You can't cherry pick one game. What if Marco played in all of the 10 wins, you don't think he would have done worse in 2,3, 4 or more of those games? Maybe he picks up an extra win against Minnesota but loses 2 or 3 others. That's the issue here.
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
You can't cherry pick one game. What if Marco played in all of the 10 wins, you don't think he would have done worse in 2,3, 4 or more of those games? Maybe he picks up an extra win against Minnesota but loses 2 or 3 others. That's the issue here.
Did I not post Deacon's entire stat line? Many of those games we won in spite of him, hell he only hat 5 passing TDs to 8 INT, along with 6 fumbles lost....LOL, yeah I'll take Marco every day if only for the scramble ability. There is a reason Iowa was trying to get Cooper into the offense last year.
lol…. My source is at practice every day. Just relaying what this individual told me. I am not there so am going on this person’s views. I can’t ever think of a time that the offense has been great in practice, however, so there is that.
Practice did make perfect last year
We may have not won MORE games with Marco, but I believe we would not have lost any more. Added benefit is we would have a RS fr or So with many games of experience. Just maybe, maybe Marco would have improved. We will never know.
Iowa doesn't beat Penn St or Michigan even with a healthy Cade. Minnesota was the only game we may have flipped with better QB play.
I still don't know if people realize just how unreal last year was. Going 10-2 (11-1) with a completely inept offense is something you'll likely never see again...from any team. The Defense and Tory's bombs bailed us out of a lot of close games. Nebbie, Clowns, Purdue, NW, Illinois...all one possession games. Utah St, Michigan St, Wisconsin were 10 or less. The only teams we put away were WMU and Rutgers.
We could be significantly better offensively this year and end up with a worse record.
You see we never know reality. I also guarantee you DeJong was almost never healthy. He came off dragging his arm/shoulder.
There's a reason you all are avoiding the question.
As Pella has posted, Lainez may have helped Iowa win the Minnesota game. But Iowa may have also lost other games with Lainez playing that they ended up winning with Hill. It's also entirely possible that Iowa may have been behind Minnesota by two scores had Lainez played the whole game.
For this conversation to rightly be as big of a deal as everyone has made it, then people need to be damn sure that Lainez gave Iowa a better chance to win all of those games than Hill did. So far, it seems only one person is willing to even say that Lainez would have won the same amount of games.
It's just fans complaining to complain
It's really hard to lose the ball as often and predictably as Deacon Hill lost the ball. Predictably.
Any other player might not have changed the overall record, but would have been a lot less embarrassing in the losses.
Any other player might not have changed the overall record, but would have been a lot less embarrassing in the losses.
Tell us who your source is, probably a good chance it is bullshit.
I'm not avoiding any question. I think with Lainez we win every game we won last year plus MN.
You do realize you are asking a hypothetical with no correct answer right?
Okay then. So you have WHO, a coach telling you this? Who thats not a staff member is at "every practice". Film guy?, Turf guy? Athletic trainer? I know. I bet its a spy from Michigan, getting a first hand look at the new offense. And this person probably has as much actual knowledge of the game as half the posters on here I suppose? Regardless, we'll probably know just how gimpy Mac is after tomorrows scrimmage....
Last edited:
i haven’t read all the posts so i may not be entirely on topic. that said your post makes a couple assumptions:
1. that labas not playing was for legit reasons coz if he had been the starting qb for the season i think we win more than just mn
2. that fans didn’t want hill to take a single snap. you are correct that horrible as he turned out overall hill likely helped us win some games that we lose with a different guy (not named labas). however there is the concept of pulling a guy situationally — nearly zero chance we lose the mn game with any other roster qb if we had sat hill at some point in the 2nd half as any rational oc would’ve done. (i do feel bad pinning the mn game on hill because we did win it even if the record book doesn’t reflect it)
Fossils don't win ten games. Not even close
I'm not interested in whatever your definition of "better" is.
And everyone is aware that defense and special teams was Iowa's path to victory.
Nobody is claiming that Iowa won because of Hill. But I do claim, and the staff did decide that Hill gave Iowa its best chance to win.
It's a very simple question. Do you honestly believe Iowa would have won more games with Lainez at QB instead of Hill?
No, I'm saying that KF is the one paid good money to get it right.
I'm saying he pretty much always does get it right.
I'm saying the record book would suggest that he got it right
I'm saying he's armed with far more data to draw his conclusions from than fans are.
And I'm saying that based on all of that, and based on what I saw with my own eyes, there is plenty reason to believe that KF got it right
Well from what I saw, Petras should have played over Padilla and Hill should have played over Lainez
Well then you are the first to honestly say you believe that.
The wins under Hill are in the book and are not hypothetical.
The burden of proof is on those suggesting the hypothetical.
Given that the staff believed Hill to give Iowa its best chance of winning, given that only one person in seven months has said he honestly believes Iowa would have won more games under Lainez than Hill, and, again given that Iowa's wins under Hill are actually fact, I think there is a clear correct answer
1. Yes, the conversation is assuming that the rumors about Labas were true. Everything points to that and everything in this thread has been about Hill vs Lainez.
2. When a coach is able to win at all with a backup QB, he counts his blessings, and certainly isn't going to mess with anything for the sake of a true freshman that can't see the field.
