A quick realization RE: Stanzi

[MisterLucky]

I don't think there is any doubt that Stanzi is in the to 3 or 4 QB's of the last 50 years in Iowa history. And if the coaching staff wouldn't have been so stubborn in regard to giving him the starting job over an obviously inferior Christiansen, he would have won even more games in his tenure here. The games we lost while he was a starter were rarely his fault and many of the victories were due to his excellent QBing. Plus he was a first rate role model, a definite team leader and a charitable individual who touched a lot of kids lives. He will definitely be missed.

 

[MisterWinky]

Stanzi was a great leader, and has the potential to develop into the best pro QB Iowa has ever had. He was not Tate's equal, however, as a college QB. Tate was so impressive as a Frosh he was hard to keep off the field, and he did not have the tools available that Stanzi did.

Quick test: think of Iowa QB's who were able to dominate games as a passing QB. You think of the Chucks, then Tate, maybe even Banks (with rollouts). With Stanzi you think of some great late drives as a Jr.

 

[Ronco]

Homer, you made a convincing argument and converted me to your side. Every time I thought I had ya with reason and logic you countered with even more reason and better logic. You are a natural when is comes to debate. Would i be out of line if i said genius? If your flair for closing an argument wasn't enough Jon's graphs and pie charts with eye popping Excel spreadsheets pushed it over the edge. I mean stats are the true measure of a player. I just have to reconcile with myself how an all time great QB couldn't beat NW even once in his career and in his last game lost to arguably the worst team in the conference.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Just for giggles...

2004 Final Statistics
Rushes: 428
Passes: 385

However, when you consider that Iowa was sacked 40 times...
Rushes: 388
Passes: 425

Then you consider Drew Tate had 89 total rushes, of which 40 were sacks, meaning approximately 40 were scrambles on pass plays (leaving 9 rushes for QB sneaks, designed runs, etc)...
Rushes: 348 (42.8%)
Passes: 465 (57.2%)

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Homer, you made a convincing argument and converted me to your side. Every time I thought I had ya with reason and logic you countered with even more reason and better logic. You are a natural when is comes to debate. Would i be out of line if i said genius? If your flair for closing an argument wasn't enough Jon's graphs and pie charts with eye popping Excel spreadsheets pushed it over the edge. I mean stats are the true measure of a player. I just have to reconcile with myself how an all time great QB couldn't beat NW even once in his career and in his last game lost to arguably the worst team in the conference.

Quite apart from your sarcasm, I can definitely see your point.

I frankly believe that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" on this one. Thus, I wasn't really trying to engage that much in an argument ... much less care about "winning" one.

It seems to me that you and a few others believe that winning a Big 10 championship is a better litmus test for "greatness." From my perspective, football is a team game. Banks wouldn't have been as remarkable without having a great OL and a tremendous run-D backing him up. Similarly, Tate had an impressive D backing him up in '04. Similarly, Stanzi had the benefit of being surrounded by some truly exceptional talent too.

Thus, I simply note the continued improvement that Stanzi made through each and every season. Furthermore, I note that he still helped to lead the O to score points .... which is another reason why Iowa was competitive in EVERY game they played. Even with that impressive D ... Stanzi helped the team be better too. There are also so many games where Stanzi came up big ... moments where he truly proved himself capable of winning games, or, at the very least, making plays to put us in a position to win. There are some college QBs polaying for major programs who have very few games where they play such a significant role in keeping the team in games. Stanzi had many of those in EACH season he started. Lastly, the QB is still THE leader of the team ... it's HIS team. Thus, the very fact that Iowa WON 3 bowl games against high-quality competition is still a great legacy for him to have left us with.

 

[MisterLucky]

The major difference between Tate and Stanzi is that Stanzi got better the longer he was here.

 

[Ronco]

Homer, I think we're on the same side of this discussion. I think my only contention is for those that put Stamzi in the discussion of top 3 QB in the last 30 - 40 years of Iowa Football. Going into his SR year I thought if Rick had a season like what he had AND Iowa again won 10 or 11 games he put himself in the discussion of that debate. Sure, I know there's reasons beyond Ricky that people can point to for this not happening, and those reasons all have some merit. However, at the end of the day QB's are judged by the games and championships won. If QB were judged strictly on all the pretty stats then Dan Marino would be considered one of the top 2 or 3 QB of all time.

At an ISU had Stanzi put up those numbers and won 8 games he would be a top 3 QB of the last 30+ years. However we're not ISU and expect better than 8-5 as a SR.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

I'm just not sure I would put Stanzi in the top 3, top 5 probably. I'm sorry, but I just can't get the images of Indiana, NW, OSU, and especially Minnesota to end his senior season. From my perspective that wasn't a top 3 run. I know, we were down a guard or two, and we didn't have running back depth, etc. Well, he had enough time to make plays and unfortunately it didn't happen for him. He just didn't play well down the stretch in his senior year.

He was, however, a QB that left you with a ton of great memories...2008 Penn State, 2009 MSU, etc. He just made more clutch plays as a junior when his team absolutely needed it to win games...even more impressive when you consider he was the major reason his heroics were needed. His senior year he just couldn't get the big play to materialize at those critical moments...and honestly I think he had the opportunities.

 

[okeefe4prez]

The major difference between Tate and Stanzi is that Stanzi got better the longer he was here.

Tate was playing through an injury his senior season and if the entire d-line hadn't turned over his junior season, I think we would have been in contention for the Big Ten title that year, but we had 4 undersized underclassmen starting in 2005 and they got mauled in the trenches, which made our defense worse, which made our record worse. Tate was fine his junior season, but the defense got destroyed that year. We easily could have been 7-1 in the B10 that year if the D would have made a few key plays against Michigan and Northwestern. Much like we could have been 8-0 this year if the defense and special teams would have shown up for just a few plays in a handful of games. Pretty hard to blame Stanzi when he had us in every game until the defense or ST folded at critical moments.

 

[Ronco]

Anybody that believes Tate didn't improve each and every year is ignorant. He can't help the team he had around him and being hurt from the get go as a SR.