A second look at Christensen vs. Stanzi 2008

[eveningnewsteam]

Learn The Game.

Stanzi threw balls that would have been INTs against a defense with even mediocre talent. His performance against ISU was almost as mediocre. Jake actually saved that game by NOT trying to turn it into a throw-fest in a sloppy game on a rain-soaked field.

Learn the game? Stanzi made more accurate throws in 3 series against FIU than JC threw in 2007

 

[Ree4]

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.

It was nice to see them actually ride the hot hand against Michigan last year with Wadley though, good to see them change

 

[thetrza]

Do you guys remember that phase in 2007 where everyone on the boards was making excuses for JC? Like "oh noes he throws left handed and the ball spins differently and the receivers can't catch it!", or the usual blaming of the offensive coordinator/playcalling/line play/tight ends and wide receivers?

Then there was the weird psychological thing where fans want the higher level recruit to succeed, quickly repeated with A-Rob earning the Running Back job in 2009 over several other guys.

That was a crazy year and a half.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

If Jake would have been a little more accurate, he would have had a lot more interceptions. When you skip the ball to the receiver's feet half of the time, it's a pretty safe bet that no one will intercept it.

OMG, I laugh that I may not cry!

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I would softly disagree. I believe you're right about qb's at Iowa need to "learn" defenses and to get the audible right. But, we're talking about changing the play from run left to run right (or vice versa) or from pass to run. I don't know how difficult that should be. Regarding the evaluation of a qb (based on the qb knowing how to read defenses), I think fans can see when a qb moves the offense down the field. We don't necessarily need to know if the qb audibles or not, we just need to see first downs and touchdowns. As I recall, JC wasn't very good at it and RS was. I would also add that I don't think a qb who didn't play well the previous season is entitled to being the incumbent the following season. JC is an example of ferentz' line of succession theory that, at times, keeps the better player off the field due to seniority.

Lastly, I think it was KOK who essentially forced ferentz' hand in allowing RS to become the starter. And think about that...a HC that doesn't allow his OC to pick the starting qb?

Too much of that is speculation. And frankly, the first half of 2008, I din't think Stanzi had "won" the job as much as Jake had "lost" it. The issue probably wasn't as much "We have to go with Stanzi, it's perfectly clear!", as, "Boy, when Rick is cruising, we look great, but when he's no..." and "It sure would suck if he threw a drive-killer INT..." They knw what they had with Jake. The "unknown" portion of Stanzi may very well have been the thing that held back the change.

By the second half of the season, though, it was pretty obvious Stanzi was going to get it done.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Learn the game? Stanzi made more accurate throws in 3 series against FIU than JC threw in 2007

He threw several into traffic against FIU. They SHOULD have been picks.

Again, I don't think it was the "known" portion of Stanzi that held back the change, I think it was the "unknown", i.e., when/if would he throw a drive-killer INT, would he try to "force" too much, etc. JC was a known quantity, at least.

 

[bitmap]

...That was a crazy year and a half.

That was a year and a half I would love to experience again. I had my suspicions the way 2008 ended and they were confirmed when the Hawks took the lead against PSU @ Happy Valley in 2009. It was a great ride!

 

[bitmap]

...Again, I don't think it was the "known" portion of Stanzi that held back the change, I think it was the "unknown", i.e., when/if would he throw a drive-killer INT, would he try to "force" too much, etc. JC was a known quantity, at least"

"Better the devil you know then the one you don't" comes to mind.

 

[thetrza]

What happened to A-Rob after he left the team following multiple concussions and the weed bust? Where is he now?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Too much of that is speculation. And frankly, the first half of 2008, I din't think Stanzi had "won" the job as much as Jake had "lost" it. The issue probably wasn't as much "We have to go with Stanzi, it's perfectly clear!", as, "Boy, when Rick is cruising, we look great, but when he's no..." and "It sure would suck if he threw a drive-killer INT..." They knw what they had with Jake. The "unknown" portion of Stanzi may very well have been the thing that held back the change.

By the second half of the season, though, it was pretty obvious Stanzi was going to get it done.

Fair, bob. But, to me, the previous season showed JC at his ceiling. RS had the potential. If your mindset is to develop qb's to their full athletic potential and not just find one that manages the game better, then RS was clear. Bigger arm, more accurate thrower, betting in the huddle. Yes, I know RS threw picks, but at least his passes were in the air and didn't look like a roll of the dice.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Fair, bob. But, to me, the previous season showed JC at his ceiling. RS had the potential. If your mindset is to develop qb's to their full athletic potential and not just find one that manages the game better, then RS was clear. Bigger arm, more accurate thrower, betting in the huddle. Yes, I know RS threw picks, but at least his passes were in the air and didn't look like a roll of the dice.

What WE saw of Stanzi was zilch UNTIL 2008. JC was actually improving in 2008, but bottom line, he could not open the field vertically. He actually had some decent deep throws early that WRs quit on, but he also was just not accurate enough, so those "quit-on" throws were probably a shock to the receivers. The fact Stanzi was given the chance so early in the season probably messed with his psyche. While I sympathized with him, it also was a case of, "That's the break, Jake!"