Even to have gotten Lainez in there for a series with a run package was too much of a gamble. Iowa just didn't have the margin for error. How often does a backup QB come in and the snap gets fumbled, or there is a false start or delay of game penalty? All the time. Plus, Hill and the entire offense needed every snap together they could possibly get in practice.
And again, all the fan complaints for the sake of getting a guy a series or two? They haven't been warranted, period
Congratulations on your new title Tyler
Oh, so you don't know what a hypothetical question or thought experiment is.
Difficult to hear a few parts because of the wind, but man it never gets old listening to Lester:
He talks about learning the new words for plays. Even possibly implementing foreign languages. He said it was rough in the spring, but now the guys are really getting it and remembering.
He also said he wants to be an aggressive offense. Telling a story about the Chiefs, that once they're out of the huddle, they're coming. Moving, shifting, etc. He wants to replicate that aggressive style.
He talks about learning the new words for plays. Even possibly implementing foreign languages. He said it was rough in the spring, but now the guys are really getting it and remembering.
He also said he wants to be an aggressive offense. Telling a story about the Chiefs, that once they're out of the huddle, they're coming. Moving, shifting, etc. He wants to replicate that aggressive style.
I guess I don't care what one is.
It doesn't change how I feel. What Iowa did under Hill is fact and doesn't have to be proven. People trying to say Iowa would have done as well or better under Lainez have to try to argue that case
With the limited playing time Lainez has had, there's no telling if he would have actually done better than Hill. The only factual difference that we know of between the two is that Marco is mobile, while Deacon is not. With that ability alone, I would bet that Marco could not have done any worse than Hill, regardless of passing ability.
You all are wasting your time conversing with EoH.
Hill couldn’t get the 20 some yards needed vs Minny to get a field goal attempt and was a human turnover machine that still saw the field when he shouldn’t have even been on the field. He is where he belongs as a qb and KF’s track record on them speaks for itself. That’s why he should just stick to oline where he is definitely needed with Barnett ruining that show. I mean running it, no I don’t. Barnett sucks too.
Only at Iowa do players not get benched and coaches keep their jobs even though they are terrible. Thank God the admin decided to fire BF or KF wanted to run that shiat show back again this year. The man is blind on offense as to how bad the scheming was and the predictability of the play calling. It will be interesting to see what the offense looks like starting 8/31.
Hill couldn’t get the 20 some yards needed vs Minny to get a field goal attempt and was a human turnover machine that still saw the field when he shouldn’t have even been on the field. He is where he belongs as a qb and KF’s track record on them speaks for itself. That’s why he should just stick to oline where he is definitely needed with Barnett ruining that show. I mean running it, no I don’t. Barnett sucks too.
Only at Iowa do players not get benched and coaches keep their jobs even though they are terrible. Thank God the admin decided to fire BF or KF wanted to run that shiat show back again this year. The man is blind on offense as to how bad the scheming was and the predictability of the play calling. It will be interesting to see what the offense looks like starting 8/31.
So, are saying you honestly believe that Iowa would have won as many games with Marco?
There is factual difference. There's the fact that Marco was a true freshman.
There's the fact that he read the field like a true freshman. There's the fact that heading into the spring Lester said that Hill was still ahead of Lainez in terms of getting through his progressions. That's what people don't understand. Marco was running in the Tennessee game because that's all he was capable of doing. He was only really pressured on a couple of plays. But he was a deer in headlights. He was not able to process anything with his eyes, so he took off and ran.
Would the game have slowed down for Marco with more experience? Probably some. But when the coaches know it's still moving too fast for him in practice, there was no reason to believe it wouldn't have been worse in games. Yes, it would have been worse for Iowa with Marco in there. Defenses quickly would have learned to contain him in the pocket and Iowa would have been left with nothing.
They would not have won all those close games. Many of you say how unbelievable it was that Iowa won those close games, and how unrepeatable that formula is, yet you also think they should have been doing something different, in terms of the QB they played. There was no margin for error for anything different.
There's the fact that Iowa was winning games with Hill in there.
There's the fact that Hill displayed leadership ability, as his teammates responded to him.
There's the fact that the team was never divided on which QB should have been playing.
And there's the fact that a staff that gets paid a lot of money to make correct decisions, and saw both players every day in practice, determined that Hill gave Iowa its best chance to win
Hard to be more wrong than this
Well we’ve come a long ways since the initial outrage of his hiring
You have absolutely NO idea how Marco would have played, given ample prep time and extensive game experience.
Very few coaches would continue to play a qb as bad as Hill without at least giving someone else a chance. That’s a fact.
While I like and support Kirk, in my opinion there was no reason not to try someone else at qb, given how truly terrible Deacon Hill was.
Last edited:
Why are you doing this, my time on the women’s basketball board has been so much more uplifting and joyful than this board. Just let it go, eventually these guys will have a new coach to complain about & you can say “you got what you wished for” they want to be miserable. Let them…
I mean, honestly, reading all the positive lovefest about our new offensive coordinator after the board outrage when he got hired, tells you all you need to know about “those fans”
No matter who's at QB Iowa won the games they "should have". Got robbed with Minny. The rest of L's 92-0.
Defense and ST saved their ass in the W's. Again very average against crappy teams, no pulse against good teams.
Defense and ST saved their ass in the W's. Again very average against crappy teams, no pulse against good teams.
So Hill wasn’t a human turnover machine and didn’t get benched because of it? Your writings are more delusional than a person on OxyContin.
Oh, and as another poster mentioned, congrats on your promotion Tyler.
