Kirk didn't win 10 games. Phil Parker did.
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
I think it’s fair to use this for most of 2024. It’s why i don’t get the PLAYOFFS!!! Talk.
Nebraska, Wisconsin both brought in new offensive schemes….and I’d focus more on the latter in comparison to iowas upcoming season
WI struggled. They don’t have the talent they usually do, and what they had to work with was a slow transition to the new scheme. There were glimpses but overall they were not very good.
I don’t see how anyone can look at Iowa offense and say yeah it’s just the scheme and play calling.
I agree the OC was a huge problem, probably the biggest issue….but outside TE and RB, we don’t have the talent. We rave about a WR who had 12 catches for like 90 yards on the season haha….and talk about another who was only used for jet sweeps and let punts fall in front of him
I still think iowas defense can get them 8 wins. If Iowa gets a lot of lucky breaks and their opponents continue to shit the bed….maybe 9-10
But this would mean another year of 9-7, 12-10, 17-10 type ball games, and I’m not sure that’s going to help change the narrative of being a laughing stock
This all sounds great!
Let’s see if it actually happens. Cause watching Iowa players try to line up and get the play off when the playbook is only 10 plays and there’s no shifting….didnt go well
I do have an idea of how Marco would have performed. I saw that he wasn't able to see the field and get through his progressions. I saw that the game was moving too fast for him. And I know how defenses would game plan for him.
If I don't have an idea how he would have performed, then nor do the people who say he would have done better than Hill. And they are the ones complaining as if they have more than an idea.
Good thing is, it doesn't matter what any of us think because there is a staff that gets paid a lot of money to get that decision right. And there is plenty of reason to believe they did.
Very few coaches change QB's when they are winning. Especially with a backup QB; they count their blessings. Especially not for a true freshman who can't see the field. Very few coaches change QB's when they are winning and there are other challenging areas in the offense. These are facts
This. I don't understand why arguing and wallowing about the past and the coach and players is in the past. can't go back.
Looking forward to the future of the new offence and how much better the offensive line will be.
I’m not giving away my source or what that person does. The individual has been with the program for three years. No, not a coach. I am not an attention whore and just passing on what this close person to me said. Considering I posted that my source said the backup from NW looks good, and has competed well in practice prior to KF speaking on it, I am not just making stuff up. Yes, I wish the individual would be more specific and provide more details, but that is not what younger people tend to do. If you don’t want to believe anything I am saying, it’s not a problem for me, but considering there are few nuggets we are getting, other people might be interested in it.
Last edited:
I have no idea who Tyler is.
All I'm doing is pretty much agreeing with the staff, so essentially you are calling them delusional. How delusional is that?
Yes, Hill was a turnover machine.
Yes, he was the best option and should have been on the field.
Not sure what KF track record for QB's you are talking about. So no, it doesn't speak for itself.
No proof that Barnett sucks. He was dealt a hand of having to play a bunch of guys that were forced into action far ahead of schedule. And there has been improvement.
Pretty much everywhere QB's are not changed when the team is winning.
Most of KF's offenses wouldn't have been serviceable if he were blind on offense.
I didn't think BF had a great feel as a play-caller. But that, scheme, and predictability were way down the list of reasons why Iowa's offense has been bad recently.
So pretty much, you have no idea what you're talking about
If you guys honestly believe that I truly feel sorry for you
No, I literally said there's really no way to determine that with how little Marco played.
I ain't reading the rest.
Then it's back to the issue that Barnett couldn't develop capable reserves!
Either way, tell me how many players are 100% healthy all season long?
You saw Marco late in a game with little (if any) prep work, and no prior game play. You cannot make any judgement on him based on that.
Kirk makes mistakes even though you refuse to acknowledge it. We'll never know if Marco would have been better. The only point I am trying to make is, given how TERRIBLE Hill was, there was no reason not to give someone else a chance. No reason at all not to have some plays designed for a backup and give him a series or two. Other schools do it.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Nobody ever gets "robbed". You have to be good enough to control your own destiny.
The rest of the L's equated to 0-3. A loss is a loss.
The D and special teams didn't "save" anything, when that was the planned path to victory all along.
10 wins is not "very average".
And I don't know what schedule you're looking at, but there are zero "crappy" teams in the Big Ten. Iowa's resume' was thoroughly impressive. 4 road wins (if you count Wrigley). 3 of those games were rivalry games. That's unheard of. 3 of those games were against bowl teams. 1 of which beat Utah in the bowl, and 1 of which was very competitive vs LSU. The other road win was vs a top 15 defense. Add in a home win against a team that beat Miami in a bowl game.
10 wins is impressive, period. It's only happened at Iowa 11 times in their history. To minimize the success of a program that's won for near the entirety of 25 years is juvenile
So... below .500 teams aren't crappy? Please look at who Iowa beat last year. IF they were above .500 it sure as hell wasn't much. 10 wins, lets have a fn parade!!
So if Richman and Dejong were significantly injured all year, why didn't we play somebody else? Was all that stuff about the young up-and-comers on the OL bullshit?