 

[DuluthHawk]

What happened to A-Rob after he left the team following multiple concussions and the weed bust? Where is he now?

After leading the team in rushing in '09 and '10, he got the boot and transferred to the University of Minnesota-Duluth--that's right, D-II. Duluth had won two of the last three D-II national championships, and had a record of placing top prospects with positive NFL opportunities, so it may have been a good fit. By rule he had to sit out 2011 and could play in 2012. Practicing in the fall of 2011, he ruptured his Achilles and dropped completely off the radar. I had a #32 jersey all cued up and ready for Saturdays in 2012: I was going to walk from my house to the field where A-Rob would school D-II boys even worse than he did the PSU defense in the fourth quarter of the 2009 matchup. But it never materialized. If anyone has an update, please post but I'm not convinced I want to hear it. A-Rob's injuries and trouble keeping his nose clean are among the things that sometimes make me feel guilty for contributing to the feeding frenzy that screws over so many of these athletes.

 

[guffus]

I am amazed 9 years later this QB battle is still a topic. It seemed so obvious, both at the time, and in hindsight, that Stanzi was the better choice, I am surpised anybody would want to debate it.

Now the whole Rudock vs. Beathard battle is at least worth debating, even though I still think it was clear that Beathard was the better choice, but at least its worth debating. Rudock was not awful and Beathard was not perfect. At least you can see why the coaches like Rudock and why it took so long for Beathard to win the job.

But Christenson? How in the world does anybody think he was any good? He was just awful.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

I am amazed 9 years later this QB battle is still a topic. It seemed so obvious, both at the time, and in hindsight, that Stanzi was the better choice, I am surpised anybody would want to debate it.

Now the whole Rudock vs. Beathard battle is at least worth debating, even though I still think it was clear that Beathard was the better choice, but at least its worth debating. Rudock was not awful and Beathard was not perfect. At least you can see why the coaches like Rudock and why it took so long for Beathard to win the job.

But Christenson? How in the world does anybody think he was any good? He was just awful.

Because he was highly touted by the coaches and the media. You just kept waiting for the light to come on for him but it just never did.

 

[thetrza]

When you look at most of Stanzi's interceptions, they were almost always on short throws to the right side of the field and early in the game. The game announcers would notice that RS was less accurate on throws to the right sideline. The obvious solution would be to have JC's left arm attached to RS's body for the throws to the right.

 

[NCHawker]

the Jake thing gets a lot of play because, he came it as a highly recruited HS Player. He brought others to the program. After 2002-2004 fan expectations were very high. 2005 and 2006 we let downs. Enter 2007 and things didn't get better then either. Fans were had had enough.

 

[thefizz]

I am amazed 9 years later this QB battle is still a topic. It seemed so obvious, both at the time, and in hindsight, that Stanzi was the better choice, I am surpised anybody would want to debate it.

Now the whole Rudock vs. Beathard battle is at least worth debating, even though I still think it was clear that Beathard was the better choice, but at least its worth debating. Rudock was not awful and Beathard was not perfect. At least you can see why the coaches like Rudock and why it took so long for Beathard to win the job.

But Christenson? How in the world does anybody think he was any good? He was just awful.

I didn't write the original post to absolve Christensen or to make him seem like something better than he was. I wrote the OP because we have a QB competition coming into this season and some almost assume that the Iowa coaching staff is going to pick the wrong guy regardless of who it is even though "the right guy" is underneath their noses. There is a notion out there among some people that there won't be some sort of QB competition or if there is a QB competition that it will be completely flawed. I just wanted to bring up a situation where there was a legit competition and I don't think the coaching staff screwed it up.

 

[bitmap]

My only hope is that the possible coming QB competition is similar to the last one in that the QBs in question are future NFL talent. Besides BF's inexperience coaching QBs I have to wonder if the return of KOK was sparked by something seen in one of the new crop of QBs. The problem with a development program like Iowa is that it seems like the coaches are willing to develop the players sometimes to the detriment of the game itself.

The question I have here is if QB "A" has reached, or nearly reached, his ceiling but is playing at a higher level than QB "B", who has a much higher potential, how do you decide who gets the start?

This can't be an easy decision for a coach especially if all QB "B" needs is experience to potentially leap past QB "A". A lot of what was written in this thread, along w/ KOK's reported support for Stanzi, would seem to make Stanzi the "B" while Jake was the "A" guy. They were waiting to pull the trigger and when Jake sputtered that is where the decision was made.

 

[thefizz]

I don't know too much about Weigers or Stanley since I've only seen both in limited if any action at all. I don't know if my understanding of these two's skill sets is correct, but I think both of these guys are supposed to have the same or at least very similar skill sets. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with that statement. I think the winner of the starting job this season is going to be the guy that A) Is more consistent at making the routine play and B) Displays a better understanding of how to evaluate pre snap action. Those two things are somewhat quantifiable. I personally would add the intangible of "who does the team respond better to" but I'm not sure how much the coaching staff buys into that sort of thing.