QB Room
- Thread starter HawkeyeInCentralIowa
- Start date
I fail to see how that is compelling data.
Details matter. Your reply is devoid of detail and supporting arguments. You have no argument other than empty opinion.
Others have attempted to contextualize things somewhat more for you ... but whatever.
By your same logic (that you state in a later post), Pat Angerer would have been better too ... had he started sooner. Klink and (then) Coleman were strong against the run ... but cost us more than a few times against the pass. So should Pat have started ahead of them?
However, that's the thing ... he wouldn't have EARNED it. If you ask him ... he'd tell you straight up that he shouldn't have started at that juncture of his career.
In Iowa's D ... the MIKE LB is like the QB of the front-7. Definitely a very important spot ... and one that you want to make sure that you get right. If it only makes sense that the MIKE LB has to rightfully earn his spot ... AND that there is a strong precedent that players (like Pat Angerer) CAN and DO improve as they go through the "Race to Maturity" (a term aptly mentioned by Polasek on the WUWO podcast) within the Iowa program ... then it should apply at QB too.
Fans, not unlike yourself, were complaining that Jake Christensen should have started in 2006. That sentiment really aged well ... don't ya think?!
Similarly, other empty-headed folks were willingly trying to throw James Vandenberg under the bus ... due to our disappointing 2012 season. Precedent already proved from the '11 season that he was one hell of a QB. However, the circumstances of the '12 were far less than ideal ... and many fans attempted to treat him as a scapegoat.
Given the youth of our WR situation and the porous nature of our OL in 2007 ... do you truly believe that a different QB would have made all the difference? Please explain ...
I'm willing to bet that you understand very little about cognition works and critical elements that are necessary to create strong learning environments. Why are such things important in this context? Because for a developmental program ... first and foremost, the role of the coach is to TEACH!
Last edited:
Repeating your conclusions and the speculation upon which they are based doesn't make them stronger. Comparing a player's ultimate career is not the week to week kind of analysis that your smarter coaches employ. Given all the interceptions that Ricky threw as a soph starter, with the nation's leading runner and a much improved team around him, you think Ricky's freshmen learning curve would have been so fast that he would have had fewer than six interceptions? That is just fantastic thinking. Were if and buts candy and nuts everyone's Christmas would be merry.
Risking losses to develop long term potential is what desperate coaches do.
Risking losses to develop long term potential is what desperate coaches do.
Homer is wise. Not only bench the Bear Hunter, coming off one of the best single seasons in Iowa history, but bench him for the very same then freshman Jake Rudock they ran out of town two seasons later, although Jake was already well inside the then career top ten passers.
Simply put a player's eventual rise beyond his predecessor by the end of the player's career does not mean the player was better than his predecessor when he arrived on campus. The inability or unwillingness to recognize this dynamic simply make's Gonzo's conclusions about the QBs utterly untenable.
For example, due to injury CJ started Game 5 against a limp Purdue team. These are his numbers:
| 17/37 | 245 | 6.6 | 1 | 1 | 43.2 |
That's not something that really jumps out as sure starting material is it? The only game where CJ outplayed Rudock was in the Iowa State game garbage time-and Jake did nothing in his junk downs against Tennessee-who kicked CJs ass.
Lol. So you're saying the better QB wasn't the better QB when KF started the worse QB.
Hilarious. Stay gold Pony.
If that is what you took from my post I think what Homer and I are saying might be just a little up the food chain for you. You probably should return to just repeating the same bizarre and speculative conclusions because the arguing thing is not presenting you in your best light. Seriously, you sound a little simple and this question is kind of complicated. Probably better for you to just let this one go.
Last edited:
Are you ever wrong?? What category do you place yourself?? Fan? Parent? Coach? Other??
Sometimes folks are highly dogmatic ... and hold true to whatever view they've long held, however poor their justification is for the view. In their minds, they don't need to justify what they think. They're often the same sorts that truly believe that all opinions are equal and that their views are no less important than any other [this actually is true provided the extra stipulation is made that the opinion is well-supported].
Let me know when you land your first coaching job, chief. You must be a joy to work with.
The bolded is unfair. IIRC, Padilia, in his ridiculously brief appearance, threw 2 passes: one was a difficult completion over the middle, the other was an intentional throw away out-of- bounds. He also had an 8 yard scramble. Frankly, with a tiny, tiny, tiny opportunity, I thought he showed more upside potential than any Iowa QB since Beathard.
It seems to me that a real key gets lost during QB discussions. The fan base, for years, has talked about QB accuracy and WRs not getting separation. They are related.
A straight drop-back gives the QB what, 3 seconds on average, to view the field and get rid of the ball and for receivers to get open? That can't be done successfully and consistently. But that's been our passing offense.
Each additional second of time the QB can buy by moving around in the pocket, increases his viewing opportunity and the receivers' separation opportunity exponentially. That dramatically reduces QB pressure and rushed throws, and increases WR separation.
