true freshman.

News flash, people. A lot of true freshman, especially at QB, don't play. The reason is they aren't good enough yet. Very commonly, things slow down for them in their second year and they are able to make a big leap in their development. Stop with all the drama
Why you continue to defend Hill and the coaching staff for continuing to play one of the worst QBs in college football is mind boggling. There isn't one, single coach who would play a QB as bad as Hill for that long without at least giving someone else a chance. Not one.

You pass judgement on Marco based on limited action late in a blowout loss, yet conveniently ignore almost an entire season of ineptitude by Hill. Please look at his QB ratings that littlez posted. You can't tell me Marco would be worse than that. And Marco wasn't the only other QB on the roster either. To not give someone else a chance....even for a series or two...is unconscionable. I like Kirk, but what he has done to the quarterback position and the offense is coaching malfeasance as far as I'm concerned.

I am done discussing this with you. You have your opinion and will never change. That's your right. I strongly disagree with much of what you have posted in this thread, so let's leave it at that.
 
Here's the thing. Deacon did not WIN any of those games. Please stop w/this nonsense. He was under Center taking snaps but did nothing all season to actually win us a game. Let's look at his QBR during some games last year. Tennessee. 0.5. Yes, 0.5. You cannot make this up. Minnesota, 9.1. Wisconsin 4.2. Purdue 2.4. Penn State 4.9. End of season rating 18.5. Even you can understand how bad that is. That comes in at 126 in the country. 5 TD's for the entire season. And now looking at him he looks like he's done nothing to get himself in better shape. Oh, and he also fumbled a lot but for the most part but we managed to recover most of them. There's basically never been a QB in my lifetime like him since the modern game started. Please stop w/this nonsense.
Yep but that’s not what Kirk is really interested in.

Yes Kirk wants to win, but he wants to win with “good kid / story”. Hill by all accounts seems like a great kid. He tries his best. Probably does work hard at practice. He’s also the worst QB any of us have seen at this level.

One positive to the “Kirk” way is it does have its motivational factor. The players know the world talks shit about them so they rally around that narrative. Yeah Hill isn’t good but god damn it he’s our guy!!!

I think any other school / coach who pulls this bullshit with playing an over matched kid would see a divided locker room. Not sure we’ve seen that under Kirk.

Yet as much as the players rally and get fired up they stand no chance of beating a team with any talent. They trip and fall over themselves and find a way to beat the worst of the worst in conference and thay continues to feed their “no one believes in us!!” Narrative. When all it does is mask the truth, the offense sucks and Phils squad saves the day.
 
Why you continue to defend Hill and the coaching staff for continuing to play one of the worst QBs in college football is mind boggling. There isn't one, single coach who would play a QB as bad as Hill for that long without at least giving someone else a chance. Not one.

You pass judgement on Marco based on limited action late in a blowout loss, yet conveniently ignore almost an entire season of ineptitude by Hill. Please look at his QB ratings that littlez posted. You can't tell me Marco would be worse than that. And Marco wasn't the only other QB on the roster either. To not give someone else a chance....even for a series or two...is unconscionable. I like Kirk, but what he has done to the quarterback position and the offense is coaching malfeasance as far as I'm concerned.

I am done discussing this with you. You have your opinion and will never change. That's your right. I strongly disagree with much of what you have posted in this thread, so let's leave it at that.
QB is literally the most important position in college football, but Iowa coaches the position at a pee-wee league level. Inexcusable.

I swear, Iowa fans are being held hostage by the UI administration and the wealthiest alumni. The only thing exciting about Iowa right now is women's hoops, and without CC the program will revert to its usual "barely Top 25" mean. Men's hoops, wrestling, football, baseball etc. are all stale products and while Iowa racks up meaningless win after meaningless win in a bunch of sports like those, the big boys are running laps around Iowa. The people with the power to change simply don't care.
 
QB is literally the most important position in college football, but Iowa coaches the position at a pee-wee league level. Inexcusable.

I swear, Iowa fans are being held hostage by the UI administration and the wealthiest alumni. The only thing exciting about Iowa right now is women's hoops, and without CC the program will revert to its usual "barely Top 25" mean. Men's hoops, wrestling, football, baseball etc. are all stale products and while Iowa racks up meaningless win after meaningless win in a bunch of sports like those, the big boys are running laps around Iowa. The people with the power to change simply don't care.
This 100%. I mean if you're Michigan and can go an entire 2nd half against Penn St w/out throwing the ball then QB isn't that important. We treat every other position on the field w/more importance than QB. It's absolutely mind blowing. We had a game changing Quarterback in Banks over 20 years ago and we've never seen an offense like that again. Once Deacon became QB we brought the offense down to a level never seen before. And people were defending it. Things like " It doesn't matter if the defense knows what you're running." Nope, of course not. It's always better to telegraph everything in advance to make it easier for the other team. All about the execution!
 
