I’d go with Deacon, with that defense we could have cut our teeth with Marco the whole season and definitely been more competitive those final two games. Of course with BF as OC, it was probably a moot point.🥲
QB change (lack of)
- Thread starter Rambler Hawk
- Start date
I think if you're being logical, it would have to be Cade? I don't think that Hill had a proven B1G backup.
I went with Cade. Deacon was backed up by Freshman in Lainez and Labas who had 1 start.
Cade has a mobile 70% passer backing him up with BigTen experience. It's stupid not to at least try Sullivan.
Cade has a mobile 70% passer backing him up with BigTen experience. It's stupid not to at least try Sullivan.
Yeah, I get that Sully’s the more proven QB2 but what really does it matter for this season? That we might get to play in slightly better middle tiered bowl with Sully and this defense?
When a mediocre, young MSU squad has their way with us - having any kind of special season is flushed down the toilet and QB1 is a moot point.
It’s sad/hilarious that Iowa fans have had to resort to ‘who sucks less’ QB discussions these last few seasons…🤪
Yeah but the poll question was about a lack of change at the qb position, not the overall dearth of quality of the team. He has a proven option this year.
Especially when you've shown enough confidence in him to play him in the red zone....with LOTS of success.
I chose Deacon strictly from the standpoint of his being the least capable QB I can ever recall getting PT in a B1G game. It was gross incompetence to play him.
Cade isn't good, but he at least shows glimpses at times of competence. Deacon was far less capable AND he didn't have the excuse of multiple significant previous injuries that took away much of his physical ability.
Cade isn't good, but he at least shows glimpses at times of competence. Deacon was far less capable AND he didn't have the excuse of multiple significant previous injuries that took away much of his physical ability.
Except that Hill had NEVER thrown a pass in college until he became the starter under KF. Hill had virtually no experience at all when KF dubbed him king. So to say the backup had no experience, is, well, moot. Neither did the starter!
Hill was an absolute liability when it came to ball control, and it seemed to just get worse as the season went on. It is 100% the staff's fault for not having a suitable backup ready. Whether it was Lainez or Labas, there is no way it could have been worse. KF turning a blind eye to the turnovers Hill caused was insane and unforgivable imo.
Season tickets but skipping this weekend until a QB change. Just sick of this stubbornness
I don't disagree with the take that it might not matter as much, but taking the position that improving the offense isn't important because the defense isn't as good this year seems counterintuitive.
With last years elite defense if you play either Labas or Lainez you go 11-1 with a punchers chance at Michigan in the title game. Criminally stupid move to offer Hill and then play him that off season given the relatively decent NIL we have.
Similar threads
