IowaLaw's Post Game Report: Rutgers

[vork22]

This Stanley stuff is hilarious. The guy is putting up crazy numbers for a Hawkeye QB. I get it he misses a few but if he played on a team that threw it around all day he would drop 400 plus with 5 TDs. He is handcuffed to some extent by Brian going back to the Davis playbook on 3rd downs.

 

[revkev73]

So it was just some bizarre coincidence that they were near the top of college football last year in return %?

I provide evidence that Iowa returns a high % of punts, and you are just gonna stick with your theory, huh?

It was an assumption/guess/insight on my part based on KF's historical way of avoiding risk. Personally, I don't mind seeing a punt not caught some of the time. It is less risky. And your percentage of fielded punts doesn't actually have anything to do with what Kirk is thinking on the sidelines on any given play, which was my point. I didn't say he directed players to avoid catching the balls, merely stated that he is probably relieved as a coach when the ball is back safe and sound in the Iowa offense's hands with the threat of a turnover or the ball banging into an Iowa player avoided. While protecting a lead with not much time left, letting the ball die of its own power might be the wise move.

 

[revkev73]

This Stanley stuff is hilarious. The guy is putting up crazy numbers for a Hawkeye QB. I get it he misses a few but if he played on a team that threw it around all day he would drop 400 plus with 5 TDs. He is handcuffed to some extent by Brian going back to the Davis playbook on 3rd downs.

Avoiding risk is Kirkball...if you want to run up some stats, in almost any position, Iowa isn't your place to be.

Play it safe, keep it close, be outstanding at fundamentals, protect the ball.

 

[CP87]

It was an assumption/guess/insight on my part based on KF's historical way of avoiding risk. Personally, I don't mind seeing a punt not caught some of the time. It is less risky. And your percentage of fielded punts doesn't actually have anything to do with what Kirk is thinking on the sidelines on any given play, which was my point. I didn't say he directed players to avoid catching the balls, merely stated that he is probably relieved as a coach when the ball is back safe and sound in the Iowa offense's hands with the threat of a turnover or the ball banging into an Iowa player avoided. While protecting a lead with not much time left, letting the ball die of its own power might be the wise move.

I guarantee you the punt returners are coached very clearly to try to field every ball they can. Number 1 rule of punt return: DON'T LET THE BALL HIT THE GROUND! Bad things happen when the ball hits the ground (see Wisconsin, last year).

Kirk might not care if he has a game-breaker back there, but he absolutely cares about having someone who will reliably get to and field the ball.

 

[revkev73]

I guarantee you the punt returners are coached very clearly to try to field every ball they can. Number 1 rule of punt return: DON'T LET THE BALL HIT THE GROUND! Bad things happen when the ball hits the ground (see Wisconsin, last year).

Kirk might not care if he has a game-breaker back there, but he absolutely cares about having someone who will reliably get to and field the ball.

Seems like you and Kirk are both pretty amazing.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Avoiding risk is Kirkball...if you want to run up some stats, in almost any position, Iowa isn't your place to be.

Play it safe, keep it close, be outstanding at fundamentals, protect the ball.

Generally true but...

• Taking risks nearly cost us the Nebraska game last year. If we avoid risk, and kick the damn field goal, the Huskers probably fold their tent and get ready for golf and hunting season.
• Last year's Minnesota game may have turned out differently, or been closer, if we avoid risk.
• Stanley is solidly on pace to break the school record for passing TD's, currently held by an Iowa immortal who was also a four year starter. If he threw all those TD's by avoiding risk, think of how many he would have thrown otherwise.

 

[Fryowa]

This Stanley stuff is hilarious. The guy is putting up crazy numbers for a Hawkeye QB. I get it he misses a few but if he played on a team that threw it around all day he would drop 400 plus with 5 TDs. He is handcuffed to some extent by Brian going back to the Davis playbook on 3rd downs.

The reason he gets so much flak is because most of his bad misses are when a receiver has five yards of separation on a fly route with nothing but green between him and the endzone. He’s scared to death of the INT so he launches it out of reach. What separates him from a great QB and will keep him from being known as one is his inability (so far) to make those wide open throws when the chips are down. It’s a confidence thing... he’s got the ability; he just doesn’t hit ‘em in big time situations.

