Ah? Kind of if you consider it would be in only three years compared to almost 4 years as the starter for Long.....
Nate Stanley will shatter once thought untouchable Chuck Long School Record
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Did
But didn't Long start for most of 4 seasons? If so then how will Stanley have played more games?
According to Wiki, Long started every game but one in 1982, and every game in 83, 84, aand 85, so pretty hard for Stanley to have played in any where near as many games as Long. In fact probably about 7 or 8 less games.
it's interesting how so many people seem to want to discount what Nate Stanley has accomplished.
If Iowa has a special season this year, Nate will go down as the best QB of the Ferentz era. If he doesn't, he won't quite measure up to Tate or Ricky.
Tate had his special season on the back of a defense that was without a deficiency ... with the exception of depth.
Stanzi had his special season on the back of a defense that was without a deficiency either ... at least when Prater was healthy (i.e. there was some deficiency as it related to depth at CB).
The special season of Beathard is one of the more intriguing ... but it might be fair to observe that it greatly benefitted from a highly favorable schedule.
I honestly believe that Nate's personal record holds up perfectly well compared to the other Hawkeye QBs of the Ferentz era.
I can remember stanzi making tons of important 4th quarter/late game plays....
Stanley is one of the all-time great Iowa qbs, and may end up having the best stats before he graduates. Going off of physical ability and athleticism, though, I think Brad Banks was better. Just think if Banks had been at Iowa for four years or five.
When you consider the context, Long's TDs and completion percentage were really really really stinkin awesome.
Stanley's 26 TD last year tied for 22nd in the country. Long's 26 TD in 1985 was 2nd in the country.
Stanley's 26 TD last year tied for 22nd in the country. Long's 26 TD in 1985 was 2nd in the country.
That's funny, I can remember Nate guiding us against ISU, BC, and MSU ... just to name a few.
Also, I clearly remember Ricky throwing a mind-numbingly large number of "Rick sixes" ... thereby digging us into holes that our D and his later risk-taking would have to dig us out of.
I also remember Ricky playing his best football as a SR ... but as others have clearly pointed out ... we, as fans, are unduly prejudiced by the success of "special" seasons.
To normalize data ... if you compare TD passes to # of offensive snaps ... I bet you that the ranking is much more comparable.
Good point. Stats really don’t tell the whole story considering the differences in what offenses (and specifically Iowa’s offense) looked like in the 80’s versus what they look like now, or the freedom that defensive players used to have compared to the limitations placed on them in more recent years. It’s not an apples to apples comparison, although still fun to discuss.
No doubt that Nate will be in the conversation with Beathard, Banks, Tate, Stanzi, and Long though. The Hawks’s offense/passing game is as well-rounded as it’s been in a long time
Nate has something the pros love-a very strong arm. He can drive it hard when he has to.
It's just a different era. I really don't think you can compare them.
Chuck Long was 1st team all Big 10 3 years in a row, finished second in the Heisman voting, and is in the college football hall of fame, and was the Big 10 player of the year in 1985. Stanley is a fine QB, but he was honorable mention All Big 10 after his sophomore year. He didn't even make HM last year. You're talking about a good college QB versus one of the best QB's in the history of the Big 10.
Oh, I remember the dozens of rick sixes too.
The games wouldnt have been so much fun without those!
I think nate has had plenty on his team to lead them to a special season. It's not like he's on braskas team.
None of that matters one bit, because you also can't compare who else was in the league to win those honors instead of Long or Stanley. We can go round and round on this and get absolutely no where.....
All you can do when comparing players is compare them to their contemporaries.
It’s the same deal across all sports, which is why I think the LeBron vs MJ GOAT conversation in basketball is a silly one to have
I'd like to see Nate shatter that record, this week.
On the road !! Or get close with about 10 tds
On the road !!
Or get close with about 10 tdsI'd have to imagine there was another qb back then that was as good as patterson or mcsorley.
People have lost their freaking minds if they want to put Nate Stanley in anywhere near the same stratosphere as Chuck Long.
That's a level of batshit crazy I don't ever want to endure.
At this moment possibly, but the thing is Stanley's final chapter has not yet been written. If you went back in time and we had not yet seen Long's 1985 season, would it be so far fetched? I fear you have the same type of foggy memory that people want to use to recollect the good old days with Hayden, yet they glaze over his struggles, like his pretty poor bowl record. Or for all his supposed wide open offense and genius, somehow he managed to end up in half dozen tie games, hell 4 in one season I believe. One year I believe he finished 6-4-2. Chuck had his struggles as well from time to time, like the loss at OSU his senior year. Just saying lets let this year play out before we close the book on Nate Stanley......
IMO, yes. He was still 1st team All Big 10 twice at that point.
That argument's particularly silly because the greatest bball player of all time is Wilt Chamberlain.
Let's also remember that the defensive rules have greatly restricted passing defense in today's game. If Chuck played in today's game he'd have thrown for probably 20-30 more TDs and 3000 more yards. Iowa's receivers were slow and could be held by the D backs.
That wasn't a one way street, though. Mike Stoops would probably be prosecuted for some of his hits on "defenseless" receivers in today's game. I can't remember the prick's name but there's a Wolverine who still has a migraine from a blindside blast.