How can a team be so deep and talented on defense and so devoid of quality depth at QB, WR and OL?
Leistikow's takeaway from today's practice. Looks like the competition isn't as cut and dry as some say it is.
Eyeroll.
HC gets credit and blame for all 3 aspects not one. They hire coaches and set the philosophy and approve schemes as well.
How is competition not good?? I said on here before he came here that Sullivan looked like a dam good QB. Everyone was talking about and just assuming he would be the back up and be in line for next year possibly. I said oh no, he is going to come in and compete for the starting job and that they needed to tell him that was a possibility when seeing if he wanted to transfer here.. Honestly I would not expect anything less from a player and competitor, then to want to play.
So our Offense and Cade still suck. Shocking.
So you are betting he would have turned it over more ? That's the only way the offense could have possibly been worse, meh, color me doubtful.
Where was that even mentioned?
Poster said that the QB competition was close between Cade and Sullivan.
Nah, kirk is gonna Kirk. Cade will start even if he has to play on one leg.
HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW? Damn it's a hypothetical question which you seem to treat as rhetorical in your mind. He played in part of one game. One. There is literally and figuratively no way to know a definitive answer. I do know that there were zero games that Hill "won." I'll go on the record and say Iowa would have finished with 11 wins. Losses to PSU/Michigan/Tennessee would remain. Those losses may have been more competitive but once again no one will ever know. Is that a satisfactory answer to your superiority seeking question?
Cade was 8-24 for 40 yds and a pick 6. Yea, that’s not sucking.
Where did you find the stat line? How did other do? Younger WRs and such?
Yes, that's the nature of being a backup QB. You get thrown into some tough spots with no prep.
Yes, I can make some judgements and inferences based on his actions. Again, it was clear as day that the game was moving way too fast for Marco and he was not able to get through his progressions.
That is always the first inference one makes as to why a true freshman is not playing. Do you know how many Hall of Famers, especially QB's never saw the field as a true freshman? They weren't ready. Everything, including school and adjusting to campus sometimes, was moving too fast.
I can infer that the coaches had a clue what they were doing. Then when Lester comes in in the spring and says the exact same thing - that Marco is behind, in terms of getting through his progressions - why the hell can't fans just accept it as fact?
The staff should be trusted in the first place. Even if we as fans don't know the specifics, it's a pretty easy guess as to why a true freshman isn't playing. Then it's confirmed in the Tennessee game that the game is indeed still moving too fast for Marco. Then a new coach comes in from the outside (in Lester) and again confirms that Lainez isn't getting through his progressions quickly enough. And fans still refuse to believe it. Hello??? Lol, you can't make this stuff up.
I guess fans just don't understand the crippling nature of a QB not being able to get through his reads. They literally can't play. Guess what, coaches understand this. And this is why most true freshman QB's don't play.
Beyond this, I have previously in this thread delineated the other reasons for Marco to have not played. You don't mess with a winning dynamic, especially when you have no margin for error. You certainly don't put in a QB that's never played before, when you have no margin for error, and risk a fumbled snap, blown read, false start, or delay of game penalty. You don't compromise practice reps of the offense together with Hill, as there is weakness in other areas of the offense. They need every rep to try to build something together. And again, they have no margin for error. You don't risk all of this for the sake of getting a guy a couple of series. Reason enough for you?
And again, all of this fuss from the fans because a guys didn't get a couple series? It's a joke
Ok, then how can people be so sure that Marco would have been any good at all?
If we have now way of knowing, then what the hell is all the fuss about?
Congratulations, you are the 2nd guy in 7 months to say you honestly believe that Iowa would have won more games with Marco playing.
By the way, there's a pretty good chance the coaches knew
Why do you ask if you don't want an answer? No answer, "why is no one responding to my inane question?" Answer, "the coaches know better anyway."
If we have now way of knowing, then what the hell is all the fuss about?
You said it, so let it go.
Kirk or the staff never make a mistake in your mind.
Last edited:
Competition is good. The fact that Cade looked bad isn't. 8-24 for 40 yds and a pick 6 is pretty bad. That's what we got last year from Deacon Hill.
We haven't had a respectable starting quarterback or offense for a number of years. It's getting old.
Last edited:
Dude, you are the ULTIMATE FERENTZ APOLOGIST!
While the entire USA LAUGHS AT OUR OFFENSE!!!
I’ll be the third.
I think they would have beaten Minnesota if Marco played and never threw a pass. I think they would have won if they played with three backs, and no QB instead of the guy fighting for a spot at Utah Tech.
Marco is clearly not great. He did seem to be capable of generating a first down with his feet.
The options appeared to be.
A. A guy who couldn’t throw, couldn’t run, and turned the ball over constantly.
B. A guy who couldn’t throw, could run, and may or may not have turned the ball over constantly. 🤷♂️
We’ll never know.
Kirk is a great coach, and I hope he coaches at Iowa for several more years. Sometimes he’s wrong. This may have been one of those times.