IMO, a QB not having that movement ability is a non-starter and is someone I wouldn't consider as a starter because developing a strong and consistent passing game is impossible.
This is the biggest load of shit I've ever read lol
You call it a ridiculously brief appearance and then make that claim?
Ferentz is risk-adverse. That is really the end of the story. It shows up in play calling, scheduling, recruiting, the propensity to play proven veterans over younger plays with higher potential. It is the Kirk way....old Kirk...new Kirk. It is the Iowa way of being a solid, but seldom spectacular program. We will not see another starting QB unless Iowa loses multiple games because of obviously inferior QB play, Petras is injured, or the long-shot: Padilla or Hogan are consistently playing like Brady in practice.
Agreed. With Padilla all we have is potential because we haven't really seen anything on the field.
Like what was said above so many people get this stigma in their head about whatever in the program and that nothing has changed and it couldn't be farther from the truth.
He thinks Kirk is risk averse? Go back and compare how much they go for it on 4th down compared to 6-10 years ago. With out looking it up I'm guessing they go for it at a much higher clip now.
That is an exaggeration. If either Padilla or Hogan start scoring out as high as Petras in practice ... then they will have earned game-time reps. It's as simple as that.
It happens that way at every other position group too. If another guys is scoring out as high ... then, that guy has earned the right to rotate onto the field.
Consequently, if a guy doesn't want to relinquish game-reps ... then he needs to separate himself from the others.
Where the advantage of seniority comes in ... is that experienced guys who have seen game reps are far more likely to grade out higher.
However, there are plenty of occasions where young guys have caught up to the older guys too. For example, I respect the hell out of what both Toren Young and Mekhi Sargent did for the Hawks ... yet, all the same, Tyler Goodson caught those guys and managed to see the field. He ultimately even passed those guys ... and became the youngest starting RB we've seen in the Ferentz-era.
A week or two before Stanzi became the permanent starter, he started vs ISU and was playing horribly. JC was put in and bailed us out of a loss that game.
It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound. Unless you win the QB lottery and get the guy who's always awesome, every player has variability in their performance. It's not always easy to see who's better and who's not. You could waste half of every season giving all your QBs "meaningful snaps" to see who's the most consistently best, but the odds are you're going to lose some games doing that. It's not like we have pre-season games to work that stuff out.
Coaches have to take the best info they have and make the best decisions they can to win games, starting from the very first game.
Where we are at in society, facts no longer matter and can't be used to support an opinion. We have dubbed it the 'gonzo effect'
While Frosty notes the logical tension between your two conclusions (e.g. small sample size for better or worse) thank you for intelligent discourse. Gonzo, are you reading Roman? This is how one argues. Facts and logic.
On the merits I think you read too much into my statement about Alex. While he hasn't shown anything, but being faster on his feet than Spencer, I agree its on a very limited sample. I think he played fewer than 20 downs last season. He only threw 2 passes. As I've said above I think Spencer is on a short leash and it sounds like Alex is going to get the first shot if Spencer struggles out of the gate. Basically he's done nothing good or bad because he just hasn't played.
Last edited:
I don't know much about FB p;ractice, but don't the QBs have a red shirt and are not allowed to be hit/tackled? If this is anywhere close, then you don't know how a QB will respond to blitzes and pressure. IMHO that is why some guys don't do well in games but in practice grade out much better.
Is this accurate??
Is this accurate??
In an attempt to create an olive branch:
Can we all agree that if SP has not drastically improved and if he truly still is the best option our "QB room" as the OP discusses is in dire straits?
Be positive fans, there is no way a tenured coach such as Ferentz would have allowed an entire year of free agency to go by, where he could have brought in a fairly plug and play QB, and not seen drastic improvement over the shower of shit that was 14 of the last 16 halves.
Can we all agree that if SP has not drastically improved and if he truly still is the best option our "QB room" as the OP discusses is in dire straits?
Be positive fans, there is no way a tenured coach such as Ferentz would have allowed an entire year of free agency to go by, where he could have brought in a fairly plug and play QB, and not seen drastic improvement over the shower of shit that was 14 of the last 16 halves.
It is accurate in the sense of that's how they practice. It's standard practice at every level of college/pro football, because the risks far outweigh the positives.
If your QB gets hurt going live in practice, you're basically ****ed. They've taken starters' reps, developed a rapport with the OL/WRs, makes their reads a certain way, understands the offense and audibles, etc. If you have to go to the 2nd guy, not only are you likely getting a downgrade in play, but now you have to get the rest of the offense used to his cadence, timing, throwing style, etc.
It's not even close to worth it. If it was, more teams would ditch the red jerseys, but they don't.
Ooof, I kind of get what you were going for there but, I think you can do better.
I hope it's an open QB competition because Petras didn't play so well last year to claim the spot. That's about it. I don't think KF and the coaches have been 100% right for they past 20+ seasons. If you think they've never gotten it wrong about who they start... so be it. If Petras is the best guy, I'm rooting for him.
I'm actually pretty good to work with. Not going to coach anytime soon though. Wrong temperament.
Simple answer, once. I would love to ask him what he saw in Scott Mullen that ever earned actual game time. Now that was a shit show of quarterbacking.
I thought the switch to Beathard was wrong but the 12-0 season disproved that the next year. Other than that magic year you see nothing but above average in CJs other three seasons.
I disagreed with Jake C in 2008 but the issue was settled in one game so its not like a meaningfully bad decision. We won the game Jake started that year like 45-0 or such. Ricky started both the next two games, got pulled against Iowa State for poor play and pulled against Pittsburgh for disciplinary reasons. Giving the incumbent the first start in a competition never seemed all that odd.
So if a 2nd string QB is close to the first, and the first stringer seems to 'clutch' in pressure situations, shouldn't you try #2?
Huh?
Are you talking about a full on QB battle? Because that's a completely different situation. And yeah, IF that's the case. Not sure that has anything to do with what I said though.
Here's what I've overheard from the 'The Room' in passing (excuse the pun). There's a qb competition but Pete has the edge.
Kirk and Co average 7-5 over his career. Plenty of room for criticism.
Hard to know for sure. It's hard for the coaches and they have far more info than we have.
Take out his first two years and him and staff are averaging over 8 wins a year. Not really trying to cherry pick but we all know those first couple years were rebuilding but overall, yeah, you're pretty close. 7.63 and 4.81 is what I got he's averaging over 22 years.
Sucks last year was a short year as there was definitely a few more wins on the schedule. There seems to be some really good young talent in the program and seem to have improved recruiting so hopefully the staff can improve that winning % over the next few years.
Round up on losses and down on victories. Solid work, very consistent approach.
Your first two are really puzzling. I was in the stadium for the Michigan game that boos rained down every time Kirk trotted McCann back out for another 3rd and out. Banks scored 10 points on 3 possessions.
Go look at Stanzi's stats compared to Jake's in the Pitt game. Stanzi got benched all second half because he had the audacity to try to score in the last 2 minutes before half. Jake was a trainwreck the whole 2nd half. Had that game been at Kinnick, KF would have been booed off the field
I did a boot-strap resampling during the Ferentz era ... and the results I got pointed more to an average of 8-5 per season.
Since the resampling was redrawn from a 22 year window (still a reasonably small data set - as data sets go) ... the standard deviations of the resampled data was not necessarily insignificant.
The boot-strapped standard-deviations point to 7-5 being consistent with Ferentz's average ... however, on the other hand, so is 9-4.
As a fan ... maybe 7-5 makes you peg-out towards apathy. However, what does 9-4 do to your sense of fandom?
To paraphrase Montaigne ... sometimes to appreciate great joys, you must also suffer pain.
Such is the life of a Hawk fan ... I, personally, can live with it. Of course, I don't expect or require others to feel the same way as myself.
Fans also rain boos at kids on Senior day, so forgive me if I don't take their views seriously. Also the Pitt game was in 2008, and was the nail in the coffin for Christensen. Also, as someone else also pointed out, Stanzi stunk it up against ISU, when Jake C came in and at the very least managed us to a victory.
A single game does not establish a pattern. Banks played the majority of the next game against Wisconsin and completed less than 50% of his passes. It also might surprise some people here that McCann had a 66% completion percentage in 2001 (compared to Banks' 60%), and even had a slightly higher passer rating. Sure, Banks blew that out of the water the next year, but the point is Banks was not the same guy as he was the year before.
Also, he didn't get benched because he had the audacity to score, he got benched because he blew off the coaches and called a different play than they told him. Regardless of whether their playcall was a good one or not, no coach worth their salt is going to allow a player to undermine them like that. Stanzi never did it again, and it's not like it ruined his chances because he took the job after that game and never looked back.
Last edited:
Stanzi had only 4 pass attempts in 2007 so not sure what your point about 2008 is. The Pitt game I referenced was literally only one game after the ISU game you mentioned. Stanzi had a solid 1st half. The coaches blew that game riding Jake the whole 2nd.
Stanzi had a QB rating 134.8 in 2008, comparable to Nate Stanley's career. Jake was 117 in 2007 and 118 in 2008. You conveniently forgot this while cherry picking the passer rating argument.
You referenced my first two points as not making sense and then brought up the Pitt game. My 2nd point was about 2007...
Maybe get your seasons straight before you start accusing me of "cherry-picking arguments", when I literally never argued that Jake C. over Stanzi was the right choice, only that Stanzi had rough spots.
Latest posts
-
Monday Six-Pack 6/17: Caitlin gets clobbered, ‘27 offers, more
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-
-
