Sooo, any more camp rumblings or should this topic just die?
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
Iowa won 7 games with Hill as QB. It doesn't matter what anyone believes he brought to the table.
If someone believes Iowa would have won more games with Lainez at QB, then it's on them to make that case.
No case needs to be made for what's already in the record books
Hopefully die and the pissing match ends, no?
Dude, you're the only one who's been defending Hill all year. He was terrible—couldn’t complete a pass, couldn’t scramble, threw interceptions, and fumbled regularly. Of course, people wanted another QB; it’s just common sense. You're in the minority thinking Hill was the guy. Honestly, anyone else would have been an improvement.
The topic can't die.
What would eyesofhawk have to lecture us proletarians about then?
I'm certainly not the only one. There are others on this board and in this thread. And oh yeah, there was the staff, and Hill's teammates, and Lester.
And there are the 7 wins that Iowa recorded while Hill was QB. We all know how bad Hill was. That isn't the issue. But plain and simple Marco wasn't ready. Maybe he got to the point where he was close to ready, but you don't change QB's when you are winning games.
I don't know how people can so confidently say Iowa would have won 7 or more games with Marco. I happen to highly doubt it. And as a matter of fact, people haven't made that claim with confidence, because it took 7 months for anybody to do it, and I had challenged people to do it several times in those 7 months. Quite curious indeed 🤔
There is no pissing match. Only right and wrong.
What's right is what all ready went down in reality.
And the people in the wrong are doing nothing to prove their hypothetical by reiterating how bad Hill was. We all know that. A case for Lainez has to be made. But either there is no case or fans just insist on complaining or both
He’s embarrassing himself.
I think it's really funny that he's spent so much time writing long-winded responses that aren't going to change anybody's mind.
This thread reminds me of a movie that started out great, but got muddled up in the middle and didn't fulfill its expectations.
And producers, director, and editing crew decided was perfect at 3 hours and 53 minutes long!
"Only right and wrong."
----------------Day-um! This reminds me of back in the Cold War when we were fighting Monolithic Communism (theoretically)! (I was there.)
If nothing else Lester has some scrimmage film, etc to figure out what to do and how to do it. I liked the above notes, if you could mix Cade and Sullivan then you'd prob have something yet between now and Game 1 and Game 2 I'd expect improvement. I'd imagine we'll lean heavily on the OL and RB room (both looked decent Sat) while the other pieces catch up. LeShon and Lachey were both out Sat. as well. Take this all FWIW.
Make a case.
The burden isn't on me; I'm not the one complaining that things should have been different.
The only case that's been made is that Marco can run.
I accurately rebutted that it would take a defense about a quarter to figure out to contain Marco in the pocket.
Now what?
You can't determine a true right and wrong in a hypothetical situation. We know Hill was horrible (as was the rest of the offense). Not that hard to make a case against that.
Bottom line is that BF's offense was a self-fulfilling prophecy that no quality QBs/WRs wanted to play in and doomed to failure. Who cares who the options were? Sure wouldn't have hurt to give someone else a try. It really couldn't have gotten any worse and if it might have, it's not like we had any realistic chance at a Big Ten title.
Hoffman is going to be a monster in the years to come.
The bigger issue is how Iowa got in the situation where Petras was the best option in 2022 (when he had clearly nosedived from his second-half 2020 & first-half 2021 levels), and how Hill was the best option at backup QB in 2023.
Here are the QB recruits that Iowa signed from 2019-2023:
- 2019 - Alex Padilla
- 2020 - Deuce Hogan
- 2021 - Joe Labas
- 2022 - Carson May
- 2023 - Marco Lainez
Given how important the QB position in college and pro football, and with typically only one QB recruit per year, missing that many times in a row is a staff issue, with poor levels of evaluation in recruiting, player development, and retention. That string of misses is ultimately Kirk's responsibility as the head coach.