That’s why I’ve said all along that if he had the guts of Stanzi or Beathard he would have left Chuck Long in the dust by now and he’d have his name under the press box in a few years.

 

[revkev73]

Generally true but...

• Taking risks nearly cost us the Nebraska game last year. If we avoid risk, and kick the damn field goal, the Huskers probably fold their tent and get ready for golf and hunting season.
• Last year's Minnesota game may have turned out differently, or been closer, if we avoid risk.
• Stanley is solidly on pace to break the school record for passing TD's, currently held by an Iowa immortal who was also a four year starter. If he threw all those TD's by avoiding risk, think of how many he would have thrown otherwise.

Iowa's coaches seem to be like a turtle, sticking their heads out with a bit more risk recently, perhaps realizing the benefits and perhaps more comfortable with the experience and talent they have on the field.

This is a good development as opposing coaches have to plan beyond vanilla preparations. Assuming it is true.

 

[revkev73]

The reason he gets so much flak is because most of his bad misses are when a receiver has five yards of separation on a fly route with nothing but green between him and the endzone. He’s scared to death of the INT so he launches it out of reach. What separates him from a great QB and will keep him from being known as one is his inability (so far) to make those wide open throws when the chips are down. It’s a confidence thing... he’s got the ability; he just doesn’t hit ‘em in big time situations.

That’s why I’ve said all along that if he had the guts of Stanzi or Beathard he would have left Chuck Long in the dust by now and he’d have his name under the press box in a few years.

Is it your opinion that the coaching staff is mentoring towards these types of "safe" attempts or is Stanley one who is most often more concerned with a mistake than focusing on a touchdown that is there, waiting to be executed if the pass is thrown with confidence?

 

[dirtwrap]

I do agree that Stanley's misses are magnified because he overthrows his open receiver. However, Stanley does obviously have a really good understanding of where to miss because he hasnt thrown one ball so far that had even a remote chance of getting picked. And he his hit a lot of throws, he has a 64% completion percentage and that includes some throwaways and a few drops.

I dont think there is anything to nitpick here, yet. Lets see how he does against UM, Wisky, NW, PSU, etc. As that will define his Iowa career.

 

[vork22]

The reason he gets so much flak is because most of his bad misses are when a receiver has five yards of separation on a fly route with nothing but green between him and the endzone. He’s scared to death of the INT so he launches it out of reach. What separates him from a great QB and will keep him from being known as one is his inability (so far) to make those wide open throws when the chips are down. It’s a confidence thing... he’s got the ability; he just doesn’t hit ‘em in big time situations.

That’s why I’ve said all along that if he had the guts of Stanzi or Beathard he would have left Chuck Long in the dust by now and he’d have his name under the press box in a few years.

I agree completely if he had the fire he would be a legend. CJ’s numbers don’t come close to Stanley’s though.

 

[Fryowa]

I agree completely if he had the fire he would be a legend. CJ’s numbers don’t come close to Stanley’s though.

It's A+B=C, though, where A= instinct/guts, and B= raw physical talent.

Stanley-----> 2 + 9 = 11

CJ-----> 9 + 2 = 11

It's a little exaggerated for demonstration purposes, but you get the point. Stanley's numbers might be better, but CJ has a better win % with receivers and OL that weren't as good, and their QB rating is less than 10 pts apart. Not saying CJ is better, but they're not as far apart as people like to say, and CJ definitely had better end results (up to this point in Stanley's career).

The main difference is that I'd say Beathard played pretty close to his ceiling potential-wise in college, but Nate hasn't come close to his and that's a mental issue in my opinion. I like the kid as Iowa's quarterback no doubt, but he could do absolutely great things if he had the mindset.

 

[CP87]

The reason he gets so much flak is because most of his bad misses are when a receiver has five yards of separation on a fly route with nothing but green between him and the endzone. He’s scared to death of the INT so he launches it out of reach. What separates him from a great QB and will keep him from being known as one is his inability (so far) to make those wide open throws when the chips are down. It’s a confidence thing... he’s got the ability; he just doesn’t hit ‘em in big time situations.

