Can you be an upper level team without a QB?

L

longtimer

Well-Known Member
Talking about 8,9,10 wins. Of course you can if you are Alabama or Ohio State but Iowa? I see a lot of predictions of 8 or 9 wins and from what I have seen and heard about out QB situation it seems unlikely? Maybe Stanley will be an adequate QB ( I think he might be next year) kind of like Thornson at NW struggled early and now may be pretty good. I dont see Weigers being the guy
Hope Im wrong and we get good QB play. If we do i think we will be pretty good. I still think while we dont have great receivers the scheme was much of the problem. Cant be worse than last year. If my fear comes to fruition and we dont get good QB play I think we are a 5 or 6 win team
 
I think whoever wins the job will be a pleasant surprise. Both were a 4-star by one service or another, and first-year QBs have a habit of playing very well under Ferentz. Along with the OL and run game, I'm more worried about WR and depth at DT and in the secondary than I am our QB.
 
Let me ask you this, cause all joking aside i think this is really crucial to answer your question. By without a QB are you referring to a guy who doesn't throw for many yards and many td's? Or are you referring to many interceptions, or what? Because i think a team like Iowa can win 9-10 most years without a QB throwing for a billion yards and a billion td's.......as long as.........that Qb's 3rd down percentage is high and he doesn't turn the ball over. I'm not telling anybody something you don't know but were a run and defense team. Were a minimize screw-ups, be where you're supposed to be team. So if you don't throw picks, and you keep chains moving on 3rd down, you can be a good enough QB for us to win 9-10 games most seasons. That drives fans nuts sometimes but that's how we are built honestly. I'm excited Brian is taking over the offense, cause that should mean, more use of tight ends, which should mean better 3rd down completion percentage, which should mean keeping chains moving, which should mean a better offense. Having said that, please note i said "should mean." We shall see.
I agree with BVhawk that i'm more concerned with safety than i am QB no matter who wins the job.
 
Last edited:
The Hawks have two great QB's and which ever one wins the starting job will be very good. I personally like Stanley given what a great athlete he is. He started all games for his high school career including baseball, basketball and football. He's a winner and is very intelligent. We should know by Friday who is the man. I see us winning more than 7 games regardless of the starter. This could be a perfect storm year where we surprise the football world.
 
It all depends on the defense really. Without a good QB there will be games where you don't score a lot of points.
 
longtimer said:
Talking about 8,9,10 wins. Of course you can if you are Alabama or Ohio State but Iowa? I see a lot of predictions of 8 or 9 wins and from what I have seen and heard about out QB situation it seems unlikely? Maybe Stanley will be an adequate QB ( I think he might be next year) kind of like Thornson at NW struggled early and now may be pretty good. I dont see Weigers being the guy
Hope Im wrong and we get good QB play. If we do i think we will be pretty good. I still think while we dont have great receivers the scheme was much of the problem. Cant be worse than last year. If my fear comes to fruition and we dont get good QB play I think we are a 5 or 6 win team
Click to expand...

After leading the 2003 Hawks to a 10-3 season, Outback Bowl win and #8, Nate Chandler says...
 
True. But if you have a RB, it wouldnt be that big a deal. But if you went with an empty backfield, life would get interesting.

I dont thin QB matters that much in college. At least, not like the pros. Someone earlier mentioned OSU and Alabama. You have more talent than everyone else, QB not so important.

We have seen some great QBs in college that didnt win a championship. But, in college, it is more the level of talent of your team more than just a QB.
 
It all depends on the cast around them. If you have stud skill players and strong offensive line and good defense you can be good. The same can be said about a poor QB. I think if you have a bad quarterback that doesn't make plays and has a bunch of turnovers you can have a good supporting cast but the QB can sink the ship. It is a slippery slope
 
KF teams and style of play can have a "game manager" QB. As stated above, must have a stout D to keep games close and must have a QB that takes care of the ball. Also need a strong running game to move the chains and control the clock. Doesn't have to be flashy but just get the ball into playmakers hands. Not ideal but can have an average QB and be successful. See Trent Dilfer in the SuperBowl years ago.


Other teams need to have a great QB to succeed. Northwestern needs to have an above average QB for their style, for example.
 
I'd say look at the NFL where talent level across teams is more uniform. Look who makes it to and wins the Super Bowls. Usually have one of the top QBs in the game. Sometimes top QBs cannot overcome bad management or lesser talent say on defense.
 
westender said:
I'd say look at the NFL where talent level across teams is more uniform. Look who makes it to and wins the Super Bowls. Usually have one of the top QBs in the game. Sometimes top QBs cannot overcome bad management or lesser talent say on defense.
Click to expand...


Good point. The style has really changed in the NFL over the years. The NFL is now a QB and WR league. Nothing now for a QB to throw over 300 yrds a game. So yes, in NFL must have a good QB to make it.
 
It depends on to what level your speaking. Sure Chandler took Iowa to a 10-2 year top 10 overall finish. But were we a national championship contender that year? That's a pretty high level to be sure but then there's the top 5ish level where your constantly in the discussion for the championship. OSU back in 02 won it all with Krenzel at QB. He was pretty pedestrian with like 15 TDs to 10 picks barely 2k yards passing. But that's the last example of a guy like your suggesting doing that and that wasn't yesterday... Now a days it's even more different and tougher to do I think. Deace has said forever you can't hide your QB in college football and I think it just gets to be a truer statement every year. There's a good level of success you can get to with an OK to mediocre QB but there's certainly a ceiling to it
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Good point. The style has really changed in the NFL over the years. The NFL is now a QB and WR league. Nothing now for a QB to throw over 300 yrds a game. So yes, in NFL must have a good QB to make it.
Click to expand...

Peyton Manning was the definition of a game manager just two years ago in Denver's run to the Super Bowl title. His stats for 3 playoff games:

51-92 (55%) 539 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 5.86 Y/A in 3 games

If the defense is great, then the QB just needs to make the easy plays and not make mistakes.
 
Robowe said:
Peyton Manning was the definition of a game manager just two years ago in Denver's run to the Super Bowl title. His stats for 3 playoff games:

51-92 (55%) 539 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 5.86 Y/A in 3 games

If the defense is great, then the QB just needs to make the easy plays and not make mistakes.
Click to expand...
True but that defense was beyond great. Miller was MVP and Newton couldn't set his back foot from his drop before he was getting hit. Trent Dilfer could have won his 2nd super bowl with that team. There haven't been very many defenses that good over the years and with all the rule changes in favor of the offenses now.... It's skewed to the QBs where you just have to have a stud QB and offense to compete for the most part now. More so for college but pros as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top