BigD
Well-Known Member
I get it.
It was maddening. It reminds me of when Fran got hired and someone made the phrase and motto “It’s time to get mad again!” Oh I would get mad every time Hill came back onto the field.
Boom - Deacon Hill
- Thread starter NCHawker
- Start date
I get it.
It was maddening. It reminds me of when Fran got hired and someone made the phrase and motto “It’s time to get mad again!” Oh I would get mad every time Hill came back onto the field.
It was the definition of insanity... He wasn't going to get any better we could all see it. His physical limitations are what they are and he wasn't going to turn into Dan Marino overnight. They won the games they did despite him. I can't remember one play he made where we were like wow that was awesome and it's why we'll win the game. They won due to D and special teams being phenomenal.
All the TOs shoulda been been why he ultimately lost the gig. We've never had a QB be so careless before. Stanzi had a rough stretch I believe but his upside was more and he showed it every game. Whatever Hills upside is it wasn't tangible on the field and that's the bottom line. I'm just glad he's gone now and we can move on from that. If for some reason Lainez ends up playing the lions share of the reps this yr and he struggles passing at least they can do some creative stuff with his legs. All hope would not be lost with him. With Hill there was zero hope. Absolutely none.
Well if they bring in a transfer qb I think it'll be someone capable of pushing for Cades job not just be a backup too. I think they aren't totally sold on Lainez yet. Based only on the fact that through a season and a spring he couldn't beat out Hill. But yeah there's certainly a scenario where Lainez could play alot.
Teddy
Well-Known Member
I was mostly ribbing you in a little in a spirit of banter. We just disagree on the premises.
The gambler's fallacy is not analogous. Gambling decisions are different, more immediate than something that involves many people over a series of injuries. Each injury is an individual event, so there are a large number of individual events simultaneously occurring in a compressed period of time. Each individual event may not have been "unlikely" but collectively they far more than statistically significant. Life and times run in cycles. "Along with the sunshine, you gotta take a little rain sometimes." Like flipping a coin. You have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing every time you flip. Theoretically you could lose every flip, but with even chances the probability of anyone getting to 100 is low.
While not impossible, the probability of being wiped out by injury is lower because it has already happened three consecutive years. It is improbable that the same random phenomenon occurring in 4 consecutive years would not seem random.
If we were facing off with a couple of Monte Christos across green felt, I'd be selling you a much different take on the belief that luck is sure to change with the next hand.
Fryowa
Administrator
If we met in real life you’d be incredibly underwhelmed and bored.If we were facing off with a couple of Monte Christos across green felt, I'd be selling you a much different take on the belief that luck is sure to change with the next hand.
I don’t drink, smoke or gamble. The gambling thing isn’t because of a moral conviction, it’s because I’m too dumb.
You’d be surprised how far you can get in life as an idiot just by being aware that you have below average intelligence and acting accordingly.
Teddy
Well-Known Member
Jake C threw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions than all of the starters at QB collectively in the last two seasons. A QB hitting over 53% is a higher completion rate than all but Petras, although Petras had far more turnovers. It's been four seasons since a QB threw 17 TDs and only 6 interceptions, Jake C's numbers in his starting season. Hence my optimism that whatever QB fills Hill's shoes will be better than Deacon Hill.
Last edited:
Teddy
Well-Known Member
Good one.
Fryowa
Administrator
Wish I was kidding.
Teddy
Well-Known Member
Well, you're sufficiently intelligent to understand your limits and that alone puts you in the top ten percent.
Last edited:
Yeah I didn't think JC turned it over a ton. That was probably a part of the reason he got the leash he got. The others being the QBs behind him weren't experienced or really ready either. JC just wasn't accurate he couldn't complete the most open of open passes. He was similar to Hill in that he had zero touch on the ball. They both had good fastballs but they weren't accurate with em.
Self awareness is a quality that so few possess... If the Ferentzs had any of it for example would Iowa's offense have been what it was during BFs tenure? Obviously not...
Now this is me assuming that the Ferentzs acted without any self awareness. Maybe they were aware yet just didn't care and was going to always act within their own self interests... (like so many others would as well fighting that pesky thing we call human nature) This seems pretty likely what that was all about and why nepotism is as frowned upon as it is..
dahlhawk
Well-Known Member
When its your kid there is no self-awareness, that's why it rarely works out unless your kid works in the background like Jensen's kid. Americans don't believe in a hereditary succession, we believe in merit (or used to) Lester has merit. He put in the work, started from the bottom. Now BF has to do the same to move up. That fire in the belly only comes from that. Iowa will bring in a QB that nobody knows, this is Lester's first big test at recruiting and evaluation. Just a shame that Beth didn't make a clean cut during the season with Brian and we had just thrown Marco into the mix. I don't believe our record would be any different and we would know today where we stand at QB. Missed opportunity.
BigD
Well-Known Member
“don’t drink, smoke or gamble.” Are you sure you’re not Mormon or weren’t one in a previous life?
Fryowa
Administrator
Nope. I’m not morally opposed to any of those things. They just aren’t my bag.
BigD
Well-Known Member
Can’t argue those points as I don’t do those things either. I have associations with people who have addictions to all three of those things. It’s really sad because their weaknesses to those addictions have really screwed up their lives.
Fryowa
Administrator
I disagree somewhat.
I’ve coached mine for 9 years now and I can’t say I’ve given him an edge over other guys and I’m probably tougher on him than others if I’m being totally honest. There have been plenty of times I didn’t think he was ready for certain things at the varsity level and I’ve been brutally honest with him that he’s not varsity pitching material yet even though he wants to do it. When and if he’s ready he’ll get a shot. Also he plays basketball and as a junior he got 1-2 minutes at the end of games and I’m totally fine with it. He’s just not very good. Loves playing and plays hard, but it stops there and I’m honest about it with myself.
I think Kirk was just so laser focused on leaving that legacy that he couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Once you have all the money and the power what else is there other than a legacy? He knows he doesn’t have 20 good years left and money probably doesn’t mean squat anymore.
Teddy
Well-Known Member
I imagine a trust will be paying his grandchildren 50 years from now. KF actually sounds like a smart investor. He crunches numbers and I'll bet his broker does too.
