2010 (Stanzi) vs. 2004 (Tate)

H

Hawk4Life25

Well-Known Member
I know we aren't at the 2004 level of RB depth yet but there certiantly are some similarities between the two teams.

2004 team was without Norm for the trip to Arizona and didn't return for a few weeks.
2010 team was without Norm for the trip to Arizona and it sounds like he won't be back until Michigan.

The real similarities lie in the RB situation, however the 2010 squad is currently sitting better at RB. In 2004 Iowa lost Marcus Schnoor, Albert Young, Jermelle Lewis in the first 5 games of '04 season. In 2010 Iowa lost Brandon Wegher in camp and Jewel Hampton in the third game of the season. Paki has been a name appearing in the 2 depths so you could consider him a loss but hopefully he can return from his nasty concussion.

Given the fact that the offense may have to shft to a pass-first or pass heavy balance I imagine the Iowa coaching staff will be looking at some of the formations and concepts used to get through the 2004 season.

My question is can Stanzi duplicate the success that Iowa had in 2004 by going to a prodominately pass offense?

Comparing to Stanzi to Tate, I would say Stanzi throws a better deep ball but struggles with some of the shorter to intermediate throws. Tate is the opposite of Stanzi where he was good at the short to intermediate throws and struggles with the deep ball.
 
Last edited:
HawkeyeRyno said:
I'd say Tate was more mobile than Stanzi is. It's hard to judge him because Tate regressed throughout his career.
Click to expand...

Except that Tate had better stats in 2005 than he did in 2004, except in 2004 he had a great defense backing him up, so the W/L record wasn't as good. Everyone likes to keep bringing up Stanzi's W/L record as a starter...given that we've been outstanding on defense during his time here and he even got the luxury of sharing the backfield with a Doak Walker award winner, his W/L record is probably the most overblown stat he has.

In an offense where we forced to throw the ball more often because of a depleted running back core, I'd take Tate 9 times out of 10. Stanzi does have the better deep ball, but Tate threw it better everywhere else, IMO.
 
I think that Stanzi is truly a student of the game. If we were forced to go that route I would trust him to run that style of offense. We basically did Saturday night and he produced 1 turnover that really wasn't even his fault. I thought he made three questionable throws on 33 attempts. I do think he is consciously trying to avoid forcing the ball and he has a high football IQ. Lets just hope that Robinson stays healthy and that either Coker or Johnson emerges as a legitimate number two and we can maintain a balanced attack and let Stanzi do what he does best- attack downfield off of play-action.
 
His record as a starter is overblown? How many games do you think we lose last year if Stanzi wasn't behind center. He was brilliant in leading comebacks and without him I feel we would have lost 2 or 3 more games last year. Yes he has a dominant defense that has backed him up for years but you cannot say that his record as a starter is overblown. Without his poise and decision making when it counts (exclude the sacks at Arizona) we lose more games. Is he better than Drew Tate was? I would say he is a better passer while tate was the better athlete and both had resilient nature about their play but I would say Stanzi has better poise and composure as well which makes him more handy late in games.
 
HawkeyeRyno said:
I'd say Tate was more mobile than Stanzi is. It's hard to judge him because Tate regressed throughout his career.
Click to expand...


Dude don't go there. Tate had better stats in his junior year, after a tremendous sophmore season. And he was hurt his entire senior season...

This isn't a good thread, not now... Maybe in February.
 
I would take Stanzi over Tate. As for his win/loss being overblown... I'm not sure I would agree with that, in fact, I am think Stanzi's ability to lead the team to victory on a few comebacks last year would go against that statement. He didn't always have the prettiest of stats, but Iowa isn't always the prettiest of teams, we just try to get the job done.. It is the win/loss column that we care most about.
Just my opinion though.
 
stormhawk10 said:
His record as a starter is overblown? How many games do you think we lose last year if Stanzi wasn't behind center. He was brilliant in leading comebacks and without him I feel we would have lost 2 or 3 more games last year. Yes he has a dominant defense that has backed him up for years but you cannot say that his record as a starter is overblown. Without his poise and decision making when it counts (exclude the sacks at Arizona) we lose more games. Is he better than Drew Tate was? I would say he is a better passer while tate was the better athlete and both had resilient nature about their play but I would say Stanzi has better poise and composure as well which makes him more handy late in games.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on the better passer argument. Both guys were pretty good throwing on the run...Tate had more of that scramble to run ability, whereas Rick has more of the scramble to avoid pressure and only run if necessary. Tate was probably a little better athletically.

The fact that you think we'd only lose a couple more games without him behind center supports my theory that he's just a much a by-product of the Iowa defensive dominance than he is the reason for all his wins. I took 2009 into consideration...our defense gave up an average of approximately 12.7 points per game (taking out the Stanzi balls). With the defense playing that well, did Stanzi really ever have to be that great to win a game? Defense, Shonn Greene, and quite a few good deep balls by Stanzi, in that order...I don't dispute that he's got the poise and composure. He most certainly does, and probably surpasses Tate in that regard.

