Hill got through his progressions infinitely better than Lainez did.
If you couldn't see that, I don't know what to tell you other than Lester said the same thing when he evaluated each of them in the spring.
This has been covered
Early Camp Rumblings
- Thread starter jackattack001
- Start date
If you couldn't see that, I don't know what to tell you other than Lester said the same thing when he evaluated each of them in the spring.
This has been covered
The dude could run.
The statue could not run.
The statue could not throw.
The O-line couldn't protect anyone.
I have tried to use small words here.
Dick, Jane, and Spot would be proud of me.
Agree to disagree on Petras. While I agree on the terrible line play combined with Spencer’s immobility started the slide, I thought he completely lost his confidence, which impacted his mechanics and decision making needed to be successful as a QB.
On the rare instances Petras had time in late 21 and throughout 22, he made poor throws.
IMO, the 9 wins per season were in spite of poor QB play (as part of a lousy offense).
I wish Lester success — like that he will be in the booth so he can see the whole field better.
Last edited:
Infinitely better? No, he did not. That was well covered.
A case for Lainez. Not a case against Hill.
Have you not been following along?
Lainez could run. That point has been previously countered in the thread.
Have you not been following a long?
Any other points to build a case for Lainez?
I have to say it is refreshing though to hear you say something other than the usual 3 or 4 sentences that you alternate between. Well done
I agree with you that Petras lost some confidence. But that was because the O-line broke, which doesn't really speak to the prospect Spencer was when added to the room.
Correct, the 9.33 wins had little to do with QB play. I was just pointing out that the poor QB play was able to be navigated around. And in terms of wins, didn't end up being that big of an issue at all.
I wish Lester (Iowa) success as well
Can't throw or run IS a case against the statue/mountain.
Ok, so you either haven't been following the thread or your reading comprehension is poor.
If to not just defer to the staff, you have to make the case that Iowa clearly would have won more games with Lainez at QB.
This is not the same as making a case against Hill. Hill needs no case made for him as the 7 wins Iowa achieved with him at QB are already an established fact
Yes!
Created another few dissertations.
The effort continues.
Created another few dissertations.
The effort continues.
Yes, we know your opinion. I, like many others, believe your opinion of the matter is simply wrong.
Jesus H Christ. 9.33 wins a season with dogshit(my apologies to dogshit) offense. A great qb beats Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa State in 2022. Definitely beats Minnesota. Do that’s at least 1.34 more wins a season
Well I have given sound reasoning for my opinion.
And nobody seems to be rebutting any of that reasoning.
Opinions become pretty meaningless when facing reasoning
Maybe so.
NYC seemed to infer that QB play had been a big issue. And my point was that with 9.33 wins over the last 3 seasons it probably wasn't as big an issue as he was inferring. That isn't to say that the QB play wasn't bad. Just that it was able to be navigated to wins, rendering it not that big an issue.
And how many teams have "great" QB’s?
No one rebuts your "reasoning" because you go on word salad diatribes and convey nothing. "The record this and the record that..." I'm tempted to sneak a smoked meatloaf recipe in this reply so I can hopefully match your masterful word count. I get it, everyone else gets it. You know all.
Just think you wasted all that time to type up a novel of gibberish that no one is going to read. Then you followed it up with a couple more. Congrats….
I would enjoy a smoked meatloaf recipe.
And it does appear that I have more of a clue than many.
But again, that's not the point. The point is unless fans are going to at least try to present a case that Iowa would have won at least 8 games with Marco, then why the extent of complaining? Why not just trust, if not at least defer to the staff?
Unfortunately the answer is that many "fans" are just allergic to doing such a thing.
There are very few topics actually being debated on this board. For the most part, the sides are predetermined.
There is the same handful of posters that are going to at least defer to, if not trust and back the coaches. They understand the team dynamic. They understand the process. They understand that coaches are the experts. And even if they may feel inclined to question the staff, they understand that they aren't armed with the day to day inside information that the coaches have, and so they defer to the staff.
Then you have the same (unfortunately, at least a few handfuls) of posters that are always going to complain and question the staff. They are always going to tell you they know better than the staff. These are the type of people that have always had trouble being part of a team dynamic and have most likely always had problems with authority figures.
It's just like politics. There are few actual debates that involve nuanced perspective. It can already be predicted who will end up being on each side, and yes, there is such a thing as a bad fan.
Unfortunately, between the passion of football, and the fact that it has become so popular, we've ended up with a huge amount of fans that have no idea what they're talking about and think that they need to have an opinion about everything. The combination of passion and ignorance that such a large percentage of football fans carry makes them incredibly annoying and disrespectful.
If someone were actually interested in building their case, they would rebut the clear reasoning that I've laid out.
But that's not the intention around here. Fans are going to fan and complain just to complain
No, he didn't need to be "near perfect," since Hill wasn't. Padilla's arm isn't as strong as Hill's, but he had more experience and demonstrated that he could make reads. Still, that would translate into only one more win - Minnesota. The Hawks don't beat Michigan or Tennessee with Padilla at the helm.
