Hawkeye Insider (Eichholt) has him Iowa but with a confidence level of 5. Doesn't sound like a real strong statement.
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
Anyone with a brain would admit he's made mistakes. He's human unlike some of the posters here who seem to think they are infallible sitting in the chairs watching the game. The same ones that think he's screwed up every QB decision when even the participants have said in interviews they weren't ready for the moment. How glorious it is to be able to analyse everything after the fact, don't you think?
lol…. That is fine. I don’t really care. I am blind just as you are and when someone close to me from practice passes on something, I thought I would pass on what I was told.
And so did Kakert. They obviously heard something to make them feel like Iowa is Iose’s most likely destination.
Tom seems to know Eppy fairly well.
It’s a good thing they put in predictions for Iowa. It’s okay to admit this is a positive development, and it is more likely than not, Iose will commit to Iowa.
Maybe he ends up somewhere else, but it appears at this point, Iowa is in the lead.
The "in the lead" concept seems to be nothing more than where he was last seen. It changes with every visit. The EPPY's are going to say positive things wherever they visit. A confidence level of 5 from Eich doesn't exactly scream he told Kirk he's a Hawkeye.
Last edited:
lose will be a Hawkeye and Iowa would have won more games with Lainez as qb.
Kakert also put one in. He’s seems to be buddies with Eppy.
I’m with you. This is bad news. We’re doomed with Iose. I just hope he commits somewhere else soon so we can move on!!!!!
What if the sun fails to rise?!?!? NOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on, man. We all want Eppy IV. But like you, I'll believe it when it's official.
By "WAY better" I'm assuming that you believe Iowa would have won more games with Marco at QB instead of Hill (I don't recall for sure if you are one of the three who's already gone on record with that)?
Well that leaves you with a hell of an argument to present:
1. The Iowa staff disagreed with you.
2. Lester disagreed with you after his initial evaluation of the two players in the spring.
3. The 7 games that Iowa won with Hill at QB are an established fact.
4. They did so with zero margin for error. So you could say everything had to fall into place the way it did for Iowa to have won those games. Meaning that very little would have fallen into place in the same way with a change as drastic as a different QB.
5. Coaches throughout time have disagreed with you, as many great QB's with great mobility never played as true freshman because things were moving too fast for them
Yep. I’m just willing to believe Kakert and Eicholt know more than you or I, and aren’t just throwing darts.
It does not change with every visit. After every visit they said nice things about each school, but he was not on an official visit, and he didn’t say anything publicly.
Two guys who cover Iowa recruiting for a living, felt they have heard enough to predict a prospect will end up at Iowa, who in at least one case knows the father. I’m not sure why you continue to act like Eicholt is the only evidence?
Please indicate you are aware of Kakert’s existence.
Are you on The Capt's payroll?
That’s a lot of words to defend a lot of shitty Ferentz offense over 2 decades.
I gotcha Birk. I'm just a little skeptical as we've seen this one ebb and flow. I'll trust the guys connected and hope they got some good intel.
Wow....3 knocks against Kirk and all I have said is I think someone else should have been given a shot....even if only for a series or two...at QB last season after Hill played horribly.
I guess that makes me a better fan than you!
You're welcome!
It's nearly impossible to believe that you were a coach.
Certainly one I would never have wanted to play for.
I believe I recall you saying you coached girls' ball. I guess that would make more sense, as there's something about a lot of men coaches in female sports that I've never fully trusted
I've given many reasons why Lainez shouldn't have gotten that shot.
And I gave three examples of ways in which I've questioned KF, in response to your claim that I always agree with everything he does.
You're welcome
Yeah I get it. Probably a bit extreme from me.
But the guys takes are awful. Him being a coach is completely offensive to me
I think @Tom Paris is pretty reasonable when it comes to football acumen.
The key question here is whether ANYONE on this forum gives a rat's ass if you are offended.
Mayyyyybe so? But again, I find it almost impossible to believe he was a coach with his lack of team perspective and lack of respect for coaches and the process
Last edited:
I sure don't give a rat's ass about anything you've ever posted. And I know I'm not the only one.
Still confused as to why you ever come on this board
I’m not sure how anybody can defend the decision to let the ongoing disaster of Deacon Hill start football games.
Again - Marco can run. Even if he had ZERO ability to pass the football, he’d have been much, much more of an offensive weapon than Hill.
How the f*ck are you not in agreement with that? It was clearly worse on the team to play Deacon - he turned the ball over time and again and never made up for it.
Again - Marco can run. Even if he had ZERO ability to pass the football, he’d have been much, much more of an offensive weapon than Hill.
How the f*ck are you not in agreement with that? It was clearly worse on the team to play Deacon - he turned the ball over time and again and never made up for it.
Last edited:
Every person has blindspots though. You, me, football coaches, financial advisors, presidents, we all have them.
He’s been taking a beating lately and it’s getting to him.
You don't need to be sure. Just the staff.
You can't run as a QB if you aren't a threat to pass. It would have taken a defense about a quarter to figure that out.
There's plenty of other sound reasoning that's been presented as well. But you clearly aren't interested in it. Not surprising from someone who questions the staff in the first place.
The only thing that's clear is the number of games Iowa won with Hill at QB
You questioned Kirk on 3 things and me only 1. By your logic that makes me the better fan and apparently you agree.
You’re welcome.
@eyesofhawk
Don't spin this a certain way just answer it straight up. If Lainez had the same exact stats as Hill but ran for 1 first down every game do you think he should have started?
Don't spin this a certain way just answer it straight up. If Lainez had the same exact stats as Hill but ran for 1 first down every game do you think he should have started?
Last edited:
Then what exactly did Hill bring to the table? You don't have to answer, and if you do I won't read the essay.
It may not have always turned, but Hill at least had the key to unlock the offense.
If you can't get through the progressions you have no key.
Hill also brought leadership, which cannot be understated as a QB. And he brought the backing of his teammates and staff.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that Hill made a few key plays in key moments. Sometimes winning just comes down to timing.
But what are you asking me for? Either stay firm in your stance, or if you have questions, trust the staff
Sorry on a Sunday Funday. I meant same stats but was good for at least 1 scrambling first down a game
"...trust the staff."
----------whose product (Offense) is being laughed at by the entire USofA!!!
I'm completely firm in my stance. I'm questioning because you also seem firm in yours. No harm in hearing a different viewpoint.
And if you aren’t even a threat to pass equal to or better than a guy like Deacon Hill, should you have been offered a scholarship to begin with? 🫣
And to your last point - Hill made it HARDER for us to win games!
There's really no way to answer a hypothetical without "spinning it" because it opens up all other hypothetical factors.
How does one quantify leadership?
How does one replicate timing and momentum?
How does one estimate costliness of turnovers? If anything, I would guess Marco's turnovers may have been more likely to lead to a pick-six, as he was more likely to blow a read and throw it right into a defender's chest.
It's all hard to estimate and that is my point. For people to have been as emotionally charged in their argument for Lainez' playing time, they better have a no-brainer case to support it. Simply, all of the complaining has been completely unwarranted.
To argue against the coaches, without their expertise alone, is ridiculous.
To argue against the coaches, without their inside information alone, is ridiculous.
To argue against the wins that Iowa achieved under Hill alone, is ridiculous.
The rhythm of an offense and its ability to function as a whole runs through the QB. Marco not being able to get through his progressions would have majorly crippled the rhythm and ability for his teammates to perform. Hill also displayed some leadership, which raised the level of teammates and brought the group together. I think these factors would have outweighed a scramble for a first down by Lainez. It's not as simple as stats.
But I'm not able to quantify all that for sure, so I would defer to the staff. I think one thing they were probably able to estimate is that your hypothetical isn't all that realistic. For the reasons I've mentioned, I'm not sure it's a given that Marco could have put up Hill's stats. Beyond that, I find it even less likely that Marco would have been able to scramble for a first down every game, especially without being a threat to pass. There just are many QB's pulling that off.
Again, all this considered, I just don't see much of an argument here. And certainly don't see a reason to not defer to the staff
One thing that's important in a starting QB (to me), is his ability to put together a drive at the end of a game to either run out the clock or be in position to win/tie.
I would guess very few fans had much confidence in Hill (or Petras before him) to be able to do that.
If Marco wasn't worth of a scholarship offer, then why is everyone freaking out that he didn't play?
Marco projects to be better than Hill in every aspect, in my opinion. He wasn't a threat to pass because the game was moving too fast for him. It's called being a true freshman.
And to your last point - Lainez would have made it even HARDERER to win. Nobody is saying Hill helped Iowa win. But he did give Iowa its best chance of winning. And the point was Iowa's record with Hill at QB was a hell of a lot more clear than your claim that is was "clearly worse on the team to play Deacon".
