I read but never post so please take me as a rube, if you will. while watching tonight's game, I was not upset by Nate Stanley's play at all. He played well enough for Iowa to win, yes he did. However, for the first time this year I was pissed at Iowa's defense. Why, because Iowa knew what was coming and still allowed Taylor to rush for 250 yards. Nate Stanley cannot stop that kind of b.s. from our defense. Yet, he did whatever he could to give us a chance and still you all will say he sucks and is a joke, etc. What's that you say, you will be glad to see him go. Sorry for you as he is the best we will have for some time. We just didn't appreciate what he is/was during his career here. Look at the throws he makes and not at the bad play calling and you will find some solace. Iowa lost today because the Hawks didn't take advantage of the errors Wisky made and it's not on Nate.
Iowa Football Tonight
- Thread starter jfwolfe
- Start date
No, he's not afraid. That's just not true or else when Iowa was down 21-6, he would have caved but instead went 6/7 on a big drive to get a TD. Sorry that's not the right narrative from tonight.
We agree here buddy. Nate wasn't afraid when he was dropping back and slinging it. In the first 3 quarters he was hesitant. The coaching staff was hesitant. Hell he had single digit passing attempts in the 3rd quarter. You're not going to beat Wisconsin running the ball at them.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
I agree with the premise on the defense. They were disappointing today and gave up way more yards to Taylor compared to last year in Iowa City. I agree the coaches don't put always put our players in the best positions to win offensively.
But Stanley showed us exactly what he is in this game. When the guy is not pressured and confident, he can do some damage. But, pressure the guy and he folds like a cheap tent. He can be way to indecisive at times.....2 point deer in the head lights freeze at the goal line at the end of the game for example.
But, yes, I agree, Stanley did not lose this game by himself. But, the guy will go down as not a championship quarterback, just a serviceable one with some good wins against Iowa St, Ohio St, and Nebraska (and some bowl opponents in exhibition games).
But Stanley showed us exactly what he is in this game. When the guy is not pressured and confident, he can do some damage. But, pressure the guy and he folds like a cheap tent. He can be way to indecisive at times.....2 point deer in the head lights freeze at the goal line at the end of the game for example.
But, yes, I agree, Stanley did not lose this game by himself. But, the guy will go down as not a championship quarterback, just a serviceable one with some good wins against Iowa St, Ohio St, and Nebraska (and some bowl opponents in exhibition games).
Stanley was terrible until there was zero pressure on him to do anything, then fantastic up to the second where he could have tied the game again. He's going to set a lot of records because Iowa schedules non-conference cupcakes and got to play Illinois and Nebraska every year. That's about it.
Marinehawk
Well-Known Member
Just seemed that when wisky went up 21-6, the iowa offense finally exhibited a sense of urgency and got out the 'we are Iowa and we are a run first offense', scheme. Just seems that the successful programs don't have an immobile qb back there if the pocket gets too congestive. WHERE IS BRAD BANKS MALE LEGACY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Banks offered an element that we have only seen once, since 2002 (Betheard/fragile) who knew when too slide and NOT take stupid punishment! The BIG programs can't possibly recruit ALL the dual threat QBs.
I
Ian Pike Hammer
Guest
There's no need to expect anything different or get excited or down, about another Iowa loss. This is Iowa football. This is who we are until the captain moves on.
Marinehawk
Well-Known Member
Oh I know...I don't expect anything other than mediocrity from this coaching staff and an eagerness to check the mail box for that BIG monthly check. Apathy is how I watch Iowa sports, anymore.
You must be a relative of Nate. Best we will have for some time? We are in deep shit then bud. Spencer Petras will be better, mark my words. He might be immobile as well, but he will be more accurate, and throw a better ball than Nate. 1-12 in conference games against teams that finish above .500. Yep, he is the best we will have for quite some time. Get a clue. He was awful yesterday except for 1 drive, and the long pass to Tracy. Otherwise it was the same Nate. Had a chance to get the ball in on the 2 point conversion and was stoned at the 1 yard line by a guy half his size. Who is the qb that leads the offense that didn't take advantage of the Wisconsin turnovers? Nate.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Mostly agree. But need clarity on a couple things... did you think CJ was fragile?
Marinehawk
Well-Known Member
Sorry I didn't get back to u sooner. No, I just thought he put his body in jeopardy too many times when scrambling. He would get past the chains and not get down soon enough trying to make the 'BIG PLAY' and opening himself up to the big hit. That comes down to coaching...You move the chains, keep the clock moving, and keep the opposition's O off the field.
That's my only knock(s) on CJ.