QB is literally the most important position in college football, but Iowa coaches the position at a pee-wee league level. Inexcusable.

I swear, Iowa fans are being held hostage by the UI administration and the wealthiest alumni. The only thing exciting about Iowa right now is women's hoops, and without CC the program will revert to its usual "barely Top 25" mean. Men's hoops, wrestling, football, baseball etc. are all stale products and while Iowa racks up meaningless win after meaningless win in a bunch of sports like those, the big boys are running laps around Iowa. The people with the power to change simply don't care.
You don't find Iowa's defense and special teams exciting?
 
Here's the thing. Deacon did not WIN any of those games. Please stop w/this nonsense. He was under Center taking snaps but did nothing all season to actually win us a game. Let's look at his QBR during some games last year. Tennessee. 0.5. Yes, 0.5. You cannot make this up. Minnesota, 9.1. Wisconsin 4.2. Purdue 2.4. Penn State 4.9. End of season rating 18.5. Even you can understand how bad that is. That comes in at 126 in the country. 5 TD's for the entire season. And now looking at him he looks like he's done nothing to get himself in better shape. Oh, and he also fumbled a lot but for the most part but we managed to recover most of them. There's basically never been a QB in my lifetime like him since the modern game started. Please stop w/this nonsense.
Nobody is debating these stats or Hill's struggles. Nobody is saying they won because of Hill. Although I do contend that Deacon did make a few timely plays along the way that are often called winning plays.

You guys just refuse to believe that it's possible that Marco gave Iowa less chance to win last season (or that Marco wasn't as good as Deacon). Yes there are lots of QB's that have been as bad or worse than Hill in the modern game. They are the true freshman on the sidelines that the game is still moving too fast for.

It's either that ML was clearly behind DH, or that they were moreso even with each other and the staff didn't want to break up a winning dynamic for the team by changing QB's. This is also very understandable. Coaches don't like messing with QB's and coaches don't like messing up a winning dynamic. Coaches are happy to be winning at all with a backup QB. If you're able to pull that off at all, you stick with what you're doing.

It's probably a combination of all of this. But three things tell me the right QB was playing. 1. The players know if the right guy was out there and that team was all-in on each other. 2. The coaches who see these guys in practice every day were choosing to start Hill. 3. And what I saw in the bowl game gave me reason to assume that the game had probably been moving too fast most of the season for ML. Yes, a QB out there that isn't able to get through his reads would have done worse than Hill. Again, I just don't believe that Iowa would have won as many games with Marco as Cade's replacement instead of Deacon. Even just an extra year of maturity in how you handle and lead the group can be huge.

All that said, I believe Marco is the better prospect and will develop into next season's QB2
 
Why you continue to defend Hill and the coaching staff for continuing to play one of the worst QBs in college football is mind boggling. There isn't one, single coach who would play a QB as bad as Hill for that long without at least giving someone else a chance. Not one.

You pass judgement on Marco based on limited action late in a blowout loss, yet conveniently ignore almost an entire season of ineptitude by Hill. Please look at his QB ratings that littlez posted. You can't tell me Marco would be worse than that. And Marco wasn't the only other QB on the roster either. To not give someone else a chance....even for a series or two...is unconscionable. I like Kirk, but what he has done to the quarterback position and the offense is coaching malfeasance as far as I'm concerned.

I am done discussing this with you. You have your opinion and will never change. That's your right. I strongly disagree with much of what you have posted in this thread, so let's leave it at that.
Nowhere have I defended Hill or ignored his ineptitude. I'm not sure what you're reading.

If I've passed any judgement on Marco it's been to continuously express that I believe him to be a better prospect and to have more upside than Hill.

What I've said is that there are reasons to believe that the right QB played last year. And you can rest assured that the reasoning I've provided for Hill taking snaps with the ones at this point is a lot more plausible than one concluding that KF is senile or self- sabotaging for one reason or another.

