Ken O'Keefe Raves Over Nate Stanley's Leadership Skills

[westender]

Brought the crazies out in force on this one. So for sure most QBs never had bad games, LOL!!! Peyton Mansell would never throw picks and have some bad games. Chuck Long never had bad games. Stanzi....no bad games. Drew Tate.....no bad games.

Nate Stanley is a very good QB. Glad he is a Hawk and is our starter.

Love seeing same people who loved having KOK back now sort of trashing him too again. I wondered how long that would take. KOK is great coach also.

 

[westender]

Well, he’s obviously not going to go out and say that he’s a poor leader, etc. I’d expect his coach to say this.

However, his body language, and his performance in games against greater than or equal too opponents suggests otherwise. That he’s not a great, or even good leader.

For the record, it seemed like all year that this team really lacked leadership offensively.

We didn't lose to Wisconsin or Purdue this year because of Nate. The one "bad" game and this just sticks in everyone's mind and they let it stew and cloud the whole picture is the Penn State game this year. People should go back and see what Chuck Long did at Ohio State in 1985. But Chuck is an Iowa God. And I do love Chuck Long also.

 

[okeefe4prez]

We didn't lose to Wisconsin or Purdue this year because of Nate. The one "bad" game and this just sticks in everyone's mind and they let it stew and cloud the whole picture is the Penn State game this year. People should go back and see what Chuck Long did at Ohio State in 1985. But Chuck is an Iowa God. And I do love Chuck Long also.

And PSU really came down to a single play. I think Stanley read the blitz and properly audibled. It's just that he called the audible with too little time on the play clock. I can't blame Stanley for the play because the coaches probably got the play in way too late and then didn't call a timeout when it was clear that something bad was likely to happen on the play.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

9 surefire ways to pick up chicks. You won't believe #7. CLICK HERE NOW!

Come on, Rob. The link doesn't work!!!

 

[lightning1]

Brought the crazies out in force on this one. So for sure most QBs never had bad games, LOL!!! Peyton Mansell would never throw picks and have some bad games. Chuck Long never had bad games. Stanzi....no bad games. Drew Tate.....no bad games.

Nate Stanley is a very good QB. Glad he is a Hawk and is our starter.

Love seeing same people who loved having KOK back now sort of trashing him too again. I wondered how long that would take. KOK is great coach also.

Yep. Players have bad games. Doesn't make them bad leaders. In fact, I've been coaching long enough to say that I'm not sure how anyone can judge a QB's leadership abilities by watching the games. You really need to be in practice or be able to have candid conversations with multiple teammates. Leadership is a hard quality to define, with limited access.

 

[CP87]

And PSU really came down to a single play. I think Stanley read the blitz and properly audibled. It's just that he called the audible with too little time on the play clock. I can't blame Stanley for the play because the coaches probably got the play in way too late and then didn't call a timeout when it was clear that something bad was likely to happen on the play.

I agree, coaches should have called TO. The other aspect of this play that needs to be mentioned is 10 guys on offense ran a play, and one (Fant) got caught doing nothing as he was trying to communicate to the WR oustide of him. That play was obviously drawn up specifically for that situation, and Fant's job was to clear out coverage. Because he did not run a route his defender was standing right where Young's route was heading. Frankly, it would have been a TD if Fant had moved, but his defender easily made the interception in this case.


If Stanley had been perfect that play, he would have called TO because he noticed his team wasn't ready, or he would have recognized post-snap that Fant didn't move, their designed play was FUBAR, and he would have rifled it at Young's feet. Stanley could have been better, but there is a lot of blame to go around on that one.

 

[CP87]

Stanley will in all likelihood end up being the career leader in TDs are Iowa. He will accomplish that with a paltry # of interceptions to go with it. It is amazing how many feel that he is the one thing holding this team back.

He has flaws, to be great he needs to improve those. But he also has obvious talents. Many on here discount every single good thing he does, and they focus only on the bad.

We blow out Minnesota and Indiana this year, OSU and Nebraska last year: doesn't count, good performance in a blow out is meaningless (completely ignoring that the good performance is the REASON for the blowout).

He leads his team to either go ahead or game-clinching points vs. ISU that last 2 years, Nebraska this year: doesn't count, ISU was bad in the 80's. Doesn't count, Iowa should have beaten Nebraska by more.

He was a big part of the reason Iowa was in the game vs. Wisconsin despite 2 killer punt-return TOs and 2 goal-to-go scenarios that netted 3 points. But he overthrew an open Hockenson in the 4th Q (a bad miss, admittedly), so he is not a winner.

RBs fumbled on consecutive 4th Q drives vs. NW, so Stanley is not a winner.

Young CBs gave up a bucket-load of big plays vs. Purdue and the coaches came out on the wrong end of chasing 2-pt conversions in the 2nd half, so Stanely is not a winner.

QBs get too much credit and too much criticism, that is nothing new. But the way some treat Stanley's performance on this forum is ridiculous.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

Well, he’s obviously not going to go out and say that he’s a poor leader, etc. I’d expect his coach to say this.

However, his body language, and his performance in games against greater than or equal too opponents suggests otherwise. That he’s not a great, or even good leader.

For the record, it seemed like all year that this team really lacked leadership offensively.

Seeing how other QBs in college and the NFL handle adversity by pouting, sulking, screaming at coaches or players, I'd say Nate is way above average in leadership skills.

 

[DJI9424]

I think it's best to put this in the proper context. This really has nothing to do with athletic performance, it has everything to do with following instructions.

I've mentioned before the military command-like structure of KF's teams. Execution and the discipline necessary to consistently perform your task better than your opposition is a hallmark of a KF-coached team. So in terms of leadership, you don't question the play call or the instruction you have been given, you marshal all your energy to execute the play to the best of your ability.

I can definitely see NS doing just that, leading his team to perform their roles to the best of their ability. Not questioning the plays called but convincing the team that if well-executed, whatever play is called can be successful.

The coaching staff makes the play call decisions, and Nate's job is to take their orders and execute them to the best of his ability. The team follows Nate's lead, and in KF's world of football, that is how it is meant to be. Of course there are always anomalies, like Drew Tate or CJ Beatherd, who by their athletic ability and independent leadership ability, forced their way onto the field of play. However, given a choice, I think it's fair to say that KF and KOK are more comfortable with the NS version of leadership than the Drew Tate version. But as far as entertainment value is concerned, my and many other fans' choice differs from the coaching staff, and not surprisingly, that's football.

 

[lightning1]

I agree, coaches should have called TO. The other aspect of this play that needs to be mentioned is 10 guys on offense ran a play, and one (Fant) got caught doing nothing as he was trying to communicate to the WR oustide of him. That play was obviously drawn up specifically for that situation, and Fant's job was to clear out coverage. Because he did not run a route his defender was standing right where Young's route was heading. Frankly, it would have been a TD if Fant had moved, but his defender easily made the interception in this case.


If Stanley had been perfect that play, he would have called TO because he noticed his team wasn't ready, or he would have recognized post-snap that Fant didn't move, their designed play was FUBAR, and he would have rifled it at Young's feet. Stanley could have been better, but there is a lot of blame to go around on that one.

Fant was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing. Making sure the WR farthest from the QB, got the audible call. Not his fault that Stanley had to snap the ball because the play clock was running out. Which has been a huge, unaddressed problem with this coaching staff, since KF arrived. We can't seem to get a play called early enough in the play clock, to allow for the QB to read the allignment and make an audible with time left on the clock.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I agree, coaches should have called TO. The other aspect of this play that needs to be mentioned is 10 guys on offense ran a play, and one (Fant) got caught doing nothing as he was trying to communicate to the WR oustide of him. That play was obviously drawn up specifically for that situation, and Fant's job was to clear out coverage. Because he did not run a route his defender was standing right where Young's route was heading. Frankly, it would have been a TD if Fant had moved, but his defender easily made the interception in this case.


If Stanley had been perfect that play, he would have called TO because he noticed his team wasn't ready, or he would have recognized post-snap that Fant didn't move, their designed play was FUBAR, and he would have rifled it at Young's feet. Stanley could have been better, but there is a lot of blame to go around on that one.

The end result is all we see, but I agree. I think it was a clear out play where Fant was supposed to go to the outside. Stanley properly called an audible to throw the ball right to the area the blitzer vacated. Having that degree of audible authority is actually a quantum leap in Iowa football. My guess is the pass was to go to Young, but the other issue with the play itself is that the ball was snapped right at 0 on the playclock with a silent count triggered by hand motion and PSU blew up the line because they knew when the snap was coming. Jackson got pushed back and his leg hits Young's foot and causes Young to stumble. Stanley was clearly throwing to a spot and there was a defender in the spot. I don't know what Stanley's authority to use TOs is, so I can't fault him there. Notwithstanding the result, that play was actually good leadership, but it was probably bad judgment under fire. The kid's what, like 20 or 21 years old? I can't fault him there.

 

[pekurhawk]

Let's just hope that if he comes back to Iowa next year, there's not a bunch of preseason NFL scouts drooling about this kid BS. Because if there is,he will probably spend most of the critical game situations on the sidelines.

 

[westender]

And PSU really came down to a single play. I think Stanley read the blitz and properly audibled. It's just that he called the audible with too little time on the play clock. I can't blame Stanley for the play because the coaches probably got the play in way too late and then didn't call a timeout when it was clear that something bad was likely to happen on the play.

Right and KF was trying to call TO and looked like Ref was going to whistle it and then let it go.

 

[pekurhawk]

The end result is all we see, but I agree. I think it was a clear out play where Fant was supposed to go to the outside. Stanley properly called an audible to throw the ball right to the area the blitzer vacated. Having that degree of audible authority is actually a quantum leap in Iowa football. My guess is the pass was to go to Young, but the other issue with the play itself is that the ball was snapped right at 0 on the playclock with a silent count triggered by hand motion and PSU blew up the line because they knew when the snap was coming. Jackson got pushed back and his leg hits Young's foot and causes Young to stumble. Stanley was clearly throwing to a spot and there was a defender in the spot. I don't know what Stanley's authority to use TOs is, so I can't fault him there. Notwithstanding the result, that play was actually good leadership, but it was probably bad judgment under fire. The kid's what, like 20 or 21 years old? I can't fault him there.

Agree, what we need is a 40 year old QB

 

[okeefe4prez]

Agree, what we need is a 40 year old QB

I'm 41 and after my knee surgery I just don't have the hip strength to really drive the ball, so you'll need to look elsewhere.

 

[westender]

I will add also, Nate hasn't recruited anyone, so he plays with guys coaches recruited and with the guys the coaches have in on any given play. He can alter plays but he doesn't control overall strategy and scheme. Some were irate NF was not getting more playing time, especially against Northwestern, but yet it is all Nate's fault and he is a poor leader. So many inconsistencies in the criticisms I can't even keep up with them all.

 

[kicker22]

I agree, coaches should have called TO. The other aspect of this play that needs to be mentioned is 10 guys on offense ran a play, and one (Fant) got caught doing nothing as he was trying to communicate to the WR oustide of him. That play was obviously drawn up specifically for that situation, and Fant's job was to clear out coverage. Because he did not run a route his defender was standing right where Young's route was heading. Frankly, it would have been a TD if Fant had moved, but his defender easily made the interception in this case.


If Stanley had been perfect that play, he would have called TO because he noticed his team wasn't ready, or he would have recognized post-snap that Fant didn't move, their designed play was FUBAR, and he would have rifled it at Young's feet. Stanley could have been better, but there is a lot of blame to go around on that one.

Alright after watching this play again. I stand behind my original thought the day it happened. Regardless of the interception, why are we passing on first and goal with 3 minutes left. Just my opinion but we should have been running the ball and the clock.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Alright after watching this play again. I stand behind my original thought the day it happened. Regardless of the interception, why are we passing on first and goal with 3 minutes left. Just my opinion but we should have been running the ball and the clock.

The original play call might have been an off tackle left run that would have been blown up by the blitzer. A run to the left side behind Hockenson would have made sense there, until you realize there is going to be a blitzer in your face the second you get the ball. The o-line wasn't exactly stellar in short yardage situations in games against teams with decent defenses.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Stanley will in all likelihood end up being the career leader in TDs are Iowa. He will accomplish that with a paltry # of interceptions to go with it. It is amazing how many feel that he is the one thing holding this team back.

He has flaws, to be great he needs to improve those. But he also has obvious talents. Many on here discount every single good thing he does, and they focus only on the bad.

We blow out Minnesota and Indiana this year, OSU and Nebraska last year: doesn't count, good performance in a blow out is meaningless (completely ignoring that the good performance is the REASON for the blowout).

He leads his team to either go ahead or game-clinching points vs. ISU that last 2 years, Nebraska this year: doesn't count, ISU was bad in the 80's. Doesn't count, Iowa should have beaten Nebraska by more.

He was a big part of the reason Iowa was in the game vs. Wisconsin despite 2 killer punt-return TOs and 2 goal-to-go scenarios that netted 3 points. But he overthrew an open Hockenson in the 4th Q (a bad miss, admittedly), so he is not a winner.

RBs fumbled on consecutive 4th Q drives vs. NW, so Stanley is not a winner.

Young CBs gave up a bucket-load of big plays vