ok thanks for that. i'll begin preparing for the worst.
anything about lester? should we expect him to be about as good as brian was?
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
ok thanks for that. i'll begin preparing for the worst.
anything about lester? should we expect him to be about as good as brian was?
At media day tomorrow, the Iowa media will get a rare chance to talk with Barnett. Here is a fair question…
“During your three years at Iowa, the offensive line has been among the worst of any power conference program. Why will 2024 be any different?”
I wish any of us felt better about the OLine. But how could any of us REALLY feel that way:
1] Mason Richman has never looked good at LT even when healthy. Will that change in a year?
2] Beau Stephens has looked really good at guard but has not been able to stay healthy.. maybe a little optimism there?
3] Logan Jones has never even shown he can properly snap the ball in cadence throwing everyone's timing off. Until that's fixed (if it can be)... I've actually thought Tyler Elsbury looked better but we're not talking all B1G better
4] Conner Colby can't play tackle and hasn't exactly looked competent at guard in 3 years. Will this year improve?
5] Gennings Dunker really has shown great promise at tackle.. but both he and Stephens.....
I refuse to even mention a 6th year player who should never ever be allowed on the field. If the young guys had talent, it wouldn't be hard to displace a good portion of this group. I second asking both Barnett and Kirk the hard question about why Barnett is still here. Yes he inherited a mess but its all on him now.
Yet Kirk still rants and raves how good he is.
If I’m there, I come at Barnett with this.
Most reports claim to feel good about the OL, but one report on a message board claim it’s a complete disaster, and that McNamara looks like he is 90 years old. 90% of posters have taken this as settled science.
What do you have to say for yourself?
Now, if the post with the bad news said “my source has always had good info in the past,” I’d be all in on the report.
No need to "assume" KF is an idiot regarding QBs. The facts speak for themselves. Without writing a book, just look at last season. KF started a guy who was headed to Fordham and is now at Utah Tech (look it up) for 10 games. That guy was one of the worst QBs ever to wear the black and gold, let alone be a starter. He was as mobile as the Kinnick statue and was a turnover machine. But KF doggedly stayed with him until the last few seconds of the bowl game when Marco Lainez showed that he has some serious wheels. The guy playing ahead of Lainez all year came in with zero college experience, but KF installed him No. 1 when Cade went down and stubbornly kept him there to lead the nation's worst offense. Whatever great things you can say about KF, being a QB wizard ain't one of 'em. Period.
Last edited:
I thought McCarron went down the Houston and played when OBrien was head coach there. I must be dreaming
You imply that Lainez would have won Iowa more games last year if he had started.
My belief is that when teams gameplanned for Lainez as the starter over a 10-12 game stretch that he would have done WORSE in terms of winning games. I know that's hard to believe, but Iowa won 10 games last year, and while our QB play was abhorrent, it's not hard to see how teams could easily gameplan away Marco's running ability and turn him into a thrower.....which would be even cringier than what we saw and likely led to more losses.
Speculation on both our parts here, but my point is that it definitely isn't a sure thing that Marco was better based on garbage time minutes against a team that didn't gameplan him.
It does appear that he may have improved since then, so we'll have to see what his ceiling actually is. If he can't make the reads on time and throw accurately it isn't very high, but the RPO offense may help him in that respect.
Are you going to be the first honestly say you believe Iowa would have won more games with Lainez playing instead of Hill?
Despite all the complaints, not one person has been willing to honestly say they believe Lainez would have won more
I honestly have no idea how you could make this statement while looking at the stat line Deacon put up last year. This doesn't even account for the -114 rushing yards. I do not expect him to be better than either Sullivan or Cade based on the lack of arm strength.
| CMP | ATT | CMP% | YDS | AVG | TD | INT | LNG | RTG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 122 | 251 | 48.6 | 1,152 | 4.6 | 5 | 8 | 54 | 87.4 |
No one has any idea what would have happened if Lainez had played instead of Hill. I have a hard time believing that the results would have been much different either. People saw him run around which only seemed unique after watching Cade and then Hill lumber around. He still couldn't complete passes and the offense was still broken. The reality is that there was no viable plan B after Cade went down and the results on the offensive side of the ball were predictable given how bad they were before he even went down.
The defense won the games, along with playing shitty teams.
Kirk himself said he doesn't know much about the QB position. That doesn't mean he and others can't tell the difference between a bad QB and a worse QB. The problem hasn't been playing the wrong QB. The problem last year was a lack of viable QB's period.
I think the offense will be better. We all know the defense is always ahead of the offense. It bothers me to hear that about Cade, though.ok thanks for that. i'll begin preparing for the worst.
anything about lester? should we expect him to be about as good as brian was?
Ahh like the swallows returning to Capistrano you know the calendar has turned when you start hearing about the backup QB pushing for reps, previously unknown WR's are flashing big in camp, who is the walk on WR that will become camp darling this year? The shifty, overlooked prospect that reminds us of Charlie Jones............
Time for some games as most can write the remainder of the posts leading up to the games.
Did I leave out the 'which 4-8 team is going to be a tough road'
But as is the case always 'this is the year for Nebraska'
Time for some games as most can write the remainder of the posts leading up to the games.
Did I leave out the 'which 4-8 team is going to be a tough road'
But as is the case always 'this is the year for Nebraska'
Everyone bashing Marco's passing ability. He had what, maybe 2 weeks working with the 2s before the bowl game. And his Jr year in HS he hit 80% and Sr year hit 77 per cent. Why would that make you think he can't pass?
Maybe Marco would have been better and maybe not.
I think what upset fans is the fact Kirk didn't even TRY anyone else. He continued to play one of...if not THE...worst QB in college football and not give anyone else a chance.
And going into the season one would have expected Labas to be a viable option, but it seems he withdrew himself from that consideration
Everyone knows how bad Hill was.
Simple question: do you honestly believe Iowa would have won more games with Lainez at QB?
I'm still waiting to for someone to be the FIRST to say they honestly believe that
And maybe the staff already knew exactly what they were dealing with. We saw in the bowl game that Marco read the field like a true freshman.
If you can't say for sure that Iowa would have won more games under Lainez, then what's the big deal?
Players don't get "tries". They win their position. And coaches don't change QB's while their team is winning games
Well his ability to use his legs may have gotten a us couple more 1st downs against Minnesota and helped us win. Unfortunately we'll never know for sure
In a vacuum this is correct but what we seeing from the QB position last year and the year before, a change might have been warranted and desired.
Capt Kirk is a Fossil.
I understand fossilization.
Let me be the first.
Hill was the worst QB on the planet behind a dismal OLine.
THERE IS NO WAY Lainez couldn't have been better just due to mobility/survivability.
As mentioned earlier, the Defense & Special Teams got us 10 wins DESPITE our Offense being a national joke.
I'd really like to see Sullivan get a series or two in the 1st half. Mop up duty always results in a limited playbook and less pressure...that doesn't prepare you very well should an injury arise.
Last edited:
This is one of the interesting questions to be answered. Will KFz allow Lester to do this?
I don't know the answer to the question. I do know that I had absolutely no faith that Hill could manage to guide us the 25-30 yards we needed in the Minnesota game. Could Lainez have done so? I believe he may have been more likely to gain the yardage than Deacon. Of course, we will never know.
Minnesota stats from Deacon, do I think they have a better chance at winning that game with Marco in, the answer is a resounding yes.
| CMP | ATT | YDS | CMP% | TD | INT | LNG | SACK | RTG | QBR | CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LNG |
|---|
| 10 | 28 | 116 | 35.7 | 0 | 1 | 36 | 4 | 63.4 | 9.1 | 8 | -22 | -2.8 | 1 | 7 |
So...are we going to get the "well, we've got a new OC and all new offense" excuse when...er, I mean if... the offense comes out and struggles in the opener?
Yeah. There might not have been an able bodied human who wouldn’t have given Iowa a better chance to win that game.
Sure, if ANY of what he posted has even a grain of accuracy. The guys who cover the hawks seem to be optimistic, and yet some random guy who has what exactly for access tells a poster the sky is falling, and we head right back down the rabbit hole. Maybe lets wait and see.....
