Two crystal balls were cast for him to Iowa today.
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
I see 24/7 has him 100% Iowa
On3 moved Iowa to 53% ahead of Miami 37% (they previously had Miami as the leader).
Rivals has him 100% Iowa
Initially I thought that was quite a drive to make for no reason, but his brother played today so there's that. One has to wonder if some of the predictions are based on the visit, not considering it could have been about seeing his bro.
Hopefully we'll know soon.
Kakert and Eicholt both CB him today. It’s because of something they heard while Iose was on campus today.
It was a rhetorical question in response to your question, "HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW?". It was to make the point that people claiming Lainez would have done any good have no way of knowing that.
It's the people that have been complaining all along that Lainez should have played that haven't let it go.
We know exactly how Iowa did with Hill at QB. It's in the record book
Not true at all.
But in this case there's plenty of reason to believe they got it right
You said "better". You did not say Iowa would have won more games with Lainez.
Congrats on being the 3rd
Yes, it is. You defend everything Kirk and the staff does and are always saying "they got it right". Always.
Ferentz doesn't need an apologist. His success speaks for itself.
I feel sorry for anyone who laughs at a program that's won for near the entirety of 25 years. As a matter of fact, anyone laughing at any winning team - the joke is on them. We've been over this before.
How does it feel being the ULTIMATE HATER of one of the most important citizens in the history of the state of Iowa?
The Minnesota game isn't the only game in question. This has been covered a few times in this thread now.
You would have to believe that Marco would have won all the other games that Iowa won under Hill too to make the case that Marco should have been playing over Hill
Seems plausible he would have. We had the worst QB in the nation. He couldn’t pass, couldn’t run, and turned the ball over constantly. The one time we saw Marco, he wasn’t good, but he was clearly more productive than Deacon. None of us know what would have happened. I’m willing to see what door number 2 had in store.
Also, are you an attorney? You have spent half your life on this. You’re not getting paid for every 15 minutes you log. Brevity is a virtue.
I feel even better on my guess that you’re an attorney than my guess that Marco would have been the second worst QB in the nation.
Well I've given sound reasoning to support that claim in this situation.
Most of you guys are always complaining that, "they got it wrong." Which one sounds more ridiculous?
It's hard for us to ever say with much certainty that they got it wrong. We just aren't armed with the day to day inside information that goes into the staff's decision making. So yes, even when I might see reason to question, I usually defer to the highly paid staff that has the day to day inside information. Why wouldn't you? You also have to realize that Iowa has won for near the entirety of 25 years. KF clearly knows what he's doing. To question him and complain the way most fans do is completely juvenile.
Without the benefit of inside information, I will say that I think KF made a mistake in playing Cade while he was hurt last season. That's just a general philosophy across sports that I stand by.
Without the benefit of inside information, it is also my opinion that Iowa hasn't run the ball nearly enough over the past few seasons. That falls on KF. But I'm not going to beat him up about it because I recognize that's a personal preference of mine. I pretty much don't think anyone other than the service academies run it often enough. That's just how I roll. If only the rest of fans would not impose their personal beliefs and entertainment tastes, and judge a winning program by them.
Also without the benefit of inside information, I believe that KF should have attempted to fortify the O-line through the portal a year sooner than he did. But again, I'm not going to beat him up over it. I have the perspective to understand that the portal/NIL dynamic was brand new at that time, and that Iowa had always had success without transfers being much a part of the formula. KF made the adjustment to be more active in the portal the following season and I give him credit for that.
Here's the thing - even if KF is clearly dead wrong about something; what's the point in complaining, being negative, and beating him up about it in public and on public message boards? There is no point. The negative perception and toxicity in the community, if anything, can only hurt the program. It can't ever help.
You are welcome that I consciously try to be a good fan
Seems plausible the coaches knew what they were doing.
Especially after the evidence in the bowl game that Marco couldn't read the field.
Especially after Lester got here in the spring and said the same thing.
