Scott Dochterman tweet to bench Nate
- Thread starter QCHAWK
- Start date
A journalists job isn't to be kind to the team he/she is covering, or to spin reality to be more favorable to the team they cover. Probably took a lot for SD to work up the gull to tweet that out, but given the circumstances I can see why. Nate was playing horrible and it was a season-changing game. You cover a team for so long and you want to see them turn the corner so bad, things get the best of you.
The problem for Iowa is, we seem to be an offense better suited for a guy like Nate who can throw the ball deep. When he is on, he's perfect for this team. But maybe giving Mansell a drive wouldn't have been a horrible idea. At least he could be a change of pace and mess with the PSU defense a little bit. But then you get into the whole thing with the psychological damage it does to a QB when he gets pulled and then put back in.
Part of me wishes Nate was a senior, because at least then we'd know somebody else would have the job next year and that kind of takes the pressure off him, and KF, IMO. He's your guy and you stick with him. Nate having one more year though, if he doesn't play well, that creates a cloud over his head, especially with how gifted the defense is and how great our tight ends are.
Best case scenerio: This was Nate's worst game by far and it only gets better from here. If he plays well, he's got the skills to lead us past the rest of the schedule. If we go 10-2, maybe the CFP is out of reach, but nothing else should be. Definitely do not see Wisky winning out.
The problem for Iowa is, we seem to be an offense better suited for a guy like Nate who can throw the ball deep. When he is on, he's perfect for this team. But maybe giving Mansell a drive wouldn't have been a horrible idea. At least he could be a change of pace and mess with the PSU defense a little bit. But then you get into the whole thing with the psychological damage it does to a QB when he gets pulled and then put back in.
Part of me wishes Nate was a senior, because at least then we'd know somebody else would have the job next year and that kind of takes the pressure off him, and KF, IMO. He's your guy and you stick with him. Nate having one more year though, if he doesn't play well, that creates a cloud over his head, especially with how gifted the defense is and how great our tight ends are.
Best case scenerio: This was Nate's worst game by far and it only gets better from here. If he plays well, he's got the skills to lead us past the rest of the schedule. If we go 10-2, maybe the CFP is out of reach, but nothing else should be. Definitely do not see Wisky winning out.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
Players at other positions get pulled when they don't perform. Why not the QB? And, to be honest, when an athlete is having as poor a day as Nate had Saturday--although most would never admit it--its a relief to be taken out. You know you're not getting it done. Do you really think completing 18 of 49--missing on THIRTY-ONE throws--isn't a bigger mental issue than being taken out would have been?
I completely agree with that point. That's how it should be, but not how it is. If I were running things, I probably would have given Mansell a drive. But you can't deny, if Nate gets pulled and then starts next week against Purdue, there would be a huge distraction from the game plan because every mistake gets blown up that much more from that point forward. The QB position is always different.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
Actually, some high school, college, and NFL coaches do pull the QB when it's clear he's having a bad day. Saban does it, to name one, and Purdue did it last year under Brohm. The number one objective is to win, and if pulling the QB gives you a better chance to reach that objective, it makes no sense not to do it. The rest of the team understands that even great players, even QBs, can have a bad game. That doesn't mean the player's career is over.
And speaking specifically of the PSU game, inserting the far more mobile Mansell would have given the PSU defense a different look that they were totally unprepared for. Mansell has the escapability that Stanley obviously does not. What's the worst that could have happened. An INT? Some three-and-outs?
When the starter plays the whole game and completes only 18 while throwing 31 incompletions and 2 crushing INTs, well, the case for keeping him in is mighty thin.
And speaking specifically of the PSU game, inserting the far more mobile Mansell would have given the PSU defense a different look that they were totally unprepared for. Mansell has the escapability that Stanley obviously does not. What's the worst that could have happened. An INT? Some three-and-outs?
When the starter plays the whole game and completes only 18 while throwing 31 incompletions and 2 crushing INTs, well, the case for keeping him in is mighty thin.
Did you watch his interview? He said he hurt his thumb in the 4th qtr. He threw the ball better with his thumb taped.
Bush-league move by Doc ... it's something you'd expect from a "fan" ... not something that you'd expect from somebody who claims to be a member of the media.
If you listen to what the players say ... it's pretty clear that the guys on O view Stanley as a key leader of the O. You don't bench the key leader the team. What you do try to do is to put him in situations where he can build some confidence.
If you watch the play-calling after Nate starting playing like he had the YIPs ... Brian was clearly feeling around the best he could to try to find something that could help the team. He tried leaning on the run ... that didn't work. He tried giving Nate some easy routes ... and Nate either missed on them OR PSU started sitting on those routes. He even tried to manipulate tempo ... to see if playing with tempo could shake Nate out of it. Ultimately, at the end, when playing with tempo ... we finally saw glimpses of "good Nate" again. Unfortunately, it was possibly too little too late ... and the drive ended in that horribly painful pick (just because we rushed things instead of taking a TO).
I don't know why a sports journalist can't question a players play and a coaching decision. That is their job. They don't work for the university.
When you see it done ... it's more often done with a young QB ... it's rarely done with a guy who is a team leader. When you have a guy who is a team leader ... you don't want the guy looking over his shoulder.
Furthermore, if you DO see such a decision made ... you also do it to set the guy coming in, up for success. If we were to put Mansell in ... he'd be playing in bad weather conditions in a very hostile environment. Furthermore, it's not like our OL was protecting all that great either ... the last thing you want a young player to be doing is hearing footsteps before he's developed much. Put a guy in at the wrong time ... you also run the risk of stunting his development. That's the caveat of the QB spot ... it's such a cerebral position.
Last edited:
I'm not claiming that the media should ever give those in power "a pass." However, the key feature of reporting ... is to include a critical analysis to support your contention. It's NOT valid or acceptable for media members to simply shoot from the hip. The WHY is the most important thing here ....
It's sports commentary. It is what they do on a daily basis. All he stated was that Stanley was playing very poorly and wondered if the coaches should think about trying the backup. Not really any more to it. This is what happens day in and day out covering sports. Your stance is completely ridiculous.
Stanley was so bad I was actually surprised the OL didn't start letting PSU have some free runs at Him, He was that damaging to Iowa's chance to win that football game. Pulling Him would have not only been the sensible thing but also the kind thing to do by KF .
I had zero problem with saying Nate should sit a series or 2 or give Mansell a shot. But that's not what Scott did. He went all out with a very direct and harsh attack - not something typical of Scott. Obviously after the responses and reality set in he deleted it later that night. I wish I could find the archive of the message.
David,
You are correct, coaches don't like sports journalists that ask those questions and they may get their butts fired, It's a fine line.
Nebraska guy here. You have a QB who had 2 D1 offers. What do you expect? Get mad at the coaches for not recruiting a better QB. It's not like the kid is going to tell Ferentz not to start him. Also, McSorely had some timely runs that tipped the scale almost as much as the two INTs.
Nate deserved to be benched -I don't care if someone's feelings get hurt as Iowa gave that game away.
So if your leader is leading you off a cliff, you just go with it? You'd never make it in the infantry.
He was in situations to build confidence, but he was brain dead saturday. It was 2nd and 9 when he threw the pick that was returned to the 2. He had Fant wide open on the short crossing route. Easy, confidence builder that would have 'at least' put us in 3rd and short if Fant doesn't run for the 1st down. He had short crossers (like Easley on what should have been an easy 1st down which was one of many) and safety valves open all day. Those are short confidence building throws that he didn't even look at because he was locked on and staring down certain receivers. Don't make excuses for him. If your 'leader' is freezing up in combat, you better have someone else take over.
Yeah, the announcers would talk about it. What a strain that would be for KF
And I think you can pull a QB without hurting his confidence. It depends on how you frame it with him.
If the coaches tell Nate they want to give him a rest and allow him to take a fresh look at the game after a possession or two, adding that he’s going back in unless the back-up happens to be on fire, I don’t see a problem. I suspect Nate would have been fine with a breather and a chance to watch the offense work from the sideline for a while.
If the coaches tell Nate they want to give him a rest and allow him to take a fresh look at the game after a possession or two, adding that he’s going back in unless the back-up happens to be on fire, I don’t see a problem. I suspect Nate would have been fine with a breather and a chance to watch the offense work from the sideline for a while.