And no, most coaches would not have broken up a winning dynamic amongst the team to give another QB a try. You aren't even close in your assessment of that. As I stated in the above post, if a coach can get wins at all with a backup QB he considers himself blessed. He isn't going to change that dynamic at all, let alone make the drastic change that switching QB's entails. He's already scared as shit to have to have his backup QB in there. And the team is winning games. Coaches just aren't going to mess with that situation by going to a QB that's even further down the depth chart
 
Last edited:
Wow - you're surprised?

The KF apologists have told us all along and they lap this up. They're all about seniority, time in the program and on-the-field win/loss record.

We don't need no sexy QB, let alone a new coach! We don't want to become Indiana for fakk sakes!

Pathetic.
So you are not for a won-loss record? Isn't that why they keep score?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: littlez
As I recall, Banks stepped in after McCann graduated. So given that McCann wasn't replaced by a techtonic fan shift, I didn't think you were also referring to Banks.

Again, we don't know when Banks was ready without having been at practice every day. He came from juco, so there was definitely room for development in his game.

And again, maybe Banks and McCann were pretty much even at some points and KF kept with the upperclassman. Nothing newsworthy there.

We just don't know. Maybe it was taking Banks a while to pick up the offense in camp and the coaches decided to roll with McCann as the returning guy. Then McCann starts the season 3-0 with games of 55 and 48 points and a win vs PSU. Even if Banks is now red hot in practice, you're not even thinking about your backup QB at this point in this season. The team then goes on a tough stretch, losing a couple close road games and to a couple good teams. Perhaps some may think it would have been a time for Banks. But you have to look at the context of what that team was experiencing. That team won seven games after the program had won 4 games the previous two seasons combined. They were literally building the program at that time. They were more concerned about finding out if they could keep building into winners than they were about turning to a backup QB. And they turned the program into winners by fighting through the tough mid season stretch and winning 3 out of the last 4, I believe, including a bowl game.

The following season under Banks was special. But it was made possible by what the previous team had established. McCann's 7 win team was also special, as it laid the most key layer of foundation in the program that is still successful to this day. I think Kirk navigated those two seasons just fine.

And I'm not sure how much the Banks example applies here. It certainly shouldn't be something KF is getting beat up over 22 years later.

Is Marco beating down the door as people assume Banks was? I think we can all agree that Banks will go down as the better player.

This is all pretty simple. Marco has to get better. He has to get good enough to take the spot from Hill, by being the guy that would give the team the better chance of winning.

I know a lot of you think ML already is that guy. Let me clue you into the fact that during last season ML was not the guy who gave the team the best chance of winning. We know this because he was not the guy playing. Again, players know who should be playing. And last year's team was one of the most together units I can recall seeing in sports. There just wasn't any division in that locker room as a product of the wrong QB playing. Can you honestly tell yourself that Iowa would have won as many games had ML filled in for Cade, rather than DH? I just don't believe that.

What I saw in the bowl game was Marco was a deer in headlights. That's can be expected to a degree in his first live action. But it can also be expected out of a true freshman that the game has been moving too fast for him for most of the season. It takes a while to learn the system. And then it takes a while to settle into executing the system.

It looked in the bowl game like Marco was still struggling to process getting through his progressional reads. And he was probably farther along than he was earlier in the season, especially considering the practice time leading up to the bowl. So if he had played earlier in the season, there's just no way he would have won the number of games Deacon did, without being able to process through his progressions.

I think that's what a lot of you aren't understanding. Yes, we saw in the bowl game that Marco has more to work with athletically than Deacon. And yes, that athleticism would have helped at times throughout the season. But it will only go so far if you can't read the field yet. The offense would have become even more condensed and more disjointed at the same time, causing miscues where even more turnovers would've be expected. If ML couldn't read the field yet, then DH did actually give Iowa its best chance to win.

Even if Marco at times was even with Deacon last season, and even though Deacon had vast struggles at times, the team was winning for the majority of the season. Coaches just aren't in a rush to break up a winning dynamic by going to a backup QB, for example. And in fact, part of that winning dynamic, despite his struggles, had been some key plays in winning moments that were made by Hill.

Regardless, we are left with Hill ahead of Lainez going into the bowl game. Given that there is no practice after the bowl game until spring ball, it stands to reason that Hill is still listed ahead of Lainez heading into spring camp.

But that doesn't mean the spot isn't open for competition. This is the time that Marco needs to start winning the spot. Usually everything starts slowing down, including college life in general for the student-athlete in his second year.

