Stanley vs Mansell

[H4wkfan4life]

Lol. Your argument is to take away players. That’s some solid logic right there.

The truth about Stanley is that he is a well above average QB. He makes good decisions with the football and can make throws most QBs dream of being able to make.

As much as fans like you want it to be, this isn’t a Stanzi/Christiansen or Beathard/Rudock situation. The overwhelming majority of teams would trade their current starting QB for Stanley.

Did you even read the posts?
1 poster said nate is one of the best because his td/int ratio. Then I said his completion % is subpar to which you reply that has to do with the receiver and not nate.
So nate gets the credit for all of fants tds but he has no blame for all the incompletions? Really? lol, talk about solid logic .

Fans like me? Half the passes I've seen mansell throw could have been intercepted. Where did I say he should be starting over nate? I didn't......

All I said is he needs to show more improvement and folks need to pump the brakes a bit until then....

 

[H4wkfan4life]

This is hilariously dumb analogy. How good would Stanzi be if you took away DJK and McNutt, or Tate if you take away Solomon and Hinkel.

so nate takes credit for all the tds even many he didn't really create, but he takes no fault in the incompletions...many of which were 100% on him?

talk about dumb......

 

[Kinnick.At.Night]

so nate takes credit for all the tds even many he didn't really create, but he takes no fault in the incompletions...many of which were 100% on him?

talk about dumb......

I enjoy that fact that Nate will continue to start and you'll be butthurt about it. How's that?

 

[H4wkfan4life]

I enjoy that fact that Nate will continue to start and you'll be butthurt about it. How's that?

butthurt about what? he's clearly the best qb on the team right now....

put the booze down for the night

 

[Kinnick.At.Night]

butthurt about what? he's clearly the best qb on the team right now....

put the booze down for the night

He is. But you'll still bitch, won't you?

 

[H4wkfan4life]

He is. But you'll still bitch, won't you?

I am not bitching, I simply said he has more to prove to be "one of the best".

If you think he's played like one of the best in the conference, then keep preaching it. He's not even played like a top 3 b1g qb imo.

 

[GetOnTheLine]

People on this board are very resistant to suggestions like this. I don't know how Stanley compares to Mansell. Haven't seen Mansell play enough. Stanley has made some nice throws in the last couple of games. Needs to improve his accuracy and awareness.

 

[iahawks10]

Good Lord, Mansell swagged in the first game throwing what, a couple passes and one of which was picked off.

Actually, Mansell “swagged” in the first game to one pass (I believe), which was completed and then several hand offs. It was the third game, his second appearance, which he threw the INT. Look at it like this though, it was completed, just to UNI.

 

[GarryO37]

Did you even read the posts?
1 poster said nate is one of the best because his td/int ratio. Then I said his completion % is subpar to which you reply that has to do with the receiver and not nate.
So nate gets the credit for all of fants tds but he has no blame for all the incompletions? Really? lol, talk about solid logic .

Fans like me? Half the passes I've seen mansell throw could have been intercepted. Where did I say he should be starting over nate? I didn't......

All I said is he needs to show more improvement and folks need to pump the brakes a bit until then....

Yes he gets credit for the TDs he threw the damn pass.

No one said every incompletion. I specifically said “caught the balls they should have”. When Nate throws a perfect strike and the ball gets dropped, that’s not exactly his fault now is it?

That’s the logic behind caught the balls they should have.

 

[HawkOn15]

so nate takes credit for all the tds even many he didn't really create, but he takes no fault in the incompletions...many of which were 100% on him?

talk about dumb......

Yes he does I will give you Akrum had 2 TDS that he did a lot but you can make this argument with everyone. Take DJK and McNutt of the 2009 team Stanzi is a below average QB. It’s a team game guys are supposed to make plays and your supposed to get the ball to those guys in order to be successful. Those guys getting those TDS is a result of Stanley getting into a situation he liked and making the correct decision.

If you don’t like it your ignorant and don’t understand football.

 

[InsaneHawk]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

I'm sure both Mansell and Petras are both good QBs and they will have their time, but I'm of the opinion that Stanley has the potential to be a great one....and he is the best option Iowa has right now. I think you are going to see him get better as the year progresses and you'll be happy that he is starting.

 

[navyrules]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

 

[David1979]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

derp

 

[scotthawk1964]

Actually, Mansell “swagged” in the first game to one pass (I believe), which was completed and then several hand offs. It was the third game, his second appearance, which he threw the INT. Look at it like this though, it was completed, just to UNI.

I knew I saw a pic somewhere. LOL

 

[hawkfeever]

The backup QB is ALWAYS the best QB on the team!

 

[hwk23]

Stanley played great. If he plays like that every game, especially how he played the first 3 quarters, I like our chances in the remaining games.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Yes he gets credit for the TDs he threw the damn pass.

No one said every incompletion. I specifically said “caught the balls they should have”. When Nate throws a perfect strike and the ball gets dropped, that’s not exactly his fault now is it?

That’s the logic behind caught the balls they should have.

What about when he throws a crappy pass that somehow is caught. Good for him right?
If you look at half of fants td catches, they were probably plays MOST power 5 QBs could make.
My entire point since my first post in the thread is you can't just look at td/int to decide whos a great qb. He also got the chance to throw inside the 10 more than any Iowa qb I can recall, which I haven't even mentioned. Obviously it's a very important stat, but there are other big things.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Yes he does I will give you Akrum had 2 TDS that he did a lot but you can make this argument with everyone. Take DJK and McNutt of the 2009 team Stanzi is a below average QB. It’s a team game guys are supposed to make plays and your supposed to get the ball to those guys in order to be successful. Those guys getting those TDS is a result of Stanley getting into a situation he liked and making the correct decision.

If you don’t like it your ignorant and don’t understand football.

Again, my whole point is that you can't look at one stat and say nate is one of the best.
Look at stanzi, from what I recall he'd throw a fair amount of picks in the first 3 quarters. BUT.....anytime we were in a close game going into teh 4th quarter he always seemed to step up big when it mattered most. Something Nate hasn't really done. Damn, ricky made for some fun finishes!

Just look at the psu game last year and wiscy this year. Yes, mcsorley had quite a few more ints last year.....but when it came crunch time he made the play that he needed to make as did hornibrook saturday.
I can't imagine many coaches saying they are gonna take nate over mcsorely just because he had a better td/int ratio.

 

[David1979]

Again, my whole point is that you can't look at one stat and say nate is one of the best.
Look at stanzi, from what I recall he'd throw a fair amount of picks in the first 3 quarters. BUT.....anytime we were in a close game going into teh 4th quarter he always seemed to step up big when it mattered most. Something Nate hasn't really done. Damn, ricky made for some fun finishes!

Just look at the psu game last year and wiscy this year. Yes, mcsorley had quite a few more ints last year.....but when it came crunch time he made the play that he needed to make as did hornibrook saturday.
I can't imagine many coaches saying they are gonna take nate over mcsorely just because he had a better td/int ratio.

Stanley has made clutch plays and led clutch drives in the 4th quarters of several games.
Stanzi didn't always play great in the 4th quarter.
McSorley didn't throw a ton of INTs. He only thew 10 last year on way more pass attempts. And only had 8 the year before. So that's not a very good example.
Hornibrook failed to deliver in the 4th just the week before.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Stanley has made clutch plays and led clutch drives in the 4th quarters of several games.
Stanzi didn't always play great in the 4th quarter.
McSorley didn't throw a ton of INTs. He only thew 10 last year on way more pass attempts. And only had 8 the year before. So that's not a very good example.
Hornibrook failed to deliver in the 4th just the week before.

I'm not even gonna compare stanleys current 4th quarter heroics to stanzis lol. Of course he has a ton of time to create them still.....
Mcsorleys PA to INT was nearly 40% higher than nates. That is not a noticable difference to you?
I didn't watch wiscy game 2 weeks ago, just their game last week.

 

[David1979]

I'm not even gonna compare stanleys current 4th quarter heroics to stanzis lol. Of course he has a ton of time to create them still.....
Mcsorleys PA to INT was nearly 40% higher than nates. That is not a noticable difference to you?
I didn't watch wiscy game 2 weeks ago, just their game last week.

What do you mean you aren't going to compare them. You are the one that brought the comparison up. You said Nate never plays well in the 4th. That's just not true. And you seem to think Stanzi always did, which is not the case. Just the facts here.

No McSorley doesn't throw a ton of picks compared to Stanley. 28-10 or whatever he had is a great INT to TD ratio. So again, that bad example to use when saying TD to Int ratio doesn't matter.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

What do you mean you aren't going to compare them. You are the one that brought the comparison up. You said Nate never plays well in the 4th. That's just not true. And you seem to think Stanzi always did, which is not the case. Just the facts here.

No McSorley doesn't throw a ton of picks compared to Stanley. 28-10 or whatever he had is a great INT to TD ratio. So again, that bad example to use when saying TD to Int ratio doesn't matter.

I'm not going to compare them because there is nothing to compare imo. Of course I was pretty shit faced for most the games back then....but still don't think there is much to compare.

When did I say td/int DOESN"T matter? I said it's not the only thing that matters and its not.
If 40% more to you isn't much difference, then so be it. I'd say it's pretty big difference.....

 

[David1979]

I'm not going to compare them because there is nothing to compare imo. Of course I was pretty shit faced for most the games back then....but still don't think there is much to compare.

When did I say td/int DOESN"T matter? I said it's not the only thing that matters and its not.
If 40% more to you isn't much difference, then so be it. I'd say it's pretty big difference.....

Ok well if that is your agrument then who exactly are you arguing against? No one to my knowledge has said it is the only thing that matters so seems like a strawman argument.
And no it really isn't that many more interceptions than Stanley. If you think McSorely is an example of someone that throws a lot of interceptions, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Ok well if that is your agrument then who exactly are you arguing against? No one to my knowledge has said it is the only thing that matters so seems like a strawman argument.
And no it really isn't that many more interceptions than Stanley. If you think McSorely is an example of someone that throws a lot of interceptions, you are sorely mistaken.

post 30, which stated one stat seems to put him among the best in the b1g.....

well I certainly wasn't gonna use TO Tommy as an example

 

[HemiHawk]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

Yes, make Mansell the starter. That will automatically fix everything the team struggles with and make them a title contender. Thus, he will also handle field goal kicking, punting, and punt returning. During "and goal" situations he will play all positions by himself just like Bugs Bunny. He will also take over play calling at the most crucial times in games. Not sure if he will also play defense.

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

 

[h-hawk]

I didn't know they taught American football at the Moscow Institute of Trolling.
(And FWIW, Stanley was 4 for 4 on the scoring drive that gave us the lead.)

 

[GunnerHawk]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

Come on man, really. The pros have Stanley as one of the highest ranked junior QB's. Kid knows the offense better, has a stronger arm and a great TD to turnover margin. Your posts are getting old.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Well f***ing done, sir.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Come on man, really. The pros have Stanley as one of the highest ranked junior QB's. Kid knows the offense better, has a stronger arm and a great TD to turnover margin. Your posts are getting old.

I say we do the same to him during baseball season.

He will try to play it off like he's the eternal pessimist, but Iowa baseball is his one true love and yes it bothers him both when Iowa loses and when people are down on the program, like he is mockingly doing with all these threads.

 

[GunnerHawk]

I say we do the same to him during baseball season.

He will try to play it off like he's the eternal pessimist, but Iowa baseball is his one true love and yes it bothers him both when Iowa loses and when people are down on the program, like he is mockingly doing with all these threads.

Your evil, but I like it!

 

[hexumhawk]

Stanleys arm is without question special. The issue with him is his mobility and once he gets moved off his drop spot, it usually doesnt end well. Would like to see more screens in the game plan.

 

[milehighhawkeye24]

I know I am going to take some heat for this, but Stanley doesn't have that swag "it" factor like a Beathard or Stanzi did. I see this in Mansell.

You need to stop starting stupid threads- I think others are right you are becoming more and more of a troll. Stanley is QB1 and has progressed each and every game. In fact, I thought he played a hell of a game against Wisconsin.

 

[GarryO37]

What about when he throws a crappy pass that somehow is caught. Good for him right?
If you look at half of fants td catches, they were probably plays MOST power 5 QBs could make.
My entire point since my first post in the thread is you can't just look at td/int to decide whos a great qb. He also got the chance to throw inside the 10 more than any Iowa qb I can recall, which I haven't even mentioned. Obviously it's a very important stat, but there are other big things.

Stanley throws far, far more great passes than he does crappy passes. If you had paid attention at all, you would know that.

You’re also crying about focusing on the TD/Int ratio, but you want everyone to focus on completion percentage. Then when a poster points out that Stanley had an insane amount of drops, you dismiss it and come up with BS counter arguments like, “Well if Stanley didn’t have Fant”.

You probably just remember more touchdowns inside the 10, then you can recall any other QB throwing. Because for almost a decade now Iowa has been inside the 10, but have had to settle for too many field goals instead of touchdowns.