That wasn't a one way street, though. Mike Stoops would probably be prosecuted for some of his hits on "defenseless" receivers in today's game. I can't remember the prick's name but there's a Wolverine who still has a migraine from a blindside blast.
True. Wilt might have been the greatest athlete in human history. Sprinted at near Olympic speed, threw the shot, won high jumping titles in college.
To stay on topic, Wilt's still faster than the Iowa A & T defensive line and Wilt's been dead for years.
This is a pretty good analysis of the TD throw from last week.
Nate has the experience & he has a cannon of an arm.
We now have experienced WRs with speed & athleticism, and it shows.
Watch:
Nate has the experience & he has a cannon of an arm.
We now have experienced WRs with speed & athleticism, and it shows.
Watch:
There’s a legit argument to be made that he was the most dominant of his time period. He also had the benefit of playing against a lot of competition that wouldn’t sniff the modern NBA
And haha
We will continue this during BBall season. I'll persuade you.
Again, as I struggle to stay on topic, when at Kansas Wilt pounded Iowa A&T in basketball, track and field competition! Every Hawk needs to love the Dipper.
What in the world are you talking about? Long's first 2 years as a starter weren't anything terribly special in terms of his individual performances.
The legend of Chuck Long was largely built on the brilliance of his play as a SR. For most of Chuck's career, Fry's Hawks were mostly a team that ran the ball roughly 65% of the time and passed it 35% of the time (look it up if you doubt it). Thus, when Chuck's senior season came around, that ratio went up nearly 10%. Furthermore, his yardage per completion was exceedingly impressive.
There are all sorts of trade-offs when comparing the football today versus the brand of play from yesteryear. Contrary to what many folks seem to claim ... the skill-level of DBs today seems greater than what it was during Long's time. Furthermore, since there was such a prevalence of running the ball - linebackers weren't as agile back then as they are now. Thus, it was easier back during Long's time to be able to find mismatches with LBs against TEs or RBs. While DBs arguably weren't as skilled back then as they are now ... the rules were more lenient ... so DBs could "cheat more" and cover through the body of the WR. Furthermore, there weren't the targeting rules ... so DBs really could scare the crap out of WRs with the threat of vicious blind-side hits.
Another striking difference is that Fry's teams with Long at the helm would typically average in the low to mid 70s in terms of offensive snaps per game. In contrast, the offensive pace with Ferentz as coach has been even more deliberate ... usually just around 67 offensive snaps per game.
Another part of the legend of Chuck Long was also built on the fact that during his career, he owned 1 victory over Ohio State and 2 victories over Michigan ... feats that were all the more impressive given the prestige of those programs back in the day. Furthermore, more than perhaps anything else ... Chuck led the Hawks to the Rose Bowl in '85. For the Hawks, obviously the Rose Bowl is a big deal (as it should be).
However, say what you will ... but Stanley has been building himself a pretty strong resume. The 2017 Ohio State game will go down in Hawkeye lore as historic ... and it should ... the Hawks gave the Buckeyes one of their only 2 losses that whole season. I also predict that Stanley will, in fact, break Long's TD record ... and I think that feat is all the more impressive given how few snaps Stanley receives per game in Ferentz's O. Lastly, Nate automatically already has a winning record in bowl-games. Even the great Chuck Long only batted .500 in bowl games. With a strong SR season ... Stanley might match Stanzi's feat of going undefeated in Bowls!
What folks have to remember is that Nate Stanley is still the author of his own Hawkeye story ... and for all we know, it still might be one hell of a special one! Would Hawk fans still think of Chuck Long the same way had it not been for his Rose Bowl SR season?
If you type more does that make you convince yourself in your own mind? LOL!
Get back to me when Stanley is 7th in the Heisman voting, then 2nd the following year in the closest vote in Heisman history at the time. Long got beat out by some clown named Bo Jackson......... Get back to me when he's the Big Ten's most Valuable Player. Get back to me when he completes 22 passes in a row. Get back to me when he's inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Get back to me when he's got Iowa ranked #1 and then has his running back bought off in the Rose Bowl.
I'll be patiently waiting.
now you've put yourself in a position to root against Nate Stanley.
The Heisman is a freaking popularity contest ... you're speaking as if it were an objective thing!
But, for arguments sake ... let's suppose that Stanley orchestrates an exceedingly special SR campaign and places himself in the Heisman convo ... doesn't that garner some recognition?
Lastly, you speak as if Long single-handedly was responsible for Iowa being #1 and the success of the program then. He certainly was important ... but having an awfully stingy defense was a critical element too.
Given the nature of Big 10 Os back then ... why should that be considered such an accolade? In contemporary times ... we understand to adjust our measure of the QB based upon the system they operate within ... otherwise Mike Leach's proteges would be considered among the top QBs every season!
Respectfully disagree, believing there is huge recency bias in this statement. I think all of the following 10 are a big step up from Nate. All were, at minimum, 1st Team All Big Ten, except CJ, who was 2nd team. Given the great Hawk history at QB, have to be really special to be an all-time great.
C.J. Bethard
Drew Tate
Brad Banks
Matt Rogers
Chuck Hartlieb
Chuck Long
Randy Duncan
Wilburn Hollis
Ken Ploen
Aubrey Devine