Strengths:
Condensed formations and bunches are versatile. They can be used in both running and passing plays, which can keep the defense guessing. In a running play, the close grouping of receivers can help to create a strong blocking front. In a passing play, the same grouping can create confusion and opportunities for receivers to get open. This versatility makes these formations a valuable tool in any offensive playbook.Yep. The idea that a guy would have to play almost perfectly to be better than a guy who couldn't run and could barely throw...just lol.
Maybe "near perfect" wasn't the best wordage. But certainly, for Iowa to have won at least 8 of their games that Padilla was at QB, he would have had very little margin for error.
Padilla was no world beater himself. And winning is never easy. As we know, Iowa probably would have lost a few of those games under Hill had a few plays not have been made at the perfect time. Padilla wouldn't have been able to afford a few plays going the wrong way at the wrong time.
The comparison isn't Padilla vs Hill. It's Iowa under Padilla vs at least 8 wins against that schedule. That is much more easily said than done no matter who is at QB
The sound reasoning for any QB besides Hill was that he was the worst major conference QB in the country. That's all the reasoning most logical fans need.
Nope. You guys just don't get it. Making a case against Hill is not the same as making a case for Lainez.
And the burden in the discussion falls on the case for Lainez to be made.
This has been covered many times now
Deacon Hill- 8 Interceptions (should have been 15) 10 fumbles, -114 rushing yards. 5 passing td's in 10 games. Marco had 60 yards rushing in the bowl game alone. Put him in all year and he gains experience. Deacon is going to Utah Tech.... you sir are an idiot.
I said any other QB, that includes Labas which for some reason was in Kirk's dog house it seemed.
Ok, we'll never know for sure what happened to Labas. And all things point to the rumors that he was smoking weed and late to meetings being true. That's why the conversation has been limited to Hill and Lainez.
If the rumors were true, then no, Labas wouldn't have been a good choice. You can't have someone that isn't 100% invested and who's actions are not a good example, leading your team. That has the potential to absolutely destroy a team
JFC. Iowa won inspite of Hill and his terrible play - both as a runner and thrower that turned the ball over at an alarming rate. Stop with the 7 wins with Hill because he was the only qb that got to play. You could put Lainez, Labas, or Padilla out there and they would have gotten those wins too, maybe even the Minnesota game as well by not turning the ball over three times.
Regarding your analysis of Lainez in the bowl game and his inability to make reads, he was being bull rushed every down, down 35 to nothing with a defense pinning their ears back blitzing every down.
You’ve clearly never played the game, want to argue with analytics and results that Hill was the only option. Great. Congrats he was the only guy that played. He is the result of terrible offensive coaching decisions by KF and BF which have gone on for 20 plus years….picking JC over Stanzi, Rudock over Beathard. They make qb’s regress while at Iowa. If iowa had a real OC and QB coach, they’d of won the B1G a few more times and possibly made the play offs.
And Tyler is KF’s son in law. The fact that you don’t know that has me call bs on you since you think you know everything, which you don’t.
Regarding your analysis of Lainez in the bowl game and his inability to make reads, he was being bull rushed every down, down 35 to nothing with a defense pinning their ears back blitzing every down.
You’ve clearly never played the game, want to argue with analytics and results that Hill was the only option. Great. Congrats he was the only guy that played. He is the result of terrible offensive coaching decisions by KF and BF which have gone on for 20 plus years….picking JC over Stanzi, Rudock over Beathard. They make qb’s regress while at Iowa. If iowa had a real OC and QB coach, they’d of won the B1G a few more times and possibly made the play offs.
And Tyler is KF’s son in law. The fact that you don’t know that has me call bs on you since you think you know everything, which you don’t.
Iowa won IN SPITE OF Hill, not BECAUSE OF him.
I wish someone could point out a single game where he was the main reason Iowa won!
Last edited:
And the argument for Labas would be subject to the same burden of "proof". Making a case against Hill isn't applicable. The case would have to be made that Iowa would have won at least 8 games with Labas at QB.
In a vacuum, this is certainly an easier case to make than with Labas. But that fact that it appears Labas was in the doghouse introduces some uncertainty and a feeling that one doesn't have complete information to be able to make that argument with the required force where some complaining could seem reasonable.
This is a classic case of just defering to the coaches. You know, when it comes to their football team, they usually have a pretty good idea what they are doing. In this case, at minimum they were armed with all of the inside information.
So, really no extensive complaints that Labas should have been playing over Hill are warranted. There are just too many unanswered questions
I think eyesofhawk makes a good case that Hill, despite all of his shortcomings, rightfully played ahead of Lainez last season. Nonetheless, the Hawks could have utilized Lainez's athleticism with a small package of plays. They did that with Banks in 2001 even with a solid starting QB. Because Banks was older and more experienced and Lainez had trouble making reads, the play sheet would have had to be much shorter - more like Tim Tebow's as a FR - primarily a wildcat look with a rare pass just to keep the defense honest. They could have done this while preserving Lainez's redshirt, using it in just four games.
