Early Camp Rumblings

[eyesofhawk]

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.

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

 

[Iron Doc]

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?

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.

 

[Macbride79]

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

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.

 

[83Hawk]

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

Infinitely better? No, he did not. That was well covered.

 

[eyesofhawk]

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.

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

 

[eyesofhawk]

Agree to disagree on Petras. While I agree on the terrible line play combined with Spencer’s immortality 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.

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

 

[Iron Doc]

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

Can't throw or run IS a case against the statue/mountain.

 

[eyesofhawk]

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

 

[BrewHawk]

Yes!

Created another few dissertations.

The effort continues.

 

[SI_NYC]

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, we know your opinion. I, like many others, believe your opinion of the matter is simply wrong.

 

[ClarindaA's]

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.

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

 

[eyesofhawk]

Yes, we know your opinion. I, like many others, believe your opinion of the matter is simply wrong.

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

 

[eyesofhawk]

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

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?

 

[BurgHawk87]

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

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.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

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

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….

 

[eyesofhawk]

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.

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

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

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

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.

 

[cidsports]

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.