I told you. It's the same bunch (4 or 5) of cretins that will argue to the end with absolutely no evidence to support their ridiculous notions. And they're proving my point about absolutes again; 'they would have won more games, one more game, blah, blah, blah..." That's not an opinion, it is said with certainty (proven by the fact that 'they' are unyielding on it and 'defend' it continuously for over a year now) and they 'actually' believe it, lol. It is unfortunately a sign of mental illness; Delusional: b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Clinging to a 'belief' about something that didn't happen and will never happen and believing you 'pretend' to know the outcome is delusional. Plain and simple. The indisputable 'evidence' is THAT IT NEVER HAPPENED! CJ didn't play in those games and you can't possibly believe you 'know' what the outcome would be, lol. EVERY PLAY CALLED, DOWN AND DISTANCE, FIELD POSITION, ETC would be different....Quit clinging to this delusion folks, it's worrying me that you're probably walking around in public....
Is Stanley the future?
- Thread starter Mademyaccount4u
- Start date
Obvious Choices? Lol! You were at practice every day and it was 'obvious' to you that CJ should be playing over JR, LMAO...You're just plain old 'nuts', feller, and you have no IDEA what PROOF is, lol!!! Have you ever been to a practice (not a scrimmage or a game)? Do you 'believe' that KF goes around and decides what position everyone is going to play? Who the starter is at each position? Decides the depth chart at each position? LMAO! You're more delusional than I thought! Well, I was at numerous practices early in 2014 (I've been going for years) and CJ was no where NEAR being ready at that time and was getting his ass handed to him by Coach Davis because he couldn't pick up his pre-snap reads and was SLOW on his progressions, so he wasn't even getting the ball off half the time. KF doesn't micromanage his position coaches and only really 'gets involved ' with the O-line during 'group' time. During team time he just focuses on what the O-line does, lets his coaches coach, and talks to coaches not kids. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW A COLLEGE FOOTBALL TEAM EVEN OPERATES OF WHAT COACHES DO, BUT IT'S ALL 'OBVIOUS' TO YOU, LOL...Get some help, would ya feller.....
That goes to what I said earlier about sometimes being too close to the situation. Coaches are human. They can fall in love with a players personality or how hard they practice. (Keep in mind, if one player practices harder than the other it doesn't mean the other player dogs it. Not everyone is Rudy and he didn't play anyway).
I don't have access to all the information, that's why I said no way I'm right all the time. Of course I'm not right all the time. But the one thing I do have access to happens to be the most important part, how they play in games. All the other stuff matters and if a player has the wrong attitude, he probably shouldn't play. But I've never heard one bad thing about Banks, CJ, or Stanzi that suggested that. So unless you don't believe they were quite a bit better (which I know you don't ) all the other things I don't have access to just gives me an unbiased opinion when I watch how they play. If you were to tell 100 coaches that one qb can score twice as many points in half the possessions as the other (not my stat so can't guarantee it's true) 99 coaches would take that player without giving a rip about anything else. The other coach is Kirk Ferentz.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
<<There are coaches out there that are way more "ok" with mistakes as long as production makes up for it>>
Those coaches are a dime a dozen. Colloquial phrase is, "We call them .500 coaches!"
Getting back to the original question; Is Stanley the future? Yes, if he is going to develop and play, it will be in the 'future'. He certainly isn't the 'present' or the 'anytime soon'...
What about the past?
<<There are coaches out there that are way more "ok" with mistakes as long as production makes up for it>>
Those coaches are a dime a dozen. Colloquial phrase is, "We call them .500 coaches!"
That doesn't make sense. I said "as long as production makes up for it". Why would a coach lose more who plays a player like that?
I understand. Most of everything in the world doesn't make sense to you. So we'll continue to humor you and not be to mean, because we understand that you're 'special'. It made perfect sense to us 'normal' people...
I didn't think about that, but now that you mention it, JR was so terrible that we should've started Stanley in 2014!!! But that KF doesn't know talent and is so conservative that he doesn't know he should've started a HS junior over JR!!!
I understand. Most of everything in the world doesn't make sense to you. So we'll continue to humor you and not be to mean, because we understand that you're 'special'. It made perfect sense to us 'normal' people...
Clearly you hate the mentally handicapped since you're calling people special. And it doesn't make sense. There is a point where enough big plays make up for mistakes. If a guy ran for 10 touchdowns a game but fumbled once would a couch be a .500 loser for playing that guy? I wish I didn't always have to hold your hand and explain simple logic. At least you can throw out a few football terms you googled. You have that going for you.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. You kind of got the feeling there was something there with what KF said about him at the kids day press conference. Yet I just don't know if that is unusual to run the #3 or #4 QB with the 1's? I would think it would be, as this is camp and you are trying to get your backup ready for the season as well. Strictly a guess, but it would seem you would only run him with the 1's if you want to really take a hard look at him.
That all said, I just can't see him jumping Weigers, but if he got to the #3 spot already, and getting looks with the 1's... that gets me excited about how good he just might be.
DP5555
Well-Known Member
First, let me get rid of this disclaimer. These are preseason pictures and I know I'm trying to read into things.
With that said, I have been looking at these preseason photo galleries for years as I'm sure many of you have as well. It's not unusual for them to provide hints or sneak peeks at how things are progressing through the use of these photo galleries. Friday's scrimmage was an important one. Ferentz said as much last week. That photo gallery has one picture of Weigers and he's running with backups. It has several pictures of Stanley and in this one he's clearly running with the 1's.
Maybe it's nothing. Maybe they all rotated through with the 1's just to get looks. I doubt that's the case though. These reps are too important in a full scrimmage like that.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Because production never "makes up" for mistakes if the mistakes keep occurring.
Well sure it does. Brett Favre is a pretty good example of production worth the mistakes. He never quit making them, and sometimes it cost them games. But his production won them way more games than his mistakes cost them. They wouldn't have been near the team during that time if they had a "game manager" all those years.
You were actually right about something, and then you doubted yourself. Trust your instincts more. They definitely wanted to see where everyone is at before 'camp' ended and they can't do that without seeing some of them (especially QB's) with the 'bigboys'. Camp is over and now the IMPORTANT reps start as the 1's and 2's get almost all the reps and the rest (like Stanley) are relegated to working (rep'ing) with the 'others' or with scout teams. The final 'camp' scrimmage is almost entirely for getting a look at 'where' people are in their progress and making some final decisions about some of the position battles because once game prep starts, the 'battles' are pretty much over. You have from spring till that scrimmage to state your case. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but for the most part, that is the 'rule' as game prep and planning take up most of the coaches time and some would be amazed at how much 'teaching' is going on with the 1's and 2's in game prep..........So I wouldn't read much into it (you can if you want, I can't stop you), and I think Stanley does have a bright 'future' at Iowa...........
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
You mean like Orange Bowl Pick 6 Rick?
DP5555
Well-Known Member
I've got no problem saying I predict Stanley will be the next starting QB at Iowa. He may not start the first few games after CJ leaves, but I'm guessing if he doesn't he'll take over the job midseason. He's got more talent and potential than both Weigers and Cook in my opinion. That's not saying Weigers is bad. I just think Stanley will be the better player once he has more time to get comfortable with the playbook and speed of the game.
You can disagree me. That's fine.
What are you basing your 'opinion' on that he has more talent and potential? If he doesn't start till midseason, how will he be the 'next' starting QB at Iowa? So you're actually 'predicting' that Weigers will be the 'next' starting QB at Iowa, but Stanley will takeover at midseason? Is Weigers going to be injured? So if Iowa starts the year next year 6-0 with a upset win at Michigan St., they will switch QB's during their bye week? How about 5-1? Just want to make sure I understand your prediction, because you have contradictions in your post. I would seriously love to know why you think he has more talent and potential? Have you seen him other than 'kids day' when he played 5 minutes and went 3 for 17 (?) throwing the ball against the 3rd string? You were able to come to that conclusion from that? Weigers HS film is actually way better than Stanleys, so it can't be that which is leading you to this conclusion. If you can see a kid for 5 minutes (did you even go to the 'kids day' scrimmage) complete 3 passes against the 'scrubs', and make that determination, you need to quit whatever it is you do for a living and get into coaching/scouting ASAP..............I haven't disagreed with you, I need more information to take it seriously. You may convince me if you give me something more than your 'gut' feeling or your uninformed 'opinion'.