I was at that game. As I recall, he finally put CB1 on the WR. But, he allowed Purdue to do their damage. We shall see how coverage is for 2024.
You guys are unbelievably slow. It's been acknowledged MANY times in this thread that Iowa was not winning games because of Hill.
I do believe that Hill gave Iowa a better chance to win than did Lainez.
But the point is that to complain that someone other than Hill should have played, you have to make a case Iowa would have won more games with a different QB. If not, then you have no reason to complain.
Maybe the following is where the confusion is coming in for some of you: I'm not arguing with any kind of passion that Hill should have played over Lainez (although I do believe that). What I'm arguing with passion is that the extensive and passionate complaints that someone other than Hill should have played are not warranted. At best, those complaining are splitting hairs, which does not warrant extensive complaining.
Outback, you said yourself that Iowa "maybe would have beat Minnesota with Lainez or Labas". If one can't even make a strong case that Iowa would have won more games with someone other than Hill at QB, then why all the complaining? It simply is not warranted. Let it go, people.
Your characterization of the Tennessee game isn't at all accurate. First of all, Marco entered when it was 28-0, not 35-0. If I recall correctly, on Iowa passing plays while Marco was in there, Tennessee only brought more than 4 rushers on 3 plays, and 1 appeared designed to be a run blitz. 1 of those blitzes left their secondary with their backs turned in man coverage and ALLOWED Marco to slip under the rush and successfully scramble. You guys want to praise Marco's scramble ability and give him the excuse of being under heavy pressure. You can't really do both on plays like that. When they brought a standard 4 man rush, I wouldn't say they pinned their ears back. One play was a coverage sack, if I remember right. And one play Tennessee didn't even have enough defenders on the field. Basically Marco would just tuck and run because he wasn't able to process what was happening.
Yes, I have played the game. And coached it as well.
Did KF not get Stanzi and Beathard right in the end? Those seem like good coaching decisions to me. We have no way of knowing when these players were ready. In the case of Rudock, he had some time in the NFL. It's not like KF was running some scrub out there. The narrative that KF doesn't know QB's is completely laughable. Fans don't have near the information to be able to make that conclusion. It's just haters creating a reason to hate.
There has never been a coach that's made 20 years of bad decisions. They wouldn't have lasted that long.
I agree that BF shouldn't have been coaching the QB's.
Now I know who Tyler is
Last edited:
Perhaps so. I still would worry about a fumbled snap, blown read, false start, or delay of game penalty. Iowa has absolutely no margin for error to withstand those plays. I also am not crazy about the offense having to lose practice reps together with Hill, for the sake of installing the Lainez package. There were weaknesses across the offense. The needed every rep together to gain any type of footing they could.
In the end, I would defer to the staff, and say they got it right.
It might be splitting hairs either way when it comes to just a package for Lainez. But my main point all along is that no extensive complaining is warranted over hair splitting. Just let it go, people, and be thankful and feel blessed that Iowa has the coach that they have
Yes, but it would seem Labas was in the doghouse before the injury, as Hill had passed him on the depth chart in the spring
I've covered this already in the thread.
Based primarily on the fact that the staff chose to start Hill.
Secondarily, that Lainez couldn't get through his progressions. As soon as defenses realized this, they would have bottled up his run. It would have crippled the entire offense.
Beyond that, I believe Hill correctly got the benefit of the doubt over a true freshman to be the next in line. Once Iowa was winning with Hill, I believe it would have been a mistake to break up that dynamic. I believe it was correct to continue to try to build upon the rhythm of playing the same unit. Especially because the performance of everyone on the offense flows through the rhythm of the QB.
I believe Hill showed leadership ability that positively impacted the play of others more than Lainez probably would have. A huge part of Iowa's success last season was the fact that the team came together. The whole became more than the sum of its parts. Hill was a big part of that. His teammates were behind him the whole way.
Timing is huge. Hill did make a few big plays in big moments. Even if stats were the exact same between Hill and Lainez, if Lainez had a couple plays go the wrong way at the wrong time, it would have cost Iowa some games. Would Marco have stayed as cool in the big moments? Would he have kept his team as cool?
The fact that the game was moving too fast for Marco means he would have been more likely to blow a read and throw a pick-six.
Basically, with Iowa's lack of margin for error, a lot of things had to fall into place just right. It seems pretty implausible that they'd have fallen into place the same way with a different QB playing.
But AGAIN, it doesn't matter what my reasoning is, or even what the staff's reasoning was. What happened with Hill playing has been established. For people to complain that Lainez should have been playing instead means they must believe that Iowa would have won more games with him playing. And for their complaints to be so extensive, you would think they have some sort of case to present that Iowa would have indeed won more games with Marco at QB
