Elephant in the room.. regarding Stanley.

HaydenHawk56 said:
Again, I know Jon put up some good stats to dispel the myth IA Qbs regressive in their second year, but the eyeball test is showing this is the case yet again. Thank God for our defense.

In his Stanley's defense though, our WR thus far look poor and, as noted above by posters, our schemes suck against combating 8 and 9 man fronts. Until Iowa can figure this out and make teams pay for this by hitting receivers consistently down the field, then we are going to see more 3rd and 7, 8, or 9s. That is going to lead to several losses eventually.

As a side note. We love the North Endzone seats. Loud, fans into, and have plenty of leg room.
Click to expand...
So, it's not that the QBs regress; it's a result of Kirk's offensive scheme sucking at the passing game.
 
^ One more game like yesterday, against UNI no less, and I won't be anymore. 15 starts as a Hawk and most have been underwhelming.
 
WinOneThisCentury said:
ISU followed the MSU, NW, Wisconsin, and Purdue defensive playbook from last year. You pressure the line of scrimmage with run and pass blitzes and force Iowa to beat single coverage on the outside...or throw the ball in typical tight windows to the TEs. Until we can beat that scheme...well, teams are going to keep executing the defensive strategy.

The good thing is that I think protections are much better this year already and will continue to improve. Stanley needs to be Nate Stanley and step up his game.

The one thing I noticed is that we essentially threw deep five times yesterday on what I would call go routes. Fant where he was totally interfered with that wasn't called in the end zone. ISM where he caught the post pattern. Smith where he beat single coverage late in the game. Then there were two patterns to I believe Easley, one on the sideline where he became a defender, then one deep that was way overthrown. So, five patterns where good things should have happened three out of five if the interference on Fant is called. We have to take those odds more often.

The bottom line, and I know others have called for it...is that we have to be able to throw teams out of the defensive looks ISU gave us much of the time yesterday...8-9 in the box. Winning games is great...don't get me wrong...but eventually you have to show your passing game can beat teams.
Click to expand...

I believe Wyoming, Minnesota and to a degree Penn State also blitzed. The teams that notably didn't last year were Iowa State and Ohio State. I think Illinois, Nebraska, and Boston College to the degree they tried to blitz got picked up blockers.
 
hwk23 said:
Well I definitely think it’s possible to over do it at QB. Look at guys like Aaron Rodgers, Brady, Manning or practically anyone really good. Those guys don’t look bulked up in the chest. Yes they’re in great shape but not bulked up. Neither are pitchers in baseball.
Click to expand...
You neglected to mention the "greatest college QB of all time"... Tim Tebow. He was bulked up like the Incredible Hulk.
 
uihawk82 said:
How many times when there is a game starting up with a struggling QB and you hear the former player in the booth who is the color analyst say 'the coaches need to get the QB some easy throws to get them in a rhythm". That is not happening with Iowa, and as you can all see there are not very many easy throws with this passing game.

But that is what needs dialed up, the coaches need to call plays where he throws to a guy 2 yards down field who is stationary whose defender is playing off him then the receiver catches and gets a few more yards. A 5 yard gain with good footwork then dialup another similar type pass.

Other than that Stanley is getting blitzed a lot and it could be his footwork, afraid of INTs but what little I have seen he is off target more than last year.

It can be hard to be accurate when the windows are very small with no separation.
Click to expand...

With regard to the bolded part above, I fear one, two, or more of the following:
--A "bullet" that takes off body parts of the intended receiver
--He "throws a Christensen", at which point the game is delayed to replace the scorched sod/turf that the throw removes
--He throws it to a "feature" TE...who drops it (I would have said "inexplicably drops it", but such an event can no longer be termed "inexplicable")
--The intended target is a RB has to jump high for the ball, is undercut by a defender, and suddenly we are down two RBs
 
Nate has all the tangibles. ....deleted....
..
I'm sure there is a good reason why PM is #2. And I wonder how much he could progress if given the chance...and I suspect he has the intangibles that the team will need to win more than 7 games.
 
Last edited:
Before we start the, "We want Mansell" chant. Let's give it a few more games. Just to make sure, you know KF/BF/GD/KOK brain trust always show the least amount of offense to win games in the non conference. We typically work on the running game and the short passing game. Obviously, they want to win the games, but they will only open up if it's needed.

I, personally, think Nate will be fine...but he certainly hasn't looked as comfortable as I expected him to...and he hasn't thrown the ball particularly well yet. The passes to Smith and ISM were beautiful yesterday...but he had several stinkers too...where you just shake your head and say...how does that even happen. It's like the yips in putting or something...or a shank. Easley runs a great pattern at a big moment, is open for a critical first down and he throws it into the ground 5 feet ahead of him....I was like what the hell was that?
 
tksirius said:
So, it's not that the QBs regress; it's a result of Kirk's offensive scheme sucking at the passing game.
Click to expand...
Ya...the chicken and the egg. Which one comes first. Agreed.

The-Princess-Bridge-vizzini-1.jpg


Up the middle again against a stacked box did not work????? Inconceivable!!!!!!!
 
In Stanley’s last 6 games, he is a combined 72/144 for 783 yds with 5 tds and 3 ints. That comes to 12-24 for 130 yds per game. For us to be a championship team, that MUST improve.
 
So, should I hold off on printing my "Stanley is the Manley" t-shirts for sale, or move forward?
 
ottoman89 said:
What’s up with him? He made some awful decisions yesterday, missed Easley on a deep ball where if he tucks and runs it’s an easy 10-15 yards. His consistency and accuracy are way off and he just doesn’t look confident at all.

He’s got all the arm talent in the world, but he couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn 75% of the time. Is it footwork? Mental?

How much of this do we see before we see Drew Tate, I mean Peyton Mansel?

Not particularly saying we need to bench Stanley obviously, but seems he’s struggling hard with confidence and consistency.
Click to expand...

What happened to the inside routes up the hash to hockenson he was brilliant on last year and completed a couple times against NIU next week.
 
I was just looking at numbers from the game. Was curious about how many drops we had. Stanley def needs to clean some things up and place the ball better for a better chance for YAC but his day really wasn't as bad as some may be making it out. Add the two drops to his completions and his percentage would've been 64% that's really not to bad. Hopefully the passing game is close to starting to click. Nate seems to me to be aiming the ball instead of trusting himself and letting it fly freely.
 
ottoman89 said:
That pass was an absolute beauty! It pisses me off that he will throw a great ball and then an absolute awful pass.. and you wonder WHY CAN’T HE DO THAT EVERY DAMN TIME!?
Click to expand...

Well since there are less than 10 QB's playing in the world that can do it every damn time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top