CGHawk said:
I would take Stanzi over Tate. As for his win/loss being overblown... I'm not sure I would agree with that, in fact, I am think Stanzi's ability to lead the team to victory on a few comebacks last year would go against that statement. He didn't always have the prettiest of stats, but Iowa isn't always the prettiest of teams, we just try to get the job done.. It is the win/loss column that we care most about.
Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

But my point is that Rick can get away with ugly stat lines because the defense is so good. Even when he had one of the highest interception ratios of any D-1A QB last year, the defense still only gave up 12.7 points per game. By himself, he cost Iowa 35 points last year (4 pick 6's and a fumble in the end zone, although I'm willing to give him a pass on the fumble as he got injured on the play). IMO, what is getting the job done is the defense. We just need a QB to put up enough points to let the defense win the game...


I know I'm coming off as a Stanzi hater, but I'm most certainly not. His touch on deep throws is as good as Iowa has seen in a while, and his accuracy on the run is excellent. However, between he and Tate, I don't think he is quite on Tate's level. JMHO
 
Tate #2 passer in Iowa history. gets hated on for some reason by a lot of people...
Give me Tate...

that being said... i love stanzi and will never say anything bad about him.
but Tate was damn good
 
Honestly, if we have to go it with just Arob and they don't pull a redshirt...I would much rather have Drew Tate back there hypothetically...Ricky is not a gun slinger...and even looked hesitant the other night to just wing it...when you don't have a running game...you need to be a little wreckless through the air...you can't afford to be hesitant...and ricky is not nearly as mobile as Drew...Tate had that sixth sense...and if you don't believe me go back and watch the OSU highlights when drew spun right before a guy blindsided him then threw a TD to Solomon that was a fun year
 
I love them both! It has always been funny to me how many guys hate on Tate. Anyhow...

There are some parallels with the AZ trip and depleted backfields. I do think Stanzi has many more weapons to spread out defenses and sling it around the field. Off the top of my head, weren't our top WRs in 2004- Soloman, Hinkel and Davis/Melloy/Brodell with Chandler, Majerus, Jackson at TE?

I think I'd take the group of DJK-McNutt-Davis-Sandeman-Chaney at WR with Reisner-Herman-CJ at TE over the '04 group. Many have mentioned it before, and I share the opinion that this is the best group of WR, especially from a 1-2 punch, that a KF team has ever had. Let's use them! GO HAWKS!
 
Stanzi has much better tools to work with. I'm sorry, but McNutt, DJK, Reisner our much better than the 04' and '05 WR corps. Hinkel/Solomon were good, but not DJK Mcnutt.

Tate really didn't have a deep threat to work with. The cupboard at WR was pretty bare in '05 for Tate. That was the Alamo Bowl year right?

I'd probably rather have Tate than Stanzi with this crop of WR's. Tate was a playmaker, just lacked the playmakers to help him out.
 
First Stanzi vs Tate. Tate gets hate because of the way he would blow up if things weren't perfect. How many times did he show his frustration on slow play calls and recievers not catching close passes.
I'll take Stanzi's demenor over Tate.

both gunslingers, but I saw a QB Sat pm who seemed to not quite trust recievers in last drive. first 2 games, eventhough against lesser opponents, Stanzi was getting rid of the ball fast. Not happening on last drive.

Back field- much better shape this year, all depends on coaches wanting to burn redshirt. Still bodies to put in there unlike 04 when there was nothing.

O-line 04 had more experience, but his years probably has more talent just need the experience!
 
The OL is key here. If we have a strong OL, I think we beat Arizona easily. If Stanzi can remain upright, and can stay calm, then the pass attack can be devastating.
 
Hawk4Life25 said:
I know we aren't at the 2004 level of RB depth yet but there certiantly are some similarities between the two teams.

2004 team was without Norm for the trip to Arizona and didn't return for a few weeks.
2010 team was without Norm for the trip to Arizona and it sounds like he won't be back until Michigan.

The real similarities lie in the RB situation, however the 2010 squad is currently sitting better at RB. In 2004 Iowa lost Marcus Schnoor, Albert Young, Jermelle Lewis in the first 5 games of '04 season. In 2010 Iowa lost Brandon Wegher in camp and Jewel Hampton in the third game of the season. Paki has been a name appearing in the 2 depths so you could consider him a loss but hopefully he can return from his nasty concussion.

Given the fact that the offense may have to shft to a pass-first or pass heavy balance I imagine the Iowa coaching staff will be looking at some of the formations and concepts used to get through the 2004 season.

My question is can Stanzi duplicate the success that Iowa had in 2004 by going to a prodominately pass offense?

Comparing to Stanzi to Tate, I would say Stanzi throws a better deep ball but struggles with some of the shorter to intermediate throws. Tate is the opposite of Stanzi where he was good at the short to intermediate throws and struggles with the deep ball.
Click to expand...



A lot of Tate's '04 passes were slip screens(jailhouse breaks) and slants which Stanzi can throw just as well as Tate could. The problem Stanzi has-is the out pattern to the sidelines or flat when the ball is thrown from the opposite hash. This type of offense also eliminates the waggle stuff and play action that Stanzi excels in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top