A second look at Christensen vs. Stanzi 2008

T

thefizz

Well-Known Member
We have a tendency to look back at the beginning of the 2008 season and think "why did it take so long for Stanzi to become the full time starter?" And we tend to blame the coaching staff for sticking with Christensen way too long and that the coaching staff was resisting the notion of starting Ricky Stanzi. But after taking a deeper look, I feel there was a legit quarterback competition going into the year and it played out appropriately. I'm going to lay it out the way I think it actually played out on the field and in the minds of the coaching staff.

1) Christensen plays the entire 2007 season as the starter. His performance is less than inspiring, but neither Arvell Nelson or Ricky Stanzi are ready to replace him. However, this puts him on shaky ground for 2008 if one of his young back ups can make strides in the off-season. I think the coaches are open to competition going into the 2008 season.

2) Stanzi makes great stride in the 2008 off-season. This gives the coaching staff a legit alternative, but Christensen will be the starter, because it's almost unheard of anywhere when an incumbent starting QB loses his starting job over the off-season. However, Stanzi is going to be given an opportunity to win the starting job. It's a legit 50-50 competition.

3) Christensen starts the first game vs Maine and Stanzi starts the second game vs Florida International. Both play pretty in about an equal amount of attempts.

4) Week 3 vs. Iowa State, Stanzi gets the starting nod. This leads me to believe that the coaching staff wants to win the starting job, but he hasn't buried Christensen yet and Christensen has yet to bury himself. I think with a solid performance vs a rival, Stanzi can win the job outright here. Instead, Stanzi plays poorly going going 5-12 for 95 yards and throws a couple of interceptions. If there is one thing Christensen didn't do a ton in 2007, it's throw interceptions and Christensen has regained the upper hand or at least is given more time to win the job. After three weeks, here is the statistical breakdown between the 2 QB's.
Christensen 21-32-1-248 7.8 YPA 2 TD 145.1 rating
Stanzi 22-38-2-347 9.1 YPA 3 TD 150.13 rating

5) Week 4 at Pittsburgh, Christensen gets the starting nod. Christensen comes out and plays an ok (I might be being generous) 1st half. Stanzi also gets his opportunity and rebounds nicely off of his Week 3 performance. This is where I and most Hawkeyes fans feel the coaching staff should have rode the hot hand. However, they give Christensen one last chance to stay in this QB competition in the 2nd half of the game. Christensen plays poorly, the Hawks lose their last non-conference game. Christensen looked good against the two easiest teams on the schedule, but looked like 2007 Christensen when the competition got better. The result is Stanzi winning the job outright to begin the conference schedule. Stanzi is the full time starter the rest of the season.

In the end, what I see is a legit competition throughout the off-season and non-conference schedule. With the exception to the 2nd half of the Pitt game, I feel like the competition was handled appropriately. With that said, I do at least understand the thinking of giving Christensen the nod toward the end of the Pitt game even if I don't agree with it.
 
I thought I remember Stanzi GOING ROGUE and trying out a no-huddle hurry-up offense just before half time of the Pitt game, I am surprised that he ever saw the light of day again, thats the kind of thing that can get you kicked off the team.
 
Choosing the "hot hand" in game has been a glaring weakness during the Ferentz era at Iowa. It has been most noticeable with the running backs but it has been there at all positions. The fizzy post here is accurate in my recollection of those events. The lack of experience in Stanzi's case worked against him as far as the coaching staff was concerned IMO. In game substitutions are rarely made with QBs so this was an interesting case study.

There are many who post here who believe that to much emphasis is placed on performance in practice during the week. Consistency (or lack thereof) is an up and down thing for the players until they have played enough downs to get a feel for the game. Consistency comes as the reps increase and their responses become "hard-wired". As individuals vary in response the task of determining who this week's hot hand can be daunting.

Because it all starts w/ the lines I believe that less than optimal line play tends to blind the coaches to the possibility that another player may be a better fit in less than optimal circumstances. A more mobile quarterback may buy himself time for the receivers to get open or a shiftier running back may be able to slip through a small hole. I do not think we, and hope that we don't, see QBs rotated in game this year. It will be a disaster if we do. As a team player I don't care which QB earns the starting spot. I just hope that one pulls so far ahead of the other(s) that the issue is moot.
 
Stanzi dominated the eyeball test. JC was the most inaccurate D1 qb I have ever seen. I don't think the decisions they made were bad until the second half of the Pitt game, they just weren't good either. Good coaches need to make good decisions, yet Kirk needed to wait until the decision was obvious beyond doubt. Actually he waited one half longer than that point.
 
PCHawk said:
Stanzi dominated the eyeball test. JC was the most inaccurate D1 qb I have ever seen. I don't think the decisions they made were bad until the second half of the Pitt game, they just weren't good either. Good coaches need to make good decisions, yet Kirk needed to wait until the decision was obvious beyond doubt. Actually he waited one half longer than that point.
Click to expand...

