But not your starting QB?
Amani Jones must be thinking Damn.
Amani Jones must be thinking Damn.
So You Can Bench Your Mike LB
- Thread starter BlackNGoldBleeder
- Start date
Nate Stanley has the size and measurable‘s for the NFL. However, has no leadership abilities.
Last edited:
He’s a gigantic QB who plays scared. No NFL future with that.
It is a KF thing he won't bench a QB in a game.. Nick Saban benches a starter that won a National title game for a better backup. KF keeps a guy that is missing his passes by 10 yards and won't send a message. If Stanley can't handle a benching for playing like chit, he doesn't belong in Div1 football.
Might have a few accuracy issues from time to time too.
Bottomline is Ferentz won't bench his starting quarterback. Ever. Today was about as bad as it gets. Shoot, CJ was hobbling on one leg against Florida and Ferentz wouldn't play the backup.
This is on Ferentz. You gotta be willing to pull the trigger.
Not that I don't agree he should have been benched. But a QB on the road is a COMPLETELY different type of change then replacing a MLB....which is exaclty what happened when Welch went down and no one even noticed..
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
And not only was Stanley bad, but he hurt his throwing hand, giving the coaches a great excuse for making a change. But no. Outcoached and out-QBed, and man, does THAT hurt. Losing games Iowa should be winning easily has to stop.
Jalen Hurts wasn't playing close to as bad as Stanley was today.
It's inexcusable. Mansell might have struggled, who knows, but you gotta be willing to make a change. A lot of Stanley's throws weren't even close.
Kristian had hyper extended his foot ligaments. That is why he only was on specials.
If Mansell is worse than that performance, that's on Kirk. Look what Iowa State has done with backups these past two seasons. Our lack of depth kills us sometimes.
I think Stanley really benefits from having big targets to throw to. His accuracy isn't good even close to consistently. Lots of overthrows, guys reaching behind them or trying to pull off turf. He makes good throws, just not enough of them.
I think Stanley really benefits from having big targets to throw to. His accuracy isn't good even close to consistently. Lots of overthrows, guys reaching behind them or trying to pull off turf. He makes good throws, just not enough of them.
Check out the interview in another post.
Enough "ummm" and "you know" to fill a swimming pool.
Verbal crutches to fill empty thinking. Not a positive for a position which requires active problem solving.
Enough "ummm" and "you know" to fill a swimming pool.
Verbal crutches to fill empty thinking. Not a positive for a position which requires active problem solving.
I was thinking the exact same thing during the game. If Ferentz kept CJ in during that game, there was no way he was pulling Stanley.
The one play Mansell was in, he froze and didn’t make the pass he was supposed to.
Lol. It was a gimmick play and a terrible coaching decision in that situation.
As I said before, Stanley would have been yanked by about any other coach in the country. If Ferentz and co don't have confidence in Mansell, that's also on them for not preparing the backup to be ready to go if needed. On Saturday, a change at the quarterback position was needed.
If you can bench a linebacker due to performance, you can bench the quarterback.
This is a philosophy that simply makes no sense.
Every other player on the field can be pulled at times if they are having a bad game, but not the QB?
This isn't about Stanley, this is a Ferentz flaw that we've seen multiple times previously.
I don't think Nate's a bad QB, I don't think he's a great QB. When he's having a day like he was yesterday he should come off the field for at least a few series. And just like any other player, he can be put back in again.
Every other player on the field can be pulled at times if they are having a bad game, but not the QB?
This isn't about Stanley, this is a Ferentz flaw that we've seen multiple times previously.
I don't think Nate's a bad QB, I don't think he's a great QB. When he's having a day like he was yesterday he should come off the field for at least a few series. And just like any other player, he can be put back in again.
I didn't think Stanley should have been benched - I still thought he gave Iowa the best chance to win. Worst game of his career that I doubt anyone saw coming.
If Stanley gave Iowa the best chance to win yesterday, then Peyton Mansell doesn't belong in college football at any level.
Middle-school level throws. C'mon, man. Stanley needed to be yanked if for no other reason than his mental health. His lack of composure was on full display yesterday.
And yet, the Hawks were on the 5 yard line with a chance to go ahead in the last few minutes of the game.
I'm not exactly sure when Mansell should have been put into the game - beginning of the 2nd half on the road in the rain against a very good team when the Hawks were tied?
If the coaches had thought Mansell could do better, they would have put him in. I agree this might have been a time to give him a try, but they decided to stick with NS because they thought he was the best option. I'm ok with their decision.
Stanley had an awful game. Everybody's favorite quarterback is the backup. The reaction by many in our fan base prove this to be true without a doubt. For every Alabama pulling the starter for the back up there's a s*** ton of other teams where it didn't work out so well.
Putting in Mansell is the easy reactionary answer from a fan's perspective. Agree with that.
As I clearly said in other posts, Mansell might not have changed the outcome of the game. With that said, the reason you put in Mansell is for Stanley's mental health and to give Mansell a chance to jumpstart your offense.
Iowa was pretty much gifted 14 points to start the game and had tremendous field position throughout, so the tie argument needs to be put in perspective.
Of course Ferentz believes Stanley gives Iowa the best chance to win. Doesn't mean he's right. He will pull other players for performance but never the most important player on the field, the quarterback. Explanations for that over the years have been proven, at best, dubious.
Except for the fact that he has benched QBs in the past. Benched Beutjer for McCann. Benched JC for Ricky. Benched Rudock for CJ. And the most applicable example to yesterday, in 2006 in the first half of the Minny game at the dome, he benched Drew Tate for a couple of series in favor of JC to get Drew "rebooted" because he was completely sideways in that game. So it's not unheard of under KF.
My recollection is that those were due to injuries or it was planned to play two quarterbacks prior to the game.
If he has pulled a QB during a game due to performance, it's been extremely rare. Stanley's play yesterday was very Christensen-like.
Who is doing the benching, Parker or Ferentz?
I'll tell you who, the superior coach who actually wants to win!
I'll tell you who, the superior coach who actually wants to win!
Stanley froze before He left the locker room, so it's ok to judge Mansell off of one play? No reason He shouldn't have been playing more 2nd half Indiana , same against Maryland and in relief yesterday for at least a couple of series.
Well if He comes out looking like yesterday KF bloody well better get out the hook early but we know that wont happen.
Yeah sometimes it seems BF is reaching into the local youth flag football teams playbook for new plays.
So your point is that Ferentz doesn't want to win football games? Please go on...
3 minutes left in the game. 1st and goal on the 3 all of our timeouts
last year’s Wisconsin game was worse (I thought I was replying to another post)
