had a QB with quickness that was a run threat like CJ. His poorer teams had a slow-footed plodding QB that was strictly a pocket passer. After watching Wiegers a little, he seems to be in the latter category. To those who watched Boyle and Schmidt in HS; do either of them possess a little speed and quickness?
I believe that most fans would agree that KF's better teams
- Thread starter Hawk68
- Start date
Wiegers is the most highly ranked recruit on the team. A very huge catch for us.
CJ's mobility is the best since Brad Banks. Tate was a scrambler but not looking to rush the football downfield. CJ actually appears to be looking at running lanes created by gaps in the defense. No one has really done that since BB. Hopefully CJ has a couple of years like BBs senior year.
Thus far this kid is making me eat my words of doubt, and they don't taste that bad. If he engineers a win in Madison I think I'll filet a little crow on the barbie.
CJ's mobility is the best since Brad Banks. Tate was a scrambler but not looking to rush the football downfield. CJ actually appears to be looking at running lanes created by gaps in the defense. No one has really done that since BB. Hopefully CJ has a couple of years like BBs senior year.
Thus far this kid is making me eat my words of doubt, and they don't taste that bad. If he engineers a win in Madison I think I'll filet a little crow on the barbie.
I would not have called Vandeberg "plodding", nor label Stanzi with "quickness"
Our most plodding, pocket-based passer was probably Nathan Chandler. Anyone remember how he did in his one year as a starter?
Other than Stanzi who was far from mobile and was strictly a pocket passer. Wiegers is kind of like Chandler where he can run if need be but is mostly a pocket passer. Boyle is the definition of Dual-threat, guy is a running back that can throw, he is the strongest HS QB i have ever seen......he is a little short for ideal QB but he has other intangibles that make up for his lack of ideal size....Schmidt no idea
Won Big10 as starting QB with Razor Ramon as his #1 WR.....he was far from mobile but more mobile than Stanzi...also he was really tall if I remember correctly like 6'7" 250 LB.....he had almost 200 yards rushing which is pretty good for a QB bc sacks are calculated in rushing stats
Unless he's the second coming of Peyton Manning, I'd rather have a guy with mobility that's looking to run as much as pass.
Who wouldn't want to have a Marcus Mariota?
But, that's not how the Iowa offense is structured.
And, despite KF's recently celebrated opening up, that's not what the head coach has typically been looking to do.
Who wouldn't want to have a Marcus Mariota?
But, that's not how the Iowa offense is structured.
And, despite KF's recently celebrated opening up, that's not what the head coach has typically been looking to do.
Difference between the two was Stanzi knew when to run and leave the pocket; Vandy didn't.
Nope. Chandler was '03. Beat Florida in the Outback bowl. Finished 9-4 I believe. The following year with Tate was the co-championship year. 10-2 and won the Capital One. But I'm glad someone brought him up, Nathan Chandler was quickly forgotten by most, but he had a really great year as a Junior College transfer. He just happened to start for one season between a couple of guys named Banks and Tate.
That is right, we finished reg season 9-3 beat Florida and ended up being ranked #8 at 10-3.....none the less still a very successful year
Stanzi was the definition of a pocket QB, far from mobile, savy yes...mobile not so much
Before he banged up his knee, Rudock gashed a few teams with 20+ yard runs and had quite a few rushign TDs.
We also had a great defense and one of the best running backs in the Big 10 (Russell) that year, Chandler wasn't asked to do a whole lot, that being said, I believe some of Ferentz's best teams have featured a stout run D, and a QB who can improvise and make things happen when a play breaks down. Obviously Banks could do this easily, Tate (at least in 2004) seemed to have a knack for getting out of the pocket and making things happen on broken plays. And Stanzi had a few moments when he escaped pressure and made some key throws. I can't remember too many time Christensen, Vandenberg or Rudock did that
GD's best offenses also had QB's who could make plays off schedule (Young, McCoy)
This is 100% correct. If my memory is good, Davis' offenses struggled mightily once McCoy graduated, which is why he was fired.
The prototypical GD QB vs KF QB I believe do not match.
Chandler was actually faster than Banks as far as 40 times go from what I recall reading. Banks was more nimble and elusive.
As for Ryan Boyle, is there any concern with his current throwing motion? Seems like it could use some tweaking.
As for Ryan Boyle, is there any concern with his current throwing motion? Seems like it could use some tweaking.
The most basic rule I can determine is that Kirk's good teams score more points than their opponents in a majority of their games.
Whatever works, I'm betting we see Beathard with a green light to run this week. Probably some draws, probably a play or two Wisky hasn't yet seen.
Well, sure, if you consider his "good" teams to be one that wins a lot of games, you're probably correct. But, what if you consider his good teams to be ones that have really nice players? Or, players that are super good at math? Or well dressed?
Clearly, OP needs to be more specific.
Well, sure, if you consider his "good" teams to be one that wins a lot of games, you're probably correct. But, what if you consider his good teams to be ones that have really nice players? Or, players that are super good at math? Or well dressed?
Clearly, OP needs to be more specific.
Jaleel Johnson, Faith Ekakitie, Jay Scheel and James Daniels were all ranked higher than Tyler Wiegers. I think he'll be good, though. I like what I've seen from him. Stanzi and Chandler both thrived with similar games.
In fact, I tend to reject the premise of this thread. We were great with Banks, great with Chandler, both great and mediocre with Tate, and both great and mediocre with Stanzi. I think it's a wash between dual threat QBs and pro-style QBs.
I wasn't really interested in parsing the OP's question. I was more interested in saying something somewhat funny. Having said that, I think most people are going to interpret "good" to be teams that won a lot of games. We've had a few examples of teams with lots of NFL talent that didn't win too many games. Most would not consider those "good" teams, and in fact label them as disappointing.
I think, with all due respect, this is yet to be proven at a high level. It sure doesn't look pretty.
Given the miniscule number of reps he's had, there isn't any significant conclusion to be drawn on Wiegers.
He hasn't stood out in any way, either good or bad.
I take it at as a positive that he has at least had some actual game time under center should CJ go down.
He hasn't stood out in any way, either good or bad.
I take it at as a positive that he has at least had some actual game time under center should CJ go down.
Yes that is a valid point, however; I never said he could throw tremendously well LOL....he is an exceptional runner and an adequate passer
I think it was more me that missed. I apparently missed your last two questions that should have made it obvious. :/
Similar threads
