Will the QB position be up for grabs ?
- Thread starter Kurt Warner
- Start date
Did we watch different games? Which ones in particular are you saying he did win us those games?
So once 12 years ago and when there was already a shuffling of QB's. Makes my point.
I remember it should have happened with Vandenberg against PSU and Tate against tOSU - but - it didn't.
No it doesn’t. How many times has the backup QB been better than the starter? Jake C was a highly rated recruit. Yes, Kirk gave him maybe to many chances. Eventually Stanzi beat him out. They’ve seen Petras for 3 years, 2 in practice and 1 (kind of) on the field. They obviously like him better than the backups. With our history of new QB’s starting, would you be comfortable rolling out Padilla next year in the IU game?
I would be more comfortable knowing that there was a fair competition for the starting nod. I want the best guy in and forget about loyalty.
They should just start Joey Labas game 1. There I jumped all the damn sharks rather than just 1.
If I was a four star QB, I would not sit behind Petras for another year.
Some points I agree with, others I don't consider to be really relevant. To keep from getting lost in the weeds, lets reframe the discussion.
You make several references to the NFL. It's not arguable that we are underperforming on the field relative to our representation in the NFL.
I'm going to use some numbers that aren't intended to be absolutes, but for illustrative purposes.
Our NFL representation indicates that we should be routinely a 10-2 team or better. Reality is more like 8-4. Further, our defense is better than 10-2 and our offense is worse than 8-4.
Why does our offense consistently underperform? IMO, it's because we take a poorly designed offense and then superimpose on that, a QB with a limited skill set, and then add some bad decisions for good measure.
KF and BF have shown us over an extended period of time that they are incapable of making substantial improvements in design or decisions, so that leaves us with only a better QB skill set as
a solution.
Pro style is fine. We don't want a running QB, partly because they can't stay healthy and that is disruptive. But even Brian acknowledged last year, belatedly, that an important aspect of offense
is creating an "outnumbered" situation. Well, having a QB who is a threat to scamper for a 1st down is the equivalent of adding a 12th player as far as the defense is concerned. And if you'll notice virtually all productive QBs do not throw from their original dropback position. They may have moved only 3 or 4 feet, but that can make all the difference. That can buy another 2-3 seconds which provides the WRs with an alternate 20 yard route, great difficulty for the DB, better QB vision, and an unhurried pass.
Having or seeking a strong armed QB is getting us nothing. We don't have the schemes for a long passing game, or even a consistent mid-game. It only helps preventing INTs on those high risk/low reward horizontal passes to the sideline. (sending the receiver deep and then swinging a man-in-motion or RB into that vacated area would be safer and more productive--if that 8 yard pass isn't 3 yards behind or over that swing man). The only time that sideline pass makes any sense is when the coverage is very slack and the WR has exceptional open-field running ability. Absent those, it is just another of our all-to -frequent (and drive stalling) throwaway downs.
I don't agree on footprint being an insurmountable problem in recruiting QBs. Even we have recently had them from FL, CO. TX. OH,CA,.... And the strong arm "niche"? There's a reason for that. Most coaches have figured out that statue QBs don't work. Since no one wants them, they may very well have become a "niche". And since the market, as you say, has become one largely of non-statues, that gives us much more selection. And it's straightforward to teach a new system, but impossible to teach a new skill set.
The RB/WR problem appears to be obvious. Our offense not only statistically under-performs (high levels of 3 and outs, truncated drives, lost yardage running plays, low 3rd and short conversion,....).
but looks bad doing it. When was the last time we had confidence that the offense had the consistency to mount a come-from-behind drive or a drive to "seal the deal" rather than turn the game over to the defense for salvation? RBs and WRs and even QBs don't get excited about becoming part of something that has no excitement. Bell and Duggan are a couple of high profile recruits who have spurned us recently because of our offensive ineptness, but there are several every year.
WE NEED TO FIND OUT IF WE HAVE A QB WITH A MORE COMPLETE SKILL SET AND JUST WASTED A YEAR BY NOT FINDING OUT.
What if you realized hey Spence is better than me. You still maybe depart then also. You may have to expect a lesser school to depart to as well. Kurt Warner road the bench for 3 years behind Johnson at UNI. He got 1 year to play and he stuck it out. There are all different kinds.
Just to make it burn a little more, I see Zach Wilson being projected as the #4 pick in the draft and the Hawks were that close to having landed him.
I felt in the last two games he made 3 TD passes that were exceptional to Beyers and ISM.
Sorry ... I had only glossed over this post before.
To frame things first ... I believe that Tate was a great Hawkeye. Furthermore, were it not for an unholy number of drops in '05 ... I believe that Tate's completion percentage should have been absurdly high (Solomon was talented ... but didn't always have the best hands). Had more of those drops resulted in completions ... we're looking at having something much more like a 2-loss season.
However, it's pretty well documented that there was an instance when Ken O'Keefe was trying to create a teaching moment for Tate ... an instance where Tate improvised and it resulted in a risky throw that resulted in a big play ... and Ken jumped on his case, trying to get him to realize that the better decision in that moment would have been the check-down play.
Tate essentially copped the attitude of an entitled prick ... and assumed that he "deserved" an attaboy for his play. He didn't respond well to Ken's critique. After that moment, Tate is on record essentially saying that he tuned out Ken.
In that instance, Tate actively chose to turn away from having a growth mindset ... instead, choosing to assume that he knew it all. Given the team nature of the game ... if you're no longer striving to improve ... then you're letting down your team. In my mind, that is a selfish move. Hence, that is my rationale for referring to Tate as a selfish player.
Last edited:
Saban has won the majority of his national championships with pro-style Os ... but even he's been changing his tune about the nature of offensive football in the college game. He's evolved because ... just as you indicated ... by featuring a sexier O, it allows you to recruit sexier players on O.
So yes, Id say that Saban has certainly become almost a pass first run 2nd offense. However, Jones isn’t exactly fleet of foot. It helps to have 2-3 receivers that are the best players on the field, plus 2 running backs every year that go to the pros. It’s a pretty standard pro style set. They just have way way better skill position players. This was supposedly the best set of receivers we’ve had since Banks was the QB, and it’s doubtful either one gets drafted. Tight ends yes. Linemen? Yes. Skill position? No.
I think that your reasoning concerning Iowa under-performing relative to our representation in the NFL sits on thin ice.
It's certainly true that Iowa's starters tend to perform at a very high level. However, compared to more elite programs ... the drop-off from 1st string to 2nd string can be pretty stark.
I think that this reality influences the choice of scheme that Iowa implements. I believe that Kirk chooses to implement "Ferentz-ball" ... because it is less sensitive to when we have personnel fluctuations on the roster. For instance, we mostly play zone because we aren't typically able to recruit fast, strong DBs that can hold up in man-coverage very long. Phil's coverage schemes are reliant more upon positioning and knowledge of the game ... rather than speed. In other words, our schemes are more reliant upon things you can coach (rather than things that you cannot coach).
Anyhow, although Iowa's starters are often NFL-caliber ... the depth isn't. Even with our schemes trying to mitigate the impact of this fact ... if a guy gets injured at a key spot ... that really can cost us games.
We even saw it this season ... Benson and Campbell were out early in the season ... and what games did we lose? And that's even with LB be reputed to be a team strength!
In 2005, Ed Hinkel's injury alone cost us against Northwestern and Michigan. One injury ... cost us 2 games! (I swear it to be true ... and I believe this with conviction) No offense to Brodell ... but he was still too green at that point ... and as we later learned ... Herb Grigsby was just too soft.
The list could go on concerning the thin margins that the Hawks often find themselves skirting.
How narrow have the margins been?
From 2008 to 2010, Iowa lost 11 games. They lost those games by a combined grand total of just 40 points!
More recently ....
From 2018 to 2020, Iowa lost 9 games. They lost those games by a combined grand total of just 42 points!
Narrow margins indeed!
I don't disagree whatsoever - however, I feel it important to be intellectually honest and concede to some of the valid points that RomanHawk has made. I feel no need to be dogmatic.
If your a good football player you will play, if your a good quarterback your playing will depend on the judgement of the coach, Joe Burrow would have never seen the field if he stayed at Ohio State. When the QB is off and almost all go into a bad stretch, put the 2nd string guy in.
I think your position on depth is overstated and to the extent it does exist, it is partially self-inflicted.
Most of our NFL players weren't instant stars at Iowa-they had to work their way up the depth chart which means there was talent (depth) around. I've actually been surprised with some of them how little playing time they got at Iowa. Granted , Nixon's situation is unusual, but Godfrey and several other had less than 2 years as starters.
I agree about the wisdom of our defensive scheme, but any lack of depth throughout the team has been accentuated by the reluctance to seek playing time for the reserves. I've often been amazed at how little previous playing time many new starters had received. Close games can be used as an excuse but they often result from poor schemes or bad decisions or missed opportunities. So it becomes a circular argument.
On the offensive side of the ball, the OL has had depth problems. Our scheme, rather than use misdirection to give linemen better angles and an off balance opposition, basically requires them to move walls cemented by signaling the point of attach. Yes, the number of guys capable of doing that is limited. But more misdirection allows a much larger group of linemen to do an adequate job. It seems to be a disaster for us if we have one or two linemen who haven't developed as planned over several years while ISU maintains an effective offense with a constantly changing group we've never even heard of. That's really what using scheme to mitigate depth problems is all about.
Yes it was frustrating riding the pine for 3 years behind Johnson but hey, it all panned out pretty well ☺
Maybe if you were a 4 star QB, you wouldn't be such a snowflake and quitter. Impossible to prove, though.
It's amazing that five years ago, the knock on Kirk was his average was 7-5. Now, according to Roman, it's improved to 8-4 and that's now unacceptable. 9-3 is porous in 2019 so I look forward to the continued trajectory, too.
I look forward to a day when Iowa can win a Big Ten West Division Title with all those shiny records and NFL players, maybe even more than once a decade.
We had all the pieces in place to do it this year, with one glaring weakness. Just one.
Ya, KF does a great job for the NFL, not so much for the Iowa fan base. Remind me again who pays his salary.
A few fumbles and a lot of uncharacteristic penalties are largely what cost us the Purdue game. It was hardly on Petras alone.
Petras only really cost us the Northwestern game.
Is that good enough for you? A QB that simply doesn't cost us the game?
I would like a playmaker at QB that, well, makes plays that can help us overcome a couple miscues.
Petras wasn't that guy in 2020 and I doubt he will be in the future.
Get someone else in there.
Don’t you think if we had someone like you described they would be playing?
Beatherd came in for Rudock in the 2nd half to rally the Hawks over Pitt in 2014.
It's Petras' job to lose at this point but l'm sure if he doesn't progress and one of the other qb's sets the house on fire in the spring/fall they'll get a shot.
Spence threw five TDs in the last two wins. Maybe I'm crazy but I think those 5 touchdowns probably had much to do with Iowa wining the last two games of the season. Defense does not win games. Defense puts the offense in a position to win games. You need points to win and those overwhelmingly come from the offense.
Petras had a qb rating of 119 from one report I read and even lower, 112 from a mid Dec. report. That leaves him at the bottom of the Big 10 and Big 12. I hope there is a qb competition.
Players sorted by Yds/Att (minimum 14 Att/G, 75% of school games played).
An asterisk (*) after a player's name indicates bowl stats are included.
Read more about our data coverage.
| Passing | Rushing | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rk | Player | School | G | Cmp | Att | Pct | Yds | Y/A | AY/A | TD | Int | Rate | Att | Yds | Avg | TD |
| 1 | Jalen Hurts* | Oklahoma | 14 | 237 | 340 | 69.7 | 3851 | 11.3 | 12.2 | 32 | 8 | 191.2 | 233 | 1298 | 5.6 | 20 |
| 2 | Brock Purdy* | Iowa State | 13 | 312 | 475 | 65.7 | 3982 | 8.4 | 8.7 | 27 | 9 | 151.1 | 93 | 249 | 2.7 | 8 |
| 3 | Spencer Sanders* | Oklahoma State | 11 | 155 | 247 | 62.8 | 2065 | 8.4 | 7.7 | 16 | 11 | 145.4 | 139 | 628 | 4.5 | 2 |
| 4 | Sam Ehlinger* | Texas | 13 | 296 | 454 | 65.2 | 3663 | 8.1 | 8.5 | 32 | 10 | 151.8 | 163 | 663 | 4.1 | 7 |
| 5 | Charlie Brewer* | Baylor | 14 | 251 | 389 | 64.5 | 3161 | 8.1 | 8.4 | 21 | 7 | 147.0 | 147 | 344 | 2.3 | 11 |
| 6 | Skylar Thompson* | Kansas State | 13 | 177 | 297 | 59.6 | 2315 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 12 | 5 | 135.0 | 114 | 405 | 3.6 | 11 |
| 7 | Jett Duffey | Texas Tech | 10 | 239 | 367 | 65.1 | 2840 | 7.7 | 8.1 | 18 | 5 | 143.6 | 72 | 212 | 2.9 | 1 |
| 8 | Carter Stanley | Kansas | 12 | 226 | 371 | 60.9 | 2664 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 24 | 11 | 136.7 | 67 | 68 | 1.0 | 1 |
| 9 | Austin Kendall | West Virginia | 9 | 187 | 304 | 61.5 | 1989 | 6.5 | 5.9 | 12 | 10 | 122.9 | 45 | 91 | 2.0 | 1 |
| 10 | Max Duggan | Texas Christian | 12 | 181 | 339 | 53.4 | 2077 | 6.1 | 5.7 | 15 | 10 | 113.6 | 130 | 555 | 4.3 | 6 |
An asterisk (*) after a player's name indicates bowl stats are included.
Read more about our data coverage.
Fumbles and penalties didn't cost us the Purdue game. All teams make mistakes: fumbles, INTs, penalties,
blown coverages,.... But when you look at the NC, or conference champs etc you generally won't find that they won because of the fewest mistakes, but because they had offenses that could score enough points to overcome their mistakes. Schemes that predictably result in close games provide no margin for error
and no margin for error will result in some unnecessary loses.
What!? The Iowa defense has been winning us games for YEARS.
Better QB play wins us both those games IMO. It was Purdue after all.
However, I have acknowledged the fumbles in the Purdue game were not good and not Petras fault and were a major factor. The fact he did nothing as the QB is his fault.
And guess what happens if we beat Northwestern? Once again, we had one glaring weakness. Just one.