That’s why I’ve said all along that if he had the guts of Stanzi or Beathard he would have left Chuck Long in the dust by now and he’d have his name under the press box in a few years.

I agree on your assessment of why he catches flak: HawkeyeGamefilm used a hockey analogy and called his miss of a wide-open Smith last week an "open-net miss." It is like the opposing team has pulled its goalie, the easy play is right in front of him, and he misses it. That is hard to get out of your mind, even if he makes a bunch of great plays to counter that miss.

But I don't think it is a matter of being overcome by the moment, or making those plays against bad opponents and missing them against good opponents. He misses those plays against good and bad, the effects are just amplified vs. the good opponents.

I really don't think Stanley is ever overcome by the moment. If he was, he wouldn't have led the comeback against ISU in his 2nd start, he wouldn't have led the route of OSU in 2017, he wouldn't have led us to the doorstep of a comeback against a stellar PSU defense by marching down the field like a knife through butter after our offense had sucked for the whole game. The moment doesn't get him, his own brain does. He sees wide open TD, and he doesn't think, "Don't throw the INT," he thinks, "Oh Dear God, don't blow this, he is WFO!" And as soon as you think don't blow this, you become mechanical and you mess up. He becomes Chuck Knoblauch trying to throw to first base, or Rick Ankiel trying to get the ball across the plate.

We saw this with his overthrow of Hock vs. PSU, his underthrow of Ragaini vs. Miami-OH, and his overthrow of Smith vs. Rutgers, and who-knows-how-many misses to Fant last year. He tries to be too perfect, and that is the issue.

What I like so far this season is that those moments seem less frequent, and when they do happen, he shakes them off and gets back to work. His open-net miss to Smith was followed by a well-thrown screen to IKM, and then a beautifully thrown crossing pattern to a wide-open Tracey for the TD.

 

[Fryowa]

I agree on your assessment of why he catches flak: HawkeyeGamefilm used a hockey analogy and called his miss of a wide-open Smith last week an "open-net miss." It is like the opposing team has pulled its goalie, the easy play is right in front of him, and he misses it. That is hard to get out of your mind, even if he makes a bunch of great plays to counter that miss.

But I don't think it is a matter of being overcome by the moment, or making those plays against bad opponents and missing them against good opponents. He misses those plays against good and bad, the effects are just amplified vs. the good opponents.

I really don't think Stanley is ever overcome by the moment. If he was, he wouldn't have led the comeback against ISU in his 2nd start, he wouldn't have led the route of OSU in 2017, he wouldn't have led us to the doorstep of a comeback against a stellar PSU defense by marching down the field like a knife through butter after our offense had sucked for the whole game. The moment doesn't get him, his own brain does. He sees wide open TD, and he doesn't think, "Don't throw the INT," he thinks, "Oh Dear God, don't blow this, he is WFO!" And as soon as you think don't blow this, you become mechanical and you mess up. He becomes Chuck Knoblauch trying to throw to first base, or Rick Ankiel trying to get the ball across the plate.

We saw this with his overthrow of Hock vs. PSU, his underthrow of Ragaini vs. Miami-OH, and his overthrow of Smith vs. Rutgers, and who-knows-how-many misses to Fant last year. He tries to be too perfect, and that is the issue.

What I like so far this season is that those moments seem less frequent, and when they do happen, he shakes them off and gets back to work. His open-net miss to Smith was followed by a well-thrown screen to IKM, and then a beautifully thrown crossing pattern to a wide-open Tracey for the TD.

I’ve seen him a couple times smiling and looking relaxed on the sidelines between drives, and up to this point I’ve never seen that before. I hope it’s a sign that he’s finally settling in.

 

[PCHawk]

What's cool is Stanley still has time (and definitely the ability) to put it all together and have an incredible year.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

I’ve seen him a couple times smiling and looking relaxed on the sidelines between drives, and up to this point I’ve never seen that before. I hope it’s a sign that he’s finally settling in.