The problem with your statement is that you have very little ground to strongly support your stance. The coaches see both Stanley and the back-up QBs on a frequent basis. The coaches typically have a better idea of what the players are capable of doing ... even more so than the players themselves. They know how well the players understand the O ... they know who can make the adjustments the best ... they know who can read the D the best ... etc.
When you're making personnel decisions ... there are a ton of trade-offs that you're managing. Even when a guy like Nate is playing poorly ... he's not doing EVERYTHING poorly. There are a lot of key things that he's doing well ... if that weren't the case, then it WOULD have been an easier decision to bench him.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of foolish fans out there who don't understand that, for the most part, the players are not 'plug and play' elements. Nor are the abilities of the players statically cast ... there is an inherent dynamicism to their development. Usually the development trends upward ... but occasionally it can stagnate or trend downwards ... but these latter scenarios typically arise under worst-case scenarios.
Don't waste your time talking to these "fans" Ghost. Unless Nate's thumb is injured, he is the QB going forward. The coaches and team are not going to abandon him at this point in what still can be a very successful season. We are going to see what the "kid" is made of against Purdue. I hope he steps up and redeems himself, at least in my eyes as a fan.
It all comes back to whether you win or lose. I'll use Alabama as an example.
In the national championship game they switched QB's. If they win it was a great play by a great coach. If they lose then he was a dumb sh-- like every losing coach on Jan. 1st....If a baseball pitcher gives up 10 straight hits, do you leave him in because you don't want to hurt his feelings? Some teams even use two QB's...
I have no idea how Mansell or Petras would do if put in there. But if you look around the country you see young players coming in and performing well week after week. Kids are coming in more ready to play. Just look over at ISU for an example. They have a true freshman performing at a higher level than Nate Stanley and he was put in because their second string QB wasn't playing as good as they needed him to play to win. But I would add that Iowa generally asks more of their college QB than other schools.
Guys - I think myself and WWDM and some others are taking the "moderate" approach. The not leave him in no matter what nor the bench his ass. It was abundantly clear to even pro-Stanley fans that he was really off. And it wasn't his thumb. And generally I approach it as let the guy who is the starter work through his issues as everyone can have a bad day. But Nate was literally costing us the game. Take him out for a series or 2, let the coaches and players like Hesse and Gervase pump him up and Let him know he is the guy, and unless Mansell is on fire, put him back in. Look, this was a monster game and if Nate is even average we win by double digits. I trust the coaches and appreciate loyalty, but there is no way Nate was giving us the best chance to win and if he can't handle being out a series or 2 and understand why then he shouldn't be the QB on Saturday's. I don't think that to be the case as he seems like a team guy. My 2 cents.
I know it's unfavorable to praise Brian for anything
, but this is a great observation. Trying to scheme around to get Nate out of his own way and they just couldn't make it work.This is what I thought. Take him out, have him watch from the sideline and have Okeefe talk to him and calm him down. Then put him back out there and see if he is good to go.
And yet he was a machine in the game at Ames in 2017. loud environment and lead Hawks back to win. You can say ISU sucks, but that is a loud environment there.
Yes, please google Joe Montana on the state of today's college QBs. This RPO crap and standing at the line waiting for the coaches to tell the QB where to go. So yes, QB at Iowa is a lot different than QB at ISU. Iowa QB has a crap ton more on their plates.
Listening to the presser yesterday, ferentz made the reference that everyone has a bad day. He even notes how great of a pitcher Nolan Ryan was and that he’d had games where he struggled and didn’t pitch very far into some games.
My question would be, why doesn’t he ever pull a struggling qb for a series or two. I’ve watched him continue to trot the same qb out o the field for entire games and never give the backup a chance to get something going. Maybe on a bad day for Stanley, the backup is having a great day. But as Iowa fans we will never know because a change is never made. I don’t understand it.
My question would be, why doesn’t he ever pull a struggling qb for a series or two. I’ve watched him continue to trot the same qb out o the field for entire games and never give the backup a chance to get something going. Maybe on a bad day for Stanley, the backup is having a great day. But as Iowa fans we will never know because a change is never made. I don’t understand it.
KF has said it himself - they are trying to win every game. If they were worried about feelings, they wouldn't bench Amani Jones after a couple series and they would call Fant's brother and invite him to dinner to discuss snap counts. The answer to the question everyone is asking is self-evident - the staff felt they had a better chance to win the game with an experienced yet erratic Nate over an unproven rookie in a high-stress environment. As bad as Stanley played that night, he hit several good passes on the drive that got them to the 3 to nearly win the game. He panicked, they didn't win.
Exactly. The reason people pay money to The Athletic to read Dochterman's stuff or give him a follow on Twitter isn't just because he's "reporting the facts". Yes, facts are a huge part of his job (or any person on the Iowa beat). But he's literally paid to give his opinion and analysis of what is going on in the games. It doesn't make his opinion more right or more wrong than anyone else's, but he's within his bounds to give it.
What he was saying wasn't shocking or just taking cheap shots. The QB play on Saturday wasn't the only reason Iowa lost, but it was so poor to nearly make it impossible to beat a good team on the road. Iowa got 2 safeties on special teams, a special teams touchdown, a defensive touchdown and STILL LOST THE GAME. That is nearly impossible to do unless your offense is horrific. Penn State did some things on defense to make life difficult for Iowa. But even at that, just making the simple, wide-open throws and Iowa wins pretty easily. The overthrow of Hockenson just can't happen if you want to beat a good team on the road. It literally is taking a touchdown off the board. It's not a matter of overshooting a guy with 1-2 steps on the defender. It was overthrowing a guy about 20 yards in front of you by 5 yards with no one within 15 yards of him. If you want to win titles, you can't be "protecting" the QB with the play calls. You have to be able to use the entire offense to attack the defense. Otherwise you are just hoping to win by the other team screwing up.
If it's just a one-game thing, Stanley can use it as a growing tool and bounce back. But the time for bouncing passes or overthrowing guys running crossing routes 5 yards in front of the line of scrimmage has to end. Now. Both of those things happened on Saturday. You cannot win Big 10 games against good teams with that kind of QB play. Your line, running game and defense can't play well enough to overcome that.
The most obvious answer is likely the reason. Because they felt that putting him back out there gave Iowa a better chance to win than putting Mansell in and hoping something happened. We got to see Mansell on the field for one play and his decision-making didn't stand out. The fake punt and throwback appeared to be there for Hockenson and he instead chose to run it.
I'm not saying it's the right answer or one you or I should like. It's just what it is.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to think that KF should have benched Stanley. It's also perfectly reasonable that your QB of the last 21 games was going to right the ship and give us the best chance to win. This stuff about KF not caring, or not wanting to hurt feelings is BS. KF wants to win.
Fans characterize KF as stubborn. Yes, he probably is. But, by the same token he deeply believes in his approach, and that approach is to not change QB's very often.
Fans also like to point to Stanzi v Jake C. as an example of how stubborn KF is. Well, it was ONE game (Pittsburgh), not an entire season. Actually, it was 1/2 of that game.
If I had to guess, I would say that Manzel is going to get a few more starters reps this week.
Fans characterize KF as stubborn. Yes, he probably is. But, by the same token he deeply believes in his approach, and that approach is to not change QB's very often.
Fans also like to point to Stanzi v Jake C. as an example of how stubborn KF is. Well, it was ONE game (Pittsburgh), not an entire season. Actually, it was 1/2 of that game.
If I had to guess, I would say that Manzel is going to get a few more starters reps this week.
If this were true, no coaches would ever get fired based on Ws and Ls.
Hue Jackson, for example, would still be the Browns coach.
The emphasis here is more on the college game ... because, in the college game, there still is a significant emphasis on TEACHING the players.
In the pro-game ... it's a whole different beast ... because a whole other part of the challenge is getting a whole bunch of egos to play together as a unit. Furthermore, in the pro-game ... how can you also motivate the guys to not go out and just play for themselves ... but rather, have them go out and play for the team and help make the team better. That's difficult because the good of the team isn't always in the individual's best self-interest.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Fran Zoom Availability, 2/27 -- Expects Drew Thelwell to Play on Friday- Latest: Carolina. Hawk
-