PCHawk remembers it best. Stanzi just looked way better, he threw the ball better at Pitt and if DJK high points a pass the hawks get needed TD in first half instead of a FG or missed FG I think. Anyway, yes Stanzi didnt sit on the ball at the end of the first half and if you remember after Jake's terrible 2nd half when KF was asked he said he had a 'gut feeling' Jake was better for the team. Yikes. The mutiny was starting at that point. Good thing the defense was great and Stanzi was above avg the rest of the year and they had a great 2008 finish.
 
Any analysis about Stanzi not being ready goes right out the door with a Heisman runner up in Banks his senior year who engineered 2/3 of the scoring his jr year while getting 1/3 of the snaps and didn't start. One of the best hits ever against an Iowa player happened when Iowa State blind sided the starter McCann. Knowing the play book or not that junior opened up the offense. The start was a target for D's to line up and race to him.

About JC, I do remember Podalak and Dolph consistently saying about JC that he didn't have the strength to complete the down and out sideline pass which didn't make sense as the guy was a pitching prospect if I remember right. JC transferred to FCS and beat out a 2 year starter than had been a starter at Wyoming before transferring. The race wasn't even close. People I know who know that program quite well said JC had a cannon. Starting for EIU can't be a bad gig given they have more NFL qb impact than does Iowa.

Then we have CJ and the other Jake. Who knows what the truth is.
 
Last edited:
Honest question here. How did Iowa so badly miss (mess up) with the JC recruiting? Did JC peak in high school (inferior competition)? Lack of QB development doom JC? There's hundreds of QB yearly with gawdy HS stats who aren't D-I talent....thoughts?
 
Seth53 said:
Honest question here. How did Iowa so badly miss (mess up) with the JC recruiting? Did JC peak in high school (inferior competition)? Lack of QB development doom JC? There's hundreds of QB yearly with gawdy HS stats who aren't D-I talent....thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think he got into his own head early and couldn't shake the yips. I don't see how it's possible he was just that bad.
 
PCHawk said:
I think he got into his own head early and couldn't shake the yips. I don't see how it's possible he was just that bad.
Click to expand...
I think you nailed it. We will never know what really went on inside his head but we can speculate. Could be that he feared loosing the starting job so much it affected his play. The combo of the total no risk offensive philosophy plus the fear of loosing the starting position probably made him second guess his gut instincts. Maybe he lost sight of the fact that when you throw the ball one of three things can happen and that two of them are bad. In his mind throwing incomplete became the "safe" thing to do. Only JC knows and it's possible that even he doesn't really know. Put pressure on people and they can react in unexpected ways.
 
I think I remember JM on the radio going on and on about how great JC was going to be because he squat like 1,200 pounds in the Doyleization chamber. Then he got so Doyleized that the muscles in his shoulders and neck and lower body changed his trowing motion and it went from Colt Brennan/Dan Marino style super smooth quick release to the Tim Tebow wild duck overhand passes when he finally got playing time.
 
Stanzi just had the 'IT' factor from day 1 of 2008 and it was obvious to most sitting in the stands. The team body language changed when he was under center and in the huddle. It was less about JC and more about KF not wanting to go to Ricky out of loyalty to JC. That's what it felt like.
 
Today's history lesson - this happens even in the NFL.

Legendary coach Tom Landry struggled with the decision in 1971 with Craig Morton and Roger Staubach. In hindsight, it looks like a no brainer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_V

Most significantly, the Cowboys had a quarterback controversy between Craig Morton and Roger Staubach. Morton and Staubach alternated as the starting quarterback during the regular season. Landry eventually settled on Morton for most of the second half of the season, because he felt less confident that Staubach would follow his game plan (Landry called all of Morton's plays).Also, Morton had done extremely well in the regular season, throwing for 1,819 yards and 15 touchdowns, with only 7 interceptions, earning him a passer rating of 89.8. In contrast, Staubach, although a noted scrambler and able to salvage broken plays effectively, threw for 542 yards, and only 2 touchdowns compared to 8 interceptions, giving him a 42.9 rating.

Morton started and Dallas lost Super Bowl V on a last second FG to the Colts. Then, in 1972, Landry tried alternating the QBs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_VI

The Cowboys entered the season still having the reputation of "not being able to win the big games" and "next year's champion". The Super Bowl V loss added more fuel to that widely held view. As in the previous season, Dallas had a quarterback controversy as Staubach and Craig Morton alternated as starting quarterback (in a loss to the Bears in game 7, Morton and Staubach alternated plays).[9] The Cowboys were 4–3 at the season midpoint, including a 24–14 loss to the New Orleans Saints at Tulane Stadium. But after head coach Tom Landry settled on Staubach, the Cowboys won their last seven regular season games to finish with an 11–3 record.

Dallas wins Super Bowl VI over the Dolphins with Staubach starting.
 
