Standing Up for Stanley

[GunnerHawk]

Threw for 260 yards although harassed all day.

Frickin arm chair quarterbacks on this sight are pathetic. I've been to the big house many times, tough place to play. Poor running game put us off schedule all day. Third and long is right in Don Brown's wheelhouse.

Check out of the blitz you say. Once again, disguised well by the Wolverines. Nate was a punching bag. Showed toughness and a will to win, even on the last play when he threw left handed.

So to the armchair QB's not worthy of wearing his jock strap. Enough already. Taking your crybaby BS someplace else. The Hawks deserve better.

Nate I've got your back. Next week you can get us back on track.

 

[sadiehawkins]

Yep I guess 3 interceptions one being down near the 25 30 yd line is a good game for stanley.

 

[sadiehawkins]

My problem with stanley is he never once tried to tuck the ball and run he stood back there lick a piece of granite.

 

[CO_hawk]

It was definitely a weird game for Stanley. Made some major mistakes, but made some big plays and did well when not under pressure.
I'm really
concerned about our Oline, Rbs picking up blitzers.

 

[MWardT]

I thought the running game was fine, but every time we got a 2nd and 3 on a first down run, BF called a pass and it turned into 3 and 10+

 

[mstp1992]

I thought the running game was fine, but every time we got a 2nd and 3 on a first down run, BF called a pass and it turned into 3 and 10+

I would have like to see more runs. Sargent struggled a bit, but Young and Goodson were solid. Hell, 2nd and short I would have been okay with some good old fashioned QB sneaks.

 

[MWardT]

I would have like to see more runs. Sargent struggled a bit, but Young and Goodson were solid. Hell, 2nd and short I would have been okay with some good old fashioned QB sneaks.

Agreed. BF called that game like they were down 3 TDs. Too many runs out of the shotgun. Just line up under center, like the teams did who had success against Michigan, and run it at them!

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Very poor day for the offense. I really thought that the days of the Iowa offense getting shut down were gone for a while. BF couldn't figure out what to do. Stanley, the OL and the RB's seemed over-matched. In a game like this it feels like the defense has 14 guys on the field.

The fumble on the first play seemed to set the tone.

 

[Pacoytaco]

He's been a good QB for Iowa. Too bad there's so many dbags on this site that never had a bad day at the office

 

[HawkGem11]

Stanley in a big game on the road is a guaranteed loss for Iowa, he chokes HARD every time...kid is all smoke and mirrors and loss is 100% on him!

 

[Pacoytaco]

Stanley in a big game on the road is a guaranteed loss for Iowa, he chokes HARD every time...kid is all smoke and mirrors and loss is 100% on him!

You're a loser man. The only kid around here is you

 

[Hans81]

Threw for 260 yards although harassed all day.

Frickin arm chair quarterbacks on this sight are pathetic. I've been to the big house many times, tough place to play. Poor running game put us off schedule all day. Third and long is right in Don Brown's wheelhouse.

Check out of the blitz you say. Once again, disguised well by the Wolverines. Nate was a punching bag. Showed toughness and a will to win, even on the last play when he threw left handed.

So to the armchair QB's not worthy of wearing his jock strap. Enough already. Taking your crybaby BS someplace else. The Hawks deserve better.

Nate I've got your back. Next week you can get us back on track.

What I don’t get, for a series or two would it be that bad to put a more mobile Mansell in to give the defense a different look & let Stanley get his composure back?

 

[hawkeyemark56]

What I don’t get, for a series or two would it be that bad to put a more mobile Mansell in to give the defense a different look & let Stanley get his composure back?

Mansell has apparently lost the backup quarterback race so it would surprise me if we ever see him under center. But in the big picture I think you have a point here. Brian Ferentz made no adjustments and put Stanley in a really bad position yesterday. If you put yourself in Nate's shoes things don't seem quite so black and white. He had much pressure on him yesterday on all fronts and had an overall poor game. But to make Stanley a whipping boy for the ineptitude on offense yesterday strikes me as rather shallow.

 

[HawkInArk]

He's been a good QB for Iowa. Too bad there's so many dbags on this site that never had a bad day at the office

Paco - have you watched more than this one Iowa road game? You're on here acting like this type of game is a rare occurrence and people have no reason to bitch and moan about the product Iowa put on the field.

 

[anon_ddojbbh8q7xrt]

Hes a senior. He’s experienced. No matter how you sugarcoat it that wasnt his best game

 

[HawkLogic]

Yep I guess 3 interceptions one being down near the 25 30 yd line is a good game for stanley.

Not a great game but wit zero run game and very poor pass protection had a lot to do with it.

 

[joemc2]

Paco - have you watched more than this one Iowa road game? You're on here acting like this type of game is a rare occurrence and people have no reason to bitch and moan about the product Iowa put on the field.

The most important fact of Stanley’s career is his B1G record as starter.10-10 with 1 win against a contender(OSU blowout). He.s not a bad QB, but he is pretty average

 

[CAhawki]

Hes a senior. He’s experienced. No matter how you sugarcoat it that wasnt his best game

Bingo!!!! And he was the first to own. Expectations from fans should suggest that a veteran QB should make better reads or be better prepared. For that, all that lays at the feet of the coaches not having the players ready. BF KoK or KF... whomever is supposed to pinpoint the details, they failed more than Stanley did. Stanley was just the vessel did what he could while getting smashed

 

[Pacoytaco]

Paco - have you watched more than this one Iowa road game? You're on here acting like this type of game is a rare occurrence and people have no reason to bitch and moan about the product Iowa put on the field.

I seen every game since you were a scratch in your daddy's pants. I'm on here saying that bitching and moaning is for losers. If you cant relax and accept a loss in a tough road environment then stfu

 

[Crafty Beaver]

Stanley in a big game on the road is a guaranteed loss for Iowa, he chokes HARD every time...kid is all smoke and mirrors and loss is 100% on him!

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[HawkInArk]

I seen every game since you were a scratch in your daddy's pants. I'm on here saying that bitching and moaning is for losers. If you cant relax and accept a loss in a tough road environment then stfu

Scratch in my daddy's pants? Must mean your f**king old. So a tough, old guy on a message board used by fans to vent/discuss/bitch/moan/whatever! telling people to shut the fu*k up. Right on, old man. Right on.

When you're down in the dumps just remember that you're a better person than all the losers on the HawkeyeReport message boards.

"I seen." Quality stuff right there.

 

[Crafty Beaver]

Stanley has 8 million responsibilities in our offense. He needs to be able to count on better protection. He missed some throws and reads, but given the protection, he was far from our worst problem.

 

[steelrain]

People are acting like this loss is all on Stanley. Stanley this and Stanley that..total BS!
He didn't play his best, that's true. He is a very good QB. The loss was WAY more failure on the team than Stanley. The offensive line repeatedly missed blocks on runs, failed to see the blitz schemes and adjust for them. The defensive line still can't get pressure to the opposing QB. Let's not forget about PENALTIES!
Someone above suggested Mansell get snaps which further proves the lack of knowledge about the team. Petras is the backup, not Mansell.

Watch the game again and pay attention to the details of the game outside of Stanley and you will see why the team lost.

Lastly, Michigan played great defense yesterday. Give credit where it's due. Michigan beat us with defense.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

My problem with stanley is he never once tried to tuck the ball and run he stood back there lick a piece of granite.

I agree and would like to see Stanley be more decisive and take off and run at times.

But what Gunner is saying is there is a lot of blame to go around. Overall, Stanley did hang in there well, showed a lot of toughness and grit, and made some tough throws.

Stanley is not Brad Banks, though. We know.

 

[Pacoytaco]

Scratch in my daddy's pants? Must mean your f**king old. So a tough, old guy on a message board used by fans to vent/discuss/bitch/moan/whatever! telling people to shut the fu*k up. Right on, old man. Right on.

When you're down in the dumps just remember that you're a better person than all the losers on the HawkeyeReport message boards.

"I seen." Quality stuff right there.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! You're angerrrrrry! Cry me a river you pansy and do it in the corner where no one has to listen to your sobbing

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I like him. he isn't a mobile and quick runner. he is short a couple of tight ends who went to the nfl.

 

[NevadaHawk]

I thought the running game was fine, but every time we got a 2nd and 3 on a first down run, BF called a pass and it turned into 3 and 10+

I think Nate does deserve some credit for converting a number of third and long situations. One was 3rd and 22 and another was 3rd and 15. He threw some very good passes in those situations.

 

[iafan44]

Stanley in a big game on the road is a guaranteed loss for Iowa, he chokes HARD every time...kid is all smoke and mirrors and loss is 100% on him!

Stanley played a pretty shitty game for the most part but the play calling and abandoning the run did him no favors. To say the loss is all his fault is just silly man.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Stanley has 8 million responsibilities in our offense. He needs to be able to count on better protection. He missed some throws and reads, but given the protection, he was far from our worst problem.

If everything else stayed the exact same, but we got marginal QB play. We win easy.

He was by far is/was the biggest problem.

 

[ANYCHawk]

He's been a good QB for Iowa. Too bad there's so many dbags on this site that never had a bad day at the office

How many bad days does one get? Cause Nate is up to like 10 out of 20.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

Threw for 260 yards although harassed all day.

Frickin arm chair quarterbacks on this sight are pathetic. I've been to the big house many times, tough place to play. Poor running game put us off schedule all day. Third and long is right in Don Brown's wheelhouse.

Check out of the blitz you say. Once again, disguised well by the Wolverines. Nate was a punching bag. Showed toughness and a will to win, even on the last play when he threw left handed.

So to the armchair QB's not worthy of wearing his jock strap. Enough already. Taking your crybaby BS someplace else. The Hawks deserve better.

Nate I've got your back. Next week you can get us back on track.

While Stanley didn’t have a great game, in the overall he played above what most quarterbacks would have with all the pressure he received. Those who think they lost that game because of Stanley need to re-evaluate.that game was lost at the LOS. Period. 8 sacks, multiple penalties, and no running game.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

My problem with stanley is he never once tried to tuck the ball and run he stood back there lick a piece of granite.

Tell us on which play the pocket opened up for him to escape through? I don’t recall any.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

Stanley in a big game on the road is a guaranteed loss for Iowa, he chokes HARD every time...kid is all smoke and mirrors and loss is 100% on him!

clueless.

 

[HawkinK.C.1]

Nate is an excellent QB. I'm glad he's on our side. Any QB needs a little more time than he was given yesterday. Definitely more to this loss than just blaming Nate.

 

[ANYCHawk]

While Stanley didn’t have a great game, in the overall he played above what most quarterbacks would have with all the pressure he received. Those who think they lost that game because of Stanley need to re-evaluate.that game was lost at the LOS. Period. 8 sacks, multiple penalties, and no running game.

And several of those sacks were cause he refused to throw the ball. I swear to God I don't get why Stanley's poor play gets so excused around here. "Didn't have a great game" that's such BS, he flat out sucked. He threw it directly to the other team, missed open receivers and made repeated bad decisions. To make it out to be some offensive line failure is flat out wrong.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

And several of those sacks were cause he refused to throw the ball. I swear to God I don't get why Stanley's poor play gets so excused around here. "Didn't have a great game" that's such BS, he flat out sucked. He threw it directly to the other team, missed open receivers and made repeated bad decisions. To make it out to be some offensive line failure is flat out wrong.

LOL, yeah the line played lights out! Damn, Stanley missed all the blocks and was called repeatedly for holding, 4 out of 5 plays on one 4th Qtr drive.

Stanley played a lot better than he is getting ripped for. Again, far from a great outing, but Stanley did not lose this game all by himself as some are suggesting.

 

[ANYCHawk]

LOL, yeah the line played lights out! Damn, Stanley missed all the blocks and was called repeatedly for holding, 4 out of 5 plays on one 4th Qtr drive.

Stanley played a lot better than he is getting ripped for. Again, far from a great outing, but Stanley did not lose this game all by himself as some are suggesting.

Please tell me where I said they played lights out?

And if you paid attention, or at least reviewed the game thread, you would know that citing those holdings when many were questionable is silly.

Maybe one day you'll actually pay attenion and see that Stanley is a below average QB who is costing this team games, even when the offense line is bad. As I said even marginal QB plays with the exact same line they win. 2 less picks means two more field goals. A completion on third down instead of throwing it 83293202130 yards over sargants head means a field goal. Guess what? that means 12 points.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

Please tell me where I said they played lights out?

And if you paid attention, or at least reviewed the game thread, you would know that citing those holdings when many were questionable is silly.

Maybe one day you'll actually pay attenion and see that Stanley is a below average QB who is costing this team games, even when the offense line is bad. As I said even marginal QB plays with the exact same line they win. 2 less picks means two more field goals. A completion on third down instead of throwing it 83293202130 yards over sargants head means a field goal. Guess what? that means 12 points.

Yeah, as people said to ISU fans after that game, if’s and but’s are for losers.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

Please tell me where I said they played lights out?

And if you paid attention, or at least reviewed the game thread, you would know that citing those holdings when many were questionable is silly.

Maybe one day you'll actually pay attenion and see that Stanley is a below average QB who is costing this team games, even when the offense line is bad. As I said even marginal QB plays with the exact same line they win. 2 less picks means two more field goals. A completion on third down instead of throwing it 83293202130 yards over sargants head means a field goal. Guess what? that means 12 points.

 

[HawkamongstGophers]

You totally ignore the plays he did make, under severe pressure, to get the team downfield. Again, he didn’t play great, but to say he is below average and costing them games demonstrates a lot of ignorance. All but a handful or two of the teams out there would take him as their QB if they could.