Kirk and Brian have both spoken to Stanley loosening up and enjoying the moment, both since week one and in the off-season, a number of times. Hopefully he can keep that up. He’s definitely looser, and I think having reliable guys to target helps with that. Imagine the stress of playing for a guy who’s number one wish for the QB position is not to throw interceptions, and playing two full seasons with, at best, one WR who can get any separation at all. You either get Stanzi, who just doesn’t give a F and is a baller(And has another decent WR on the squad), or quiet Nate, who plays it safe. Those WRs give Nate an edge that I hope delivers two or three more wins than the last two years.

 

[Northside Hawk]

I agree on your assessment of why he catches flak: HawkeyeGamefilm used a hockey analogy and called his miss of a wide-open Smith last week an "open-net miss." It is like the opposing team has pulled its goalie, the easy play is right in front of him, and he misses it. That is hard to get out of your mind, even if he makes a bunch of great plays to counter that miss.

But I don't think it is a matter of being overcome by the moment, or making those plays against bad opponents and missing them against good opponents. He misses those plays against good and bad, the effects are just amplified vs. the good opponents.

I really don't think Stanley is ever overcome by the moment. If he was, he wouldn't have led the comeback against ISU in his 2nd start, he wouldn't have led the route of OSU in 2017, he wouldn't have led us to the doorstep of a comeback against a stellar PSU defense by marching down the field like a knife through butter after our offense had sucked for the whole game. The moment doesn't get him, his own brain does. He sees wide open TD, and he doesn't think, "Don't throw the INT," he thinks, "Oh Dear God, don't blow this, he is WFO!" And as soon as you think don't blow this, you become mechanical and you mess up. He becomes Chuck Knoblauch trying to throw to first base, or Rick Ankiel trying to get the ball across the plate.

We saw this with his overthrow of Hock vs. PSU, his underthrow of Ragaini vs. Miami-OH, and his overthrow of Smith vs. Rutgers, and who-knows-how-many misses to Fant last year. He tries to be too perfect, and that is the issue.

What I like so far this season is that those moments seem less frequent, and when they do happen, he shakes them off and gets back to work. His open-net miss to Smith was followed by a well-thrown screen to IKM, and then a beautifully thrown crossing pattern to a wide-open Tracey for the TD.

If a QB doesn't have a short memory, he's going to have a long year.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

He nailed point #5. The end of the 1st half was probably the worst clock management I've ever seen from KF and that's saying something.

Its not a matter of "if" it will happen again, rather a "when" it will happen again. Hopefully it isn't against a team with a pulse. It will likely cost Iowa big time.

It wasn't the worst. The clock management at the end of the Wisconsin game in 2010 was far worse, considering the circumstances with the game being on the line and all. Might be the angriest I ever got against Kirk.

The Cap 1 Bowl Tate to Holloway game is next on the list and would be first, but for Tate bailing Kirk out and winning the game.

 

[CP87]

I’ve seen him a couple times smiling and looking relaxed on the sidelines between drives, and up to this point I’ve never seen that before. I hope it’s a sign that he’s finally settling in.

His face after the Smith miss was telling. Last year, he wore that miss on his face for the rest of the series. This time, he clapped his hands once, and you saw him immediately transition to "next play" mode. That takes mental training, which he has obviously been working on.

 

[revkev73]

I guarantee you the punt returners are coached very clearly to try to field every ball they can. Number 1 rule of punt return: DON'T LET THE BALL HIT THE GROUND! Bad things happen when the ball hits the ground (see Wisconsin, last year).

Kirk might not care if he has a game-breaker back there, but he absolutely cares about having someone who will reliably get to and field the ball.

Wouldn't it be possible that even though Kirk wants to have punts fielded cleanly, when at times the ball simply dies on the field, without risk of turnover, Kirk, in his risk averse way, would offer a sigh of relief? Especially in a tight game, near the finish line? That's my point. I would if I were the coach. Better than lots of other options, drop, fumble, ball bumps into Iowa player who doesn't see it.