JC got pretty screwed in 2007 when Douglas didn't return, and Brodell and Moeaki got hurt early in the year. He was stuck with Cleveland and DJK as first year starters also, and Brandon Myers (who obviously ended up being really good but wasn't supposed to play all that much himself). Even if he was a great QB, no way he was going to be on the same page with three receivers that were just finding themselves also. Add in the young line that had to take their lumps before becoming the line that won the Orange Bowl. It wasn't much different than the same 1999 guys that looked awful growing into 2002 and being awesome. And 2007 we still ended the Big Ten on a three game winning streak, and if the defense wouldn't have gotten the team in a hole against Western Michigan so quickly, probably make and maybe even win a bowl (since it'd have been a lower team we played instead of the usual play up a tier against the SEC in all the Outback bowls).
 
Hawkalum2002 said:
JC got pretty screwed in 2007 when Douglas didn't return, and Brodell and Moeaki got hurt early in the year. He was stuck with Cleveland and DJK as first year starters also, and Brandon Myers (who obviously ended up being really good but wasn't supposed to play all that much himself). Even if he was a great QB, no way he was going to be on the same page with three receivers that were just finding themselves also. Add in the young line that had to take their lumps before becoming the line that won the Orange Bowl. It wasn't much different than the same 1999 guys that looked awful growing into 2002 and being awesome. And 2007 we still ended the Big Ten on a three game winning streak, and if the defense wouldn't have gotten the team in a hole against Western Michigan so quickly, probably make and maybe even win a bowl (since it'd have been a lower team we played instead of the usual play up a tier against the SEC in all the Outback bowls).
Click to expand...

In addition, Arvell Nelson was given the reigns to "make his case" before one game. He promptly messed it up (I think he missed a bus ride?). Nelson and Stanzi saw action against Syracuse, and neither one looked very good.

Stanzi coming on was a surprise. A very pleasant surprise, because he wasn't on the radar in Spring 2008.

He made a LOT of stupid throws against both FIU and ISU, but got lucky and his first couple starts after becoming the starter were no big bargain. But the raw tools were there. The one thing he did SO much better than JC was spread the field vertically. And Good God, he had the best pump fake of any Hawkeye QB post-Vlasic.

I felt bad for Christensen, but in all honesty, he just didn't live up to expectations. It would have been nice, though, to have him in 2009 after Stanzi went down against NW (even though O$U would have destroyed him the next week!).
 
We fans evaluate a QB based on throwing. However at Iowa a big component of the QB position is how well you size up the D and adjust BEFORE the ball is snapped. In a nutshell they have to learn the game. Most fans can't evaluate that, most fans can't look at the D, and know what to call other than maybe run or pass. most fans are preoccupied with passing stats and the godam water tower, they need to learn the game.
 
Robowe said:
Today's history lesson - this happens even in the NFL.

Legendary coach Tom Landry struggled with the decision in 1971 with Craig Morton and Roger Staubach. In hindsight, it looks like a no brainer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_V

Most significantly, the Cowboys had a quarterback controversy between Craig Morton and Roger Staubach. Morton and Staubach alternated as the starting quarterback during the regular season. Landry eventually settled on Morton for most of the second half of the season, because he felt less confident that Staubach would follow his game plan (Landry called all of Morton's plays).Also, Morton had done extremely well in the regular season, throwing for 1,819 yards and 15 touchdowns, with only 7 interceptions, earning him a passer rating of 89.8. In contrast, Staubach, although a noted scrambler and able to salvage broken plays effectively, threw for 542 yards, and only 2 touchdowns compared to 8 interceptions, giving him a 42.9 rating.

Morton started and Dallas lost Super Bowl V on a last second FG to the Colts. Then, in 1972, Landry tried alternating the QBs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_VI

The Cowboys entered the season still having the reputation of "not being able to win the big games" and "next year's champion". The Super Bowl V loss added more fuel to that widely held view. As in the previous season, Dallas had a quarterback controversy as Staubach and Craig Morton alternated as starting quarterback (in a loss to the Bears in game 7, Morton and Staubach alternated plays).[9] The Cowboys were 4–3 at the season midpoint, including a 24–14 loss to the New Orleans Saints at Tulane Stadium. But after head coach Tom Landry settled on Staubach, the Cowboys won their last seven regular season games to finish with an 11–3 record.

Dallas wins Super Bowl VI over the Dolphins with Staubach starting.
Click to expand...

I need to save this post and use it every time someone says "you think Kirk wants to lose? He's obviously going to play the best players!" Choosing the best players isn't black and white. No coach is right every time. Once people understand that, it only makes sense that some coaches are better at it than others.
 
Jake was a fine QB, but Stanzi was better. Jake just didn't have a Big-Ten body...not tall enough or athletic enough.

I'll never forgive Kirk for not playing Brad Banks more as a junior. That team in 2001, with Banks starting the entire season, could have won another Big Ten title. The B.S. about Banks not knowing the playbook just doesn't hold up for me; you build your playbook around his awesome talent, not the other way around.

We found out how truly great he was as a senior as he led Iowa to a perfect Big Ten season at 8-0
 
Christensen should've never seen the field again after Stanzi's performance against FIU. It was blatantly obvious who the better player was. Sure Stanzi had some struggles after that, but he should've been named the starter point blank and we're living/dying with Stanzi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top