Then with the portal in 2022, McNamara came in a a good resume, but it appears that he is physically broken. Similar to pro sports free agency, Iowa signed a "free agent" who can't stay healthy. As for Hill, that evaluation was an "off the charts" miss. I've followed Iowa football for 55 years -- Hill is in the bottom three QBs I've ever seen take a snap at Iowa (along with Frank Sunderman from the early 1970s and Bob Commings Jr. from 1977-78).
Certainly hope that Tim Lester can turn this around, but Kirk needs to stay out of the decision making on QBs, as Kirk allowed this dearth of talent at QB to occur.
Dochtetman on KXNO just now said OL and run game look great. Sullivan could emerge was starting QB if current trajectory continues.
Last edited:
Apparently Vander Zee may crack the Top 5 WR rotation as well..
Sounds like a no for Hoffman playing this year although things can and do change. With Lester's offense playing 12 personnel quite frequently and maybe even some 13 that would be Luck/Addison/Ortwerth/Pascuzzi would be the 4 TEs maybe in front of him...but up to 237 now from 211 in January is impressive. Maybe he can get some PT in under the 4 game fresh rule then.
I suppose we will never know but they should have tried another QB. It certainly wasn’t Hill who was winning the games for Iowa. They were winning in spite of Hill’s play.
If I were the coaches, I would have set up Labas or Lainez with a simplified playbook with a bunch of read option and run those 10 plays, over and over.
The stubbornness of playing Hill was baffling. He wasn’t just bad. He was historically bad.
With all of the issues you identify regarding QBs, poor retention turns out to be a positive rather than a negative. The only exception in that regard would be Padilla. While not "the answer," he still would have been better than Hill.
Although I happen to believe that the coaches played the right guy, my main point has been that the degree and the intensity of the complaints for Lainez to have played have been completely unwarranted.
You said yourself, the hypothetical of how Iowa would have performed under Lainez can't be determined. So why can't fans just shut up defer to the coaches? The notion that Lainez should have played is by no means a slam dunk.
If anything, it's close to a slam dunk that the coaches got it right. Claiming Iowa would have won 8 games with Lainez at QB is an awfully high bar to clear. And that's the case that has to be made.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but making a case against Hill is not making a case for Lainez. The 7 wins that Iowa recorded with Hill at QB are established. No case has to be made for that. To complain that Lainez didn't play instead of Hill means you believe Iowa would have won more than 7 games with him at QB. Lainez could have outperformed Hill in every stat and physical skill (which I don't believe would have been the case), but if Iowa didn't win more games with him at QB, then he didn't give them their best chance to win, and wasn't their best option. That's all that matters.
Yes, it could have hurt to have given Lainez a try. I've already delineated in this thread how that could have happened. Iowa had zero margin for error. Fields and the Steelers just botched two snaps in their preseason game. These are pros for crying out loud! Backups in college do it all the time and Iowa absolutely couldn't have afforded that! I've given other examples of likely mistakes Iowa couldn't have afforded. And I've mentioned the fact that a struggling offense needed all the possible reps they could get together with one QB to try to gain some footing. Plus, in my mind, the fact that Marco couldn't get through his progressions alone, would have made it worse for the offense on a few levels.
Your last point is laughable. If nothing mattered but winning the Big Ten, then shoot, Iowa might as well have played Yahya Black at QB. By that logic what's the Big Ten matter if you were never going to win the Gnat? Might as well not have suited up all season for that matter.
This has all been covered several times in this thread. In hopes of not having to continue to repeat myself, let me once more attempt to summarize/simplify.
For those of you complaining that Lainez should have gotten a "try" for a couple series:
-I have presented reasoning in this thread why I don't think that would have been a good idea.
-But my main point is that the extent of complaining for the sake of a couple series has been completely unwarranted.
For those complaining that it should have been Lainez over Hill all along:
-You have to believe that Iowa would have won more games with Marco at QB than they did Hill. That is what we're talking about here guys.
-There are a lot of things beyond stats that go into the QB position. No one has said that Iowa won games because of Hill. But ultimately, the staff made their decisions based on who they felt gave the team the best chance to win.