Trust me, Iowa wouldn't have won all those games under Marco. I know that won't happen, so maybe trust the coaches that were there, and the new one that made the same evaluation, in terms of Marco behind in getting through his progressions. Oh wait, we don't do that around here either.
I'm not an attorney, but I should have been one if all of the arguments were this easy. I mean seriously, this is a joke
But I bet the coaches had a pretty good idea.
And again, I saw and can infer enough to believe they did.
And again, I don't need to know how Iowa would have performed under Lainez. I'm not the one claiming that he should have played. How Iowa performed under Hill is in the record book
But most teams don’t change QBs because the offense is winning the game. Iowa was winning in spite of the offense. I can’t think of another team where the offense was even somewhat close to as bad as Iowa’s was and still won at a high percentage. Can you name one other team similar? I’m guessing you can’t which nullifies your argument that teams don’t switch QBs when winning.
I think what we have is......... Cade is not as accurate and Sullivan is just not as experienced/comfortable. Who can clean up their shortfalls the fastest is anyone's guess. I guess some of Cade's throws were really bad and one thing is for sure we can not have a turn over machine in there. I just hope with Lester calling things, he is capable of making a change during the season if he thinks it is best. I still say and have always said, the one thing that was missing in our QB room was lack of meaningful game experience for #2 QB, because even in non cons, we rarely blow anyone out and put in the number 2 for the second half. So idk what they are going to do or how they are going to handle the situation. As I said in another post, I would run them both with the ones and twos for awhile and then decide. I do not buy into that expression having 2 qbs is as bad as having none (or however it goes), because it seems to work out well for the really good schools.
Doesn't matter. You don't break up a winning dynamic. Especially with no margin for error.
If you are winning at all with a backup QB, you count your blessings. You don't switch to (what would have been the 4th stringer if Labas wasn't in the doghouse) a true freshman that the game is still moving too fast for
You could be correct. Again, we can’t know, but in the one game they both played, Marco was more productive. That’s literally the only evidence we have. He sucked, but he was more productive.
Hill’s QBR was 0.5.
Marco’s was 68.5.
Hill ran 7 times for -20
Marco ran 6 times for 51
Hill 3 turnovers
Marco 0 turnovers
This is our only comparison. Why is it impossible to imagine Marco would have performed better. I could understand if Deacon was terrible and didn’t turn the ball, but he was terrible at that too!!!!! I think he had the worst turnover per play ratio in America?
If you ask me 100 times if we could replay the season with Marco, whoever our walk on QB was, or just have a RB in Wildcat 100% of the time, I’d take any of those over Deacon 100 times. Maybe Iowa loses 2 more games? Of course that’s possible.
I can’t wrap my mind around your rigid stance, and your belief that it’s not possible you’re wrong? I’m guessing Kirk would admit in private that he might have been wrong.
It seems you are a narcissist. No, you are definitely a narcissist. You could be correct, but you are definitely a narcissist.
You need to enter one of those competitions where the last person who can stand to endure some weird uncomfortable situation the longest wins one million dollars. I’d put a hefty sum on you, Da Coach.
One of the most important citizens?? GTFO w/ that ish.
To a complete idiot, yes. To anyone w/ a functioning brain, no.
That same staff assembled one of the worst, if not the worst, QB rooms in all of D1 football last year.
It's called an opinion. And in this case there is no definitive right/wrong. Would the record have been different? Who knows. We'll never get the chance to see. But you seem to be taking the stance that he shouldn't have played and have nothing to back that up with other than your all knowing inference skills based on 7 pass attempts at the end of a blowout bowl game. Please feel free to continue getting the last word in to prove whatever point it is you think needs reiterating.
I'm saying that the coach probably got it right. The people saying that the coach got it wrong inherently are going to sound ridiculous and be left with a huge burden of proof.
The Tennessee game is not our only comparison of the two QB's. I don't know how this doesn't mean anything to anybody, but week after week the players were compared and the staff chose to start Hill. Then AGAIN, Lester came in and reached the same conclusion from his initial comparison of the two players. And at no point in the season were any of the players not 100% behind Hill. Trust me, they know who should be playing.
It's not impossible to imagine that Iowa could have won as many games with Marco. By saying "performed better", all that matters is who gave the team the best chance to win. I just don't think it was likely and I have every reason to believe that the staff played the guy that gave the team the best chance to win.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but the fact, alone, that the game was moving too fast for Marco to get through his progressions, just like near every true freshman QB, is enough reason to believe that he didn't give Iowa its best chance to win. Again, you can't play if you can't get through your progressions. This is why many Hall of Fame QB's never played as a true freshman. Again, defenses would have quickly learned to contain Marco in the pocket, and Iowa would have literally been left with nothing. There are other subtlties to the disadvantages Iowa would have had with Marco under center. But there's no sense going into them if fans can't believe the obvious truth that a QB can't play when the game is moving too fast for him.
You said yourself, maybe Iowa loses two more games with someone other than Deacon in there. Well there are no maybes to the wins Iowa recorded with Hill at QB. Again, the burden of proof is on those claiming that Lainez should have played. And for there to be maybes, which there clearly are, means that all of the fuss and complaints have been completely uncalled for.
So Kirk might admit in private to having been wrong on this one? 🤣 LMFAO. You literally can't make this shit up 🤣
Cade- thought of plenty highly enough when brought to Iowa. Was playing hurt to start the season.
Labas- would have seemed to have been a plenty serviceable enough 2. Unfortunately he put himself into the doghouse. KF's track record of getting recruits with high character is outstanding. You can't hit on them all though.
Hill- was brought in with the idea that he would have some time to develop and still probably never be called upon to play serious snaps. He was an emergency QB that was forced into an emergency earlier than anyone could have expected. And the same staff that brought him in was the same staff that was able to navigate the waters to 10 wins last year.
Marco- a true freshman that was never intended to play last year and thus was given the time to develop in practice. If he's as bad as you are inferring, why are so many saying he should have played last year?
Thank you for that allowance.
The fact that the game was moving too fast for Marco to process in his Tennessee action is a fact, not an opinion. Maybe you weren't able to see that, but my eye is trained enough to have seen it clear as day. Why do you think he immediately tucked the ball and ran? Go back and watch his eyes on those plays.
The fact that true freshman QB's traditionally haven't played in football is because they haven't been ready (good enough). The most common reason for that is the game has been moving too fast for them. That is a fact. So in other words, it is a fact that you aren't good enough to play when the game is moving too fast for you to get through your progressions.
It is a fact that the players were 100% behind Hill. And it is a fact that there's no tricking the players.
You can say that coaches make decisions based on their opinions. But when they get paid as much as they do because they are good at what they do, and when they have every piece of data from everything their players have ever done on the field (plus off the field info), it's safe to say that their conclusions are facts. AGAIN, especially when Lester comes in and makes the same initial evaluation.
But if you want to call coaches evaluations opinions rather than facts, that's fine. Who the hell cares about a fan's opinion vs a coach's opinion anyway? That's really all this comes down to. (Except again, the 7 recorded wins with Hill at QB)
Supposedly smoking weed and being late to meetings.
It seems to add up to me. Clearly he was in the doghouse for some reason, as clearly Labas was the 2nd best QB on the roster. Also he had gotten Iowa a bowl win and loyal Kirk moved Hill ahead of him within a few weeks of arriving to campus.
Late to meetings seems a little specific to have been made up. And as we know, Labas has transferred
A mobile QB that wasn’t able to get through his progressions fast enough would have been WAY better than keeping Hill in there all those games!
Bingo. And this is a serious analysis.
And that will last until the first game the offense struggles and then the pitchforks and torches will be back out. You think?
And yet everyone who saw the scrimmage Sat said that Cade was NOT limping and looked more mobile then they've ever seen him. Your post made it sound like he was struggling. I think I'll just stick with that until the next time we see them Aug 31st.
Last edited:
