Incidentally you just described pretty much every team and coach/players in history; but I’m assuming you knew that....right?
Interesting comments from Stanley; On pace to break Long's Career 74 TD Record
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Incidentally you just described pretty much every team and coach/players in history; but I’m assuming you knew that....right?
Right....No more QBs that garner NFL draft consideration...Ruddock, Beathard and now this bucket Stanley....good riddance!!
I’m tired of hearing that the NFL might have interest in our quarterbacks....
You nailed it.... I assure you if Chuck long and Hayden Fry where the active quarterback and coach at this time our fans would be lambasting them...
Gotta love that, but what does it have to do with Iowa playing for championships? As an Iowa fan, I'm far more interested in players that do well playing college football.
Of course we would, they would be playing an entirely different style of football, with some substantial differences in rules. To go stat for stat in different era's is somewhat disingenuous. In the NFL Don Hutson would not be considered an all time great with his statistics yet many still view him as the GOAT. To compare 1985 college football and 2018 college football and talk about scoring levels is a bit of a stretch. Our revisionist history does make those from years ago better than they were and we are far more critical on present players. Nate wins the Big Ten outright and is 2nd in the closest Heisman vote ever and gets drafted early in the 1st round and people can call it a draw. Heck Randy Duncan is probably better than any of them and rarely gets mentioned.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/chuck-long-1.html
According to this Chuck had 46 career interceptions at Iowa not 52. Chuck averaged .94 per game.
It is weird, isn't it?
All these negative posters are wasting their time posting here!! They should instead be NFL scouts where they tell the real story about Nate Stanley and how Nate sucks!
Or they should be writers for the Des Moines Register so that they can tell readers the real story about Nate Stanley and how his stats don't matter!
Being on pace for throwing 74 TD's, an all time Iowa record, doesn't matter, because, well, you have to have the "it" factor in order to be recognized for such a thing!
If only Nate had that "it" factor!
Maybe if he threw as many INT's as Long or Stanzi he would have that "it" factor!
LOL
The thing with Stanley is he has so much arm talent that everyone expects his decision making, awareness and accuracy to be on par.
Stanley is a good developing QB. He didn’t take the jump that I thought he would over the past year, but that’s not to say he won’t get there. It doesn’t look like the game has slowed down for him much because the awareness just isn’t there - yet.
I still fully expect him to take the next step and be drafted when it’s all said and done. His maturation process looks like it’ll take a bit longer, but I see him as an eventual starter in the NFL.
Stanley is a good developing QB. He didn’t take the jump that I thought he would over the past year, but that’s not to say he won’t get there. It doesn’t look like the game has slowed down for him much because the awareness just isn’t there - yet.
I still fully expect him to take the next step and be drafted when it’s all said and done. His maturation process looks like it’ll take a bit longer, but I see him as an eventual starter in the NFL.
the stat you are thinking about is yds/attempt i think
if Nate were such a conservative thrower like so many claim, his yds/attempt would be very low
So if Nate plays a full season of games less than Chuck (which he will) and ends up with less losses you equate that as being greater? 72 percent winning percentage is greater than a 66 percent winning percentage. As far as schedules the Big Ten W-L record for the years Chuck played look like this 1982 5 teams had winning records, 1983, 5 teams had winning records, in 1984 7 teams had winning records, and 1985 saw 6 teams with winning records. Besides- what responsibility did Chuck Long have with the schedule- he merely went out and won over 70 percent of his games as a starter.
That is the basic nature of fandom. Fans overreact with a win or loss, certainly not news. Back in the day, we would just complain around the proverbial water cooler instead of logging ito a chat room and doing it. Nothing new. Of course, there were those that served up the apologist role then as well. Even though it was before my time, I bet the same thing went on during Evy's days.
I really think Stanley and his receiving corps are going to have a monster 2019 campaign.
Eras are different, sometimes it makes sense to compare players to their contemporaries. Chuck Long was 10th in the country in picks in 1985. That is still a lot.
How is Long being drafted high a point in his favor? He was a bust.
Jake Rudock has had similar NFL value as Long.
How is Long being drafted high a point in his favor? He was a bust.
Jake Rudock has had similar NFL value as Long.
Yards/Attempt; completion %; passer rating
8.7; 64.9; 150.5 Chuck Long
8.1; 59.8; 141.6 Ricky Stanzi
7.6; 61.0; 137.1 Drew Tate
7.1; 57.2; 134.7 Nate Stanley
7.1; 58.1; 129.8 CJ Beathard
Sources:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/chuck-long-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/nathan-stanley-2.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/drew-tate-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/ricky-stanzi-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/cj-beathard-1.html
8.7; 64.9; 150.5 Chuck Long
8.1; 59.8; 141.6 Ricky Stanzi
7.6; 61.0; 137.1 Drew Tate
7.1; 57.2; 134.7 Nate Stanley
7.1; 58.1; 129.8 CJ Beathard
Sources:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/chuck-long-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/nathan-stanley-2.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/drew-tate-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/ricky-stanzi-1.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/cj-beathard-1.html
Long averaging 10.3 per attempt in 1983 is pretty crazy.
This shows him as #1 in the country, 10.3 to 9.2 ahead of second place.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/1983-leaders.html
Adjusted YPA, which includes sacks and picks, has him at 10.0 over Steve Young at 9.6.
In 1985, Long finished 8th in YPA and 7th in AYPA.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/1985-leaders.html
This shows him as #1 in the country, 10.3 to 9.2 ahead of second place.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/1983-leaders.html
Adjusted YPA, which includes sacks and picks, has him at 10.0 over Steve Young at 9.6.
In 1985, Long finished 8th in YPA and 7th in AYPA.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/1985-leaders.html
No, I was actually looking at what his (and anyone else's) average yards on TDs thrown would be. As pointed out, it doesn't take yards-after-catch into account, but I would think it would "even out" among all of them.
And--as Chester so eloquently pointed out--in the end, it doesn't even matter. If someone in our black and gold throws a 4 yard pass that turns in to a 50-yard touchdown 150 times in his career, I'm guessing we'd all be thrilled.
Look I get it & seems you do too, but the problem is...later you won’t and neither will these others.
And you are correct it is disingenuous. To reference Don Hutson in the 30’s as a similar divergence to 2018 vs 1985?! Sure scoring is up, about 6 points per contest, but 17 points is 17 points...then and now!
They still run variants of the west coast offense, run & shoot, Pro-style multi-formations, etc...from 60 to 80 there was a huge difference in football. From 80 to now....not so much...
So when you tell me the greatest coach and QB in Iowa history lost 13 games and tied 1?
The greatest QB in our history scored under 17, 16 times...
He scored 7 vs 4-6-1 Iowa St in 82
7 vs 3-8 Purdue...
He scored 0 vs Illinois in 83...
He scored 17 vs 4-7 PU in 84...
So in short our Mt Rushmore QB did the same crap that our current QB has done and he is a bucket and ole Chuck a Superstar...WTH!!
All while playing a schedule that was compromised of 22 teams who couldn’t win at least 6 games.....
It’s BS, there is NO WAY to spin that and it’s purely hypocritical revisionist history as you accurately said to begin with....
The revision being Hayden and Chuck were always awesome and quite frankly they weren’t anymore awesome than what we currently have...
Yes I’ll agree 4 year Chuck beats 2 year Nate, but people Pooh-poohing 52 INTS is a clear sign they can’t be trusted to form an honest assement of anything.
And we have quite a bit of that in here...
I was a student at Iowa during the Chuck Long years. There is no comparison with Stanley and Long. Long a better QB as was Beathard. With Long and Beathard it was how will we win this game. With Stanley and Rudock it was how will we lose this game.
Why do NFL scouts say he has the "it" factor?
Are they wrong and you are right?
LOL
You should really spend more time on the Detroit Lions message boards and less time here.
But given our WR group would you take much risk?? Most ain't going up and getting the ball.
Look at receiver group Stanzi had or even CJ had versus what Stanley had last year. Stanzi had best WR group with McNutt, DJK and Moeaki and maybe even Keenan Davis was in there somewhere. They were gonna get the ball and hang on.
We are commenting on a college football board. What does Chuck's college career have to do with his professional career? The Lions teams that Chuck was on were poor even for Detroit Lions standards. The Lions are a truly dysfunctional organization.
Then why didn’t they win more? Simple question.... I want to know why those two quarterbacks didn’t win more games. We’ve already established Chuck long played a poorer schedule why didn’t they win every single game?
Nate is doing great. We just need the occasional deep ball that is thrown to an actual receiver not 10 yards ahead of him.
Incidentally, I have to ask, what do you think they did with the “it” factor once they got to the NFL? Or for that matter when they lost those games did they just kind of set it aside? And when exactly did they lose the it factor? When they got drafted, when they stepped on an NFL practice field, in the second quarter?
Last edited:
Chuck Long was coached by Hayden Fry who was
a former QB himself. Fry loved Long like his own son
and they were always on the same page.
Nate Stanley is coached by Kirk Ferentz who is an
offensive line specialist. Ferentz likes Stanley as
a Hawkeye but they do not seem that close in
football I.Q.
a former QB himself. Fry loved Long like his own son
and they were always on the same page.
Nate Stanley is coached by Kirk Ferentz who is an
offensive line specialist. Ferentz likes Stanley as
a Hawkeye but they do not seem that close in
football I.Q.
Fair enough, just explain the losses to me when HF & Chuck scored 0, 6, 7 points etc...
It’s important because if these two genius kindred spirits struggled so much offensively at times...I don’t see much hope for us moving forward.
Right....?
Aaahhh yes.... well then all we have to do is figure out what Chuck did with the “it” factor in all those losses in college and we will have it almost figured out....
Don’t quit now you’re almost there....
Here let me take a stab at it Chuck, & MORE recently CJ, had the “it” factor because the fans, without any real data on their side decided they had it...
In Chucks case they completely forgot all the games where the offense ground to a hault and they deemed him, Mr. “it“...
In CJ‘s case it was of course those dumb old coaches that held him back...
Because in a vacuum you could have nonsensical things like Chuck and Hayden were both awesome even though they didn’t score a single point against Illinois one year and scored under 10 three or four times in another year....that works in a vacuum.
All the while... it doesn’t of course work for Nate.
I would just like to know how Coach Fry and Chuck were able to win 35 games together- maybe you can explain those 35 wins and 70 plus winning percentage to all of us dolts?
All about big games. Regardless of fault, a QB is judged by what they do in clutch situations.
Given all of the Hawkeye QBs from Long forward, if you were to get to choose your 4th quarter QB, where do you suppose Stanley falls on that list? Probably pretty telling, at least as far as perception goes. Knowing that perception is shared by players on the field, I think we can get closer to understanding more about whatever "it" is. The guy in the huddle matters, and sometimes it goes beyond stats.
Given all of the Hawkeye QBs from Long forward, if you were to get to choose your 4th quarter QB, where do you suppose Stanley falls on that list? Probably pretty telling, at least as far as perception goes. Knowing that perception is shared by players on the field, I think we can get closer to understanding more about whatever "it" is. The guy in the huddle matters, and sometimes it goes beyond stats.