-If you just think Iowa would have won the same amount of games with Marco at QB, then your complaints are unwarranted because winning the same amount of games makes it all no big deal.
-If you believe Iowa would have won more games with Lainez at QB, then you have to present that case.
-Making a case against Hill is not applicable. The number of games Iowa won with Hill at QB is not going to change.
Again, those making the case for Marco have failed to present anything other than his running ability, which has accurately been rebutted against. So again, now what? What more of a case can you build for Marco?
If you guys can't build one then you should just leave it alone. Stop making a big deal out of something you can't even make a good case for. Sometimes it's ok to at least defer to the coaches rather than always having to be a negative and divisive force in the community
Defer to OUR Offensive coaches (and Big Pappy)????? HA!!!!!!
(the football universe is still laughing AT us)
Not going to comment on another of your “I’m always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong”rants, other than to point out Hill couldn’t get thru his progressions last year either. But I’m sure you will come up with an excuse for it.
Yeah, it's always great to have good QB play. But the lack of it the past few seasons hasn't been nearly as big of an issue as you have made it out to be. Iowa has averaged 9.33 wins over the last 3 seasons. And it hasn't been nearly the fault of KF as you have presented it to be.
It wasn't Petras that nose-dived. It was his offensive line. And he basically had no receivers for the first part of the '22 season. Although his lack of mobility coupled with the broken O-line in '22 was a terrible combination, Petras, in a vacuum, was never a bad option at QB. He did a lot of good things at Iowa and he just beat out a fairly talented guy at Utah St.
How Hill was the best backup option last season unfortunately appears to be because Labas took himself out of that position through a poor lifestyle. Otherwise, I think he would have been a fine option as at least a backup. You can't predict 100% of these things. KF has had a great track record of recruiting high character guys.
I'll give you that Hogan may have been a miss.
I think it's fair to say the jury is still out on May as a player. It didn't work at Iowa. But if I recall correctly, he transferred after Iowa brought in Cade. That's just the nature of kids with the portal these days. And certainly, at the time, everyone was thrilled with bringing in Cade.
Still too early to judge Marco.
As for Cade, again everyone was thrilled to bring him in. You can't predict injuries. I will say that he never should have been playing with the quad injury at the start of last season. And the fact that he did most likely led to the ACL injury. So I guess KF is at fault for that.
Kirk doesn't need to stay out of ANY decision making. He IS the decision maker
No, Iowa shouldn't have tried another QB. I've given many reasons why in this thread.
I've also many times acknowledged that Hill wasn't who was winning the games. But he did give Iowa its best chance to win.
And you don't change QB's when you are winning. Especially to a true freshman when you don't have any margin for error.
We'll probably never know for sure, but all things point to Labas having taken himself out of contention with his lifestyle. You can't have someone who is not 100% committed leading your team. It can absolutely destroy your team.
The ignorance of a high majority of football fans is just baffling
Yes, Padilla on paper would have been better than Hill.
But there still could have been some potential risk there if the rumors about Padilla not being completely committed were true. Supposedly he wasn't putting in any extra time in the film room and was waiting to transfer in December.
Take this for what it's worth, but I heard that from the same guy who a month before Chip Kelly left for OSU told me that he had contacted KF about the OC spot at Iowa.
And as we know, Padilla immediately hit the portal when (with Petras' injury) he would have been in line to start the bowl game.
Now, if Padilla would have stayed at Iowa there's a chance that his commitment level the following season would have been higher and not a risk.
So who really knows? He certainly could have been a better option than Hill. But then again, Iowa won 7 games with Hill, so Padilla would have had to have been near perfect for that to have played out
He played well in their spring game and was listed #2 on the depth chart to start the season. #1 is now likely out for season due to injury, but it sounds like Joey Spicolli was outplaying him and had a good chance of taking #1 regardless.
Do you have a compelling case for Lainez, so as not to defer?
Again, the joke's on anyone laughing at a winning team.
You keep saying the same things and I keep responding in the same way. Fun, isn't it?