This progression is a little different because both ML and DH are having to learn new systems. Maybe it's knocking ML back another beat. Or maybe ML is picking up the new concepts and language faster than DH. This is the time in which the coaches are getting to learn where their players are at. Maybe ML takes more of the reps with the ones next week. Maybe it takes longer than that to play out. But again, this is the very early stage of camp, and we should expect when the game has slowed down for Marco he will be passing DH on the depth chart
When is the last time any Iowa QB had the time to work through progressions behind our offensive offensive line? Literally no chance to read, just take one, two steps & you'd better have the ball out of your hands or you'll be flat on your backside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkeyegeorge12
This 100%. I mean if you're Michigan and can go an entire 2nd half against Penn St w/out throwing the ball then QB isn't that important. We treat every other position on the field w/more importance than QB. It's absolutely mind blowing. We had a game changing Quarterback in Banks over 20 years ago and we've never seen an offense like that again. Once Deacon became QB we brought the offense down to a level never seen before. And people were defending it. Things like " It doesn't matter if the defense knows what you're running." Nope, of course not. It's always better to telegraph everything in advance to make it easier for the other team. All about the execution!
What if.... Iowa's QB's had 4-5 seconds to read the defense?
What if.... Iowa's offensive line could actually pass protect?
What if... Iowa's wide receiver's could separate and get open down field?
What if.... Iowa had a dependable running game?

Our QB's would probably look at least serviceable. How about that offensive offensive line?
 
When is the last time any Iowa QB had the time to work through progressions behind our offensive offensive line? Literally no chance to read, just take one, two steps & you'd better have the ball out of your hands or you'll be flat on your backside.
Good question. Goes back to another post regarding scheme or talent or both. I for one think Kirk’s (or Brian’s) FU that I’m going to run what I’m going to run even if you 100% know what’s coming is the biggest problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iron Doc
I will say it. If the offense is not noticeably better than last season a house cleaning is needed for Iowa football.
I don’t disagree, but I would bet that KF will be given 2 seasons to fix the mess he’s made, and only because he’s who he is. He definitely won’t be coaching in ‘26 without noticeable and significant improvement on the offensive side of ball, while maintaining at least very good D and ST.
 
When is the last time any Iowa QB had the time to work through progressions behind our offensive offensive line? Literally no chance to read, just take one, two steps & you'd better have the ball out of your hands or you'll be flat on your backside.
This may be true.

But the point is it didn't look like Lainez was able to process what was happening on the field. This is typical of true freshman.

And if true, explains why Iowa would have had an even tougher time with ML as the full-time QB last season. What he had to offer with his legs just wasn't sustainable for very long if he wasn't able to even have a chance executing the rest of the offense, as the fundamental reads were moving too fast for him.

Should see things slow down substantially for ML this season
 
Nowhere have I defended Hill or ignored his ineptitude. I'm not sure what you're reading.

If I've passed any judgement on Marco it's been to continuously express that I believe him to be a better prospect and to have more upside than Hill.

What I've said is that there are reasons to believe that the right QB played last year. And you can rest assured that the reasoning I've provided for Hill taking snaps with the ones at this point is a lot more plausible than one concluding that KF is senile or self- sabotaging for one reason or another.

And no, most coaches would not have broken up a winning dynamic amongst the team to give another QB a try. You aren't even close in your assessment of that. As I stated in the above post, if a coach can get wins at all with a backup QB he considers himself blessed. He isn't going to change that dynamic at all, let alone make the drastic change that switching QB's entails. He's already scared as shit to have to have his backup QB in there. And the team is winning games. Coaches just aren't going to mess with that situation by going to a QB that's even further down the depth chart
When you say winning dynamic, you mean Parker and Taylor. The offense wasn’t worth anything other than being a detriment to success. A smart coach would have tried Marco earlier in the year
 
Sung to the tune of Mrs. Robinson-"Where have you gone, Nate Stanley? Hawkeye nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo, woo, woo"

I now know that he was a ray of sunshine in a cesspool of offensive ineptitude. Worst part about all this is as long as Kirk's tenure continues the probability is that Iowa fans will be pining for 2023 Deacon Hill level of QB play.

Still not ready to give Spencer Petras credit but after this year I suspect that I will be looking forward to 3rd down passes short of the sticks and overthrown balls on simple outs on 4th down.

I will always be a Hawkeye fan but gosh darn it why do they make it so hard?

Tequila. Way too much tequila on a Friday night..
 
Sung to the tune of Mrs. Robinson-"Where have you gone, Nate Stanley? Hawkeye nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo, woo, woo"

I now know that he was a ray of sunshine in a cesspool of offensive ineptitude. Worst part about all this is as long as Kirk's tenure continues the probability is that Iowa fans will be pining for 2023 Deacon Hill level of QB play.

Still not ready to give Spencer Petras credit but after this year I suspect that I will be looking forward to 3rd down passes short of the sticks and overthrown balls on simple outs on 4th down.


I will always be a Hawkeye fan but gosh darn it why do they make it so hard?

Tequila. Way too much tequila on a Friday night..
Wouldn't completely shock me if SP is actually serviceable for Utah State.
 
About the OLine: Why are they so woefully inadequate?

Doyle should have been fired after the rhabdo deal, but was he THAT critical to the OLine's success as some have indicated?

Personally I think the key problem is Kirk's archaic, predictable, unreasonably "complex" POS Offensive scheme,
however I am wondering about the impact of Doyle's nonpresence on the Oline.
 
Nowhere have I defended Hill or ignored his ineptitude. I'm not sure what you're reading.

If I've passed any judgement on Marco it's been to continuously express that I believe him to be a better prospect and to have more upside than Hill.

What I've said is that there are reasons to believe that the right QB played last year. And you can rest assured that the reasoning I've provided for Hill taking snaps with the ones at this point is a lot more plausible than one concluding that KF is senile or self- sabotaging for one reason or another.

And no, most coaches would not have broken up a winning dynamic amongst the team to give another QB a try. You aren't even close in your assessment of that. As I stated in the above post, if a coach can get wins at all with a backup QB he considers himself blessed. He isn't going to change that dynamic at all, let alone make the drastic change that switching QB's entails. He's already scared as shit to have to have his backup QB in there. And the team is winning games. Coaches just aren't going to mess with that situation by going to a QB that's even further down the depth chart
You are trying to make a rational argument about what other coaches would do in regards to the QB position and the offense. We are not talking about other coaches . We are talking about the guy who turned the offense over to his unqualified kid and then doubled down and made him QB coach and recruiter and it is solely Kirk’s fault that the offense has been destroyed. I don’t trust any decision that Kirk is making in regards to the offense these days.
 
I will say it. If the offense is not noticeably better than last season a house cleaning is needed for Iowa football.

That said, the W-L record clearly affects people psychologically.

If Iowa goes 10-2 (the upside) and the offense remains similarly stagnant, does that still necessitate a housecleaning?
VS.
If Iowa goes 7-5 (which is also quite possible looking at the schedule), then....yeah more of us will be irate and demand further change.
 
You are trying to make a rational argument about what other coaches would do in regards to the QB position and the offense. We are not talking about other coaches . We are talking about the guy who turned the offense over to his unqualified kid and then doubled down and made him QB coach and recruiter and it is solely Kirk’s fault that the offense has been destroyed. I don’t trust any decision that Kirk is making in regards to the offense these days.
The reason I was talking about other coaches was in response to how Pee-Wee83 said other coaches would have handled the QB situation last season.

And I don't agree with what you've said in the rest of your post
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 83Hawk
That may be true.

Mostly everyone except a few sadists want to see competent football on all three phases. Its a lot more fun and entertaining that way.

Seeing a QB go 8-21 89 0TD 2INT 3FBL (2 lost) and feeling the anxiety of watching a defense have to play 99.999999% perfect football to hold on….no thanks. Boo urns
 
What if.... Iowa's QB's had 4-5 seconds to read the defense?
What if.... Iowa's offensive line could actually pass protect?
What if... Iowa's wide receiver's could separate and get open down field?
What if.... Iowa had a dependable running game?

Our QB's would probably look at least serviceable. How about that offensive offensive line?
They’re aren’t good when they HAVE time.

It was one of the last games - Remember when Hill slowly rolled out to his right…had much longer than 4-5 seconds to do something…anything…then just decided to take a sack from the defender that was obviously jogging up from the back-side of the DL.

It’s pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRHawkeye145
They’re aren’t good when they HAVE time.

It was one of the last games - Remember when Hill slowly rolled out to his right…had much longer than 4-5 seconds to do something…anything…then just decided to take a sack from the defender that was obviously jogging up from the back-side of the DL.

It’s pathetic.
That speaks to the third point, wide receiver separation. And it's all pathetic.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT