trj
Well-Known Member
No one will ever be able to explain the Deacon Hill experience to me. Not a single person, not a single soul.
Last edited:
Oh to have a QB who can run
- Thread starter Iceman
- Start date
No one will ever be able to explain the Deacon Hill experience to me. Not a single person, not a single soul.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Here are some stats. Starts with one cupcake then BT games. Not cherry picked, imho.
Gronk: 5 games
68.54% completion rate. 6.48 yards average completions. 136.8 average yards per game passing.
Career completion rate is 63.3%. Hmm.
Career yards per completion 13.4. Good.
Opinions: Current completion rate is competitive and better than his career stat.
Maybe accuracy was an issue historically?
Average yards per completion is 6.92 yards less than his career average. Why?
Longer throws have been overthrown. Why? Fear of INT’s? Receivers issue?
Consider number of drops. iNT early vs PSU was receiver, not delivery. Other examples?
Consider Gronk’s movement in the pocket. Consider his run threat capability.
My take: Big + compared to recent past.
Consider run game. Last season 1-2 in BT. 2025, 7 games, #3 BT, about 200.
Lester = Big Plus.
Less reliance on passing game? OK with me.
1 loss in BT. Whisker away from undefeated.
I am having a great time. 1 at a time.
Gronk: 5 games
68.54% completion rate. 6.48 yards average completions. 136.8 average yards per game passing.
Career completion rate is 63.3%. Hmm.
Career yards per completion 13.4. Good.
Opinions: Current completion rate is competitive and better than his career stat.
Maybe accuracy was an issue historically?
Average yards per completion is 6.92 yards less than his career average. Why?
Longer throws have been overthrown. Why? Fear of INT’s? Receivers issue?
Consider number of drops. iNT early vs PSU was receiver, not delivery. Other examples?
Consider Gronk’s movement in the pocket. Consider his run threat capability.
My take: Big + compared to recent past.
Consider run game. Last season 1-2 in BT. 2025, 7 games, #3 BT, about 200.
Lester = Big Plus.
Less reliance on passing game? OK with me.
1 loss in BT. Whisker away from undefeated.
I am having a great time. 1 at a time.
HawkPowerlifter
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Some of the O-lines were not good. Injuries and just poor play. An athletic quarterback can make an O-line even look better. He can buy time and move the pocket too. Guys like Deacon Hill and Spencer Petras were statues. That didn't help.
With a mobile quarterback, it forces the hand of defenses to add a spy or at minimum leaves a threat for a run. And in the case with Gronk, he can actually call his number to do some from the get go. This I hope allows for more RPO, play action and so forth.
I think there has been so much focus on passing and the lack of it, we forget that we are still moving the ball. What we see is KF's strategy as we have seen for decades. It just has a Tim Lester wrinkle to it. We are using what we have. I still do believe we will find the passing game eventually.
Fryowa
Administrator
It was because Iowa had never had a Pillsbury Throwboy before. We've had guys who can run like Banks, great ones who could throw like Chuck, and some who could do both like Drew/Ricky/CJ. Even had a guy who made the QB sneak Hall of Fame.
But we had never had the one-ton dually QB and now we have. That's the explanation.
LMAO
That's what I was too lazy too look at. The rushing yards when you remove sacks.
There's 3 games where he did not do quite so well rushing.
UMASS (12), Wisconsin (9), Indiana (7)
All three, the number of attempts were well below average attempts.
UMASS ? They scored 47 points. Obviously, other parts of the offense were working (including a decent-ish 170 passing yards).
Wisconsin? Again, the runningbacks could do whatever they wanted.
Again, the outlier here is Indiana.
Yes, so they were trailing at times. At times they were ahead. I don't know that trailing was the biggest reason for changing the way they play. Or if they did change the gameplan.
In the competitive games.....he's run. A lot.
Albany*: 11 attempts for 39 yards
ISU: 16 for 37
UMASS (moot)
Rutgers: 13 for 55
Wisconsin: (moot)
PSU: 9 for 130
* I assume that first game is scripted to incorporate a wide variety of what they intend to do on offense as it's the first game, so I'm counting it as a "competitive game".
Indiana: 8 for 7 (one of those was a sack, but I think it was for only 1 yard or less).
Maybe he would have had more if he played those last few minutes? I guess he wasn't far off from his average in terms of carries. He missed what, two possessions? Or 3? If it was three. I'm stupid and this is probably meaningless. And also more than possible they could/would have won.
It just feels like maybe they called that wrong. Or maybe, possibly, it was clear that Indiana had sussed it out? Obviously, it wasn't working with just one sack and less than a 1 yard average. I don't know enough about football to know if either is the case.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
I have to submit my annual defense of Nate Stanley. That dude made a lot of big plays, and he was good enough to hang around the edge of the NFL for a couple years. And, his entire career as a starter came with BF as the offensive coordinator. Check out Stanley's stats compared to all other BF QBs:
(I wasn't sure how to average QB rating across years for the non-Stanley QBs, so I used a weighted-average based upon attempts...I don't know the QB rating equation)
While Stanley had some notable no-shows in big games, I think we can pin much of that on BF. And, I think if we change a handful of plays throughout his career, people look at him much more positively.
This PSU play was an easy TD if Fant knew the ball was snapped and actually ran a route. That turns a close loss into a big road win. You could also put that on the coaches, they should have called a TO. Stanley was ugly that game (37%, 2 Int, though the 2nd wasn't on him), but he still made enough plays to throw for 205 yds and have them in position for the game-winning TD at the end (he was good in the 4th Q of that game). As a strike against, this happened in that game (yikes!).
In 2018, Iowa likely beats Wisconsin at home if not for 2 turnovers by the punt return team, and some absolutely atrocious play-calling in goal-to-go situations. Stanley went 61%, 256 yds, 2/1.
In 2018 Purdue loss, Iowa scores 36 (Stanley is 66%, 275 yds, 1/0), but their D gets torched and they lose by 2.
They win this 2019 game if Amani Hooker's arms are 1 inch longer. Stanley was 59%, 286 yds, 1/1 in that one.
They win 2019 Wisconsin if they don't give up 300 yds rushing at 6.9 yds/carry. Stanley 61%, 208 yds, 2/0.
I am not arguing that Stanley was the difference-maker we needed game after game, there were definitely some stinkers in there. But if he had a better OC and the ball bounces a little differently here and there, I think we consider him right up there with Stanzi/CJB.
(I wasn't sure how to average QB rating across years for the non-Stanley QBs, so I used a weighted-average based upon attempts...I don't know the QB rating equation)
While Stanley had some notable no-shows in big games, I think we can pin much of that on BF. And, I think if we change a handful of plays throughout his career, people look at him much more positively.
This PSU play was an easy TD if Fant knew the ball was snapped and actually ran a route. That turns a close loss into a big road win. You could also put that on the coaches, they should have called a TO. Stanley was ugly that game (37%, 2 Int, though the 2nd wasn't on him), but he still made enough plays to throw for 205 yds and have them in position for the game-winning TD at the end (he was good in the 4th Q of that game). As a strike against, this happened in that game (yikes!).
In 2018, Iowa likely beats Wisconsin at home if not for 2 turnovers by the punt return team, and some absolutely atrocious play-calling in goal-to-go situations. Stanley went 61%, 256 yds, 2/1.
In 2018 Purdue loss, Iowa scores 36 (Stanley is 66%, 275 yds, 1/0), but their D gets torched and they lose by 2.
They win this 2019 game if Amani Hooker's arms are 1 inch longer. Stanley was 59%, 286 yds, 1/1 in that one.
They win 2019 Wisconsin if they don't give up 300 yds rushing at 6.9 yds/carry. Stanley 61%, 208 yds, 2/0.
I am not arguing that Stanley was the difference-maker we needed game after game, there were definitely some stinkers in there. But if he had a better OC and the ball bounces a little differently here and there, I think we consider him right up there with Stanzi/CJB.
Won't get much argument from me. Maybe not "right up there", but surely gets invited to their parties as a welcomed guest.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Knowing the "Iowa way" was always about smashmouth football I spent years waiting for the QB that could deliver us a solid passing game. It never occurred to me before this year that I didn't need a QB that could hit the occasional 300 yard passing game, I simply wanted a QB that could move the chains to take the pressure off the running game.
I'm with Fryowa on this one...
I'm with Fryowa on this 100% passing stats are irrelevant at this point. We've got a QB that can move the chains now and I'd only hope opposing coaches think the same way as those dumbasses Fry mentioned up above. This is exactly the contribution we needed at the QB position.
I'm with Fryowa on this one...
Knowing the "Iowa way" was always about smashmouth football I spent years waiting for the QB that could deliver us a solid passing game. It never occurred to me before this year that I didn't need a QB that could hit the occasional 300 yard passing game, I simply wanted a QB that could move the chains to take the pressure off the running game.
I'm with Fryowa on this 100% passing stats are irrelevant at this point. We've got a QB that can move the chains now and I'd only hope opposing coaches think the same way as those dumbasses Fry mentioned up above. This is exactly the contribution we needed at the QB position.
HawkPowerlifter
Well-Known Member
100%. As long as we are moving the chains, I really don't care. My fear is teams stacking the box, but I will say I believe our O line is prob one of the best in the country. Especially for the fact teams have done exactly that (stacking the box) and daring us to pass.
I do think Lester has been more creative about runs and schemes. But it wouldn't hurt if we could have some semblance of a passing game to keep defenses off balance.
ICHawk24
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. Nate was a 3-year start who was an above average B1G QB. Aw shucks, no nonsense approach. He should be a fan favorite, but most fans would say "remember when he missed that pass against penn state?"
I will add, I am fully aware that cherry picking and changing a few plays from any QB's career could make a big difference. Ultimately, shit goes sideways at times, and you have to be a good enough QB to overcome. Last Saturday, Iowa did all of the things you need to do to lose a home game as a favorite, and Gronowski still made enough plays to overcome. That matters.
I agree that Lester has been creative in the run game. And I would add, he has had some good pass play calls that didn't work out. I go back to the last drive against Indiana, he had the perfect screen/halfback pass called to the left to Molton. Unfortunately the throw was off and it basically was the difference between winning and losing that game. There have been others and drops by the receivers. It is why I am not too worked up about the low passing game numbers so far. Lester knows how to get the most out of a game plan.
HawkPowerlifter
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Been a lot of drops on good passes by Gronk. The pick he threw against PSU looked like it was a good pass that was not hauled in as well. My hope is eventually those pass plays are made which only opens up the offense even more.
