All Big Ten teams

PJHawk said:
QB rating doesn't lie. Rick finished the season with a QB rating of 160.5 (No. 11 nationally) Drew Tate's best rating was twenty points less but Ya, Rick was not very good, WTF?
Click to expand...

Win Loss column > QB rating

That aside I would take Drew Tate with this receiving corp over Ricky in a heartbeat.
 
Last year, Stanzi's stats weren't good, and everybody said well, it's all about the wins and the losses. This year, with much better stats, his apologists point to the stats. Pick one or the other.

I believe that if 2004 (healthy) Drew Tate was our QB this year than we don't lose more than 2 games.
 
Rick had 5 chances to pull off 4th qtr drives this year to win games and in those chances he was 0-5.... enough said. Rick seemed to get too conservative in those instances and afraifd to make a mistake.... I miss the Stanzi of 09.
 
Thinking about Drew Tate......

There was no doubt that he wanted to win. His head and heart were fully invested...I didn't realize how much I missed seeing that passion until just now thinking about it.
 
Jeebus said:
Thinking about Drew Tate......

There was no doubt that he wanted to win. His head and heart were fully invested...I didn't realize how much I missed seeing that passion until just now thinking about it.
Click to expand...

His only problem with Tate was that with that passion, he let his mistakes linger in his mind. He wasn't that good at flushing them out, so when he'd make one, he was likely to make another. But I was, and still am, a big Drew Tate fan.
 
PeoriaHWKI said:
Rick had 5 chances to pull off 4th qtr drives this year to win games and in those chances he was 0-5.... enough said. Rick seemed to get too conservative in those instances and afraifd to make a mistake.... I miss the Stanzi of 09.
Click to expand...

+1. Meanwhile, Foles, Tolzien, Persa, Pryor, Weber, he!! even Chappell looked pretty darned good against us.
 
PJHawk said:
You mean like Dan Persa's gaudy total of seven wins this season? Or Robinson's six?
Click to expand...

Dan Persa got 7 wins while playing in two fewer games than your beloved Ricky. He also didn't have the advantage of playing opposite a top ten defense.

Just think of the stats Denard could have put up if they could have had a few more possessions? His defense stunk too.
 
Jeebus said:
Dan Persa got 7 wins while playing in two fewer games than your beloved Ricky. He also didn't have the advantage of playing opposite a top ten defense.

Just think of the stats Denard could have put up if they could have had a few more possessions? His defense stunk too.
Click to expand...

You're really reaching now. Persa might have got another win vs. Illinois, no way at Madison, Robinson could just as easily have been hurt more than he was. BTW the "beloved Ricky" comment makes you sound like a real horse's @ss.
 
albertyoungisgood said:
Last year, Stanzi's stats weren't good, and everybody said well, it's all about the wins and the losses. This year, with much better stats, his apologists point to the stats. Pick one or the other.

I believe that if 2004 (healthy) Drew Tate was our QB this year than we don't lose more than 2 games.
Click to expand...

If we had the same play calling as '04 we don't lose any.
 
PJHawk said:
You're really reaching now. Persa might have got another win vs. Illinois, no way at Madison, Robinson could just as easily have been hurt more than he was. BTW the "beloved Ricky" comment makes you sound like a real horse's @ss.
Click to expand...

....and your insistence that Rick was better than Persa and Robinson make you sound like a total homer.

I'm sorry...I'm sure you are correct and all the sports writers and coaches were wrong. ( It's huge hippie conspiracy. )

Don't think I was too far off with the beloved comment as it appears in your original post, your intent was to imply that Rick was somehow screwed.
 
Jeebus said:
....and your insistence that Rick was better than Persa and Robinson make you sound like a total homer.
Click to expand...

My original posts in this thread consist of 1. Rick got shut out and 2. he played good enough this year to at least get an Honorable Mention. Is he better than Persa or Robinson? Obviously the voters don't think so, fair enough. Regardless how the votes shook out for All-BT you cannot prove who is better based on statistics (Ricks are some of the best ever for an Iowa QB) or victories (pretty much the same for all three).
 
Remember last year when Stanzi's stats weren't all the good but everyone was saying that the "only stat the matters for a QB is wins and losses and Stanzi wins". Now this year everyone says Stanzi is great because he has better stats, but going on everyone's logic from last year it isn't great because he has lost 5 games this year.

Can't have it both ways. Good quarterback but clearly not better than Persa or Pryor. I don't think he is any better than (not any worse though) than Tolzein or Chappel either.

I don't consider Robinson a QB because he won't have any chance of QB at the next level, but in terms of position he did a lot more for his offense than Stanzi did.
 
PJHawk said:
My original posts in this thread consist of 1. Rick got shut out and 2. he played good enough this year to at least get an Honorable Mention. Is he better than Persa or Robinson? Obviously the voters don't think so, fair enough. Regardless how the votes shook out for All-BT you cannot prove who is better based on statistics (Ricks are some of the best ever for an Iowa QB) or victories (pretty much the same for all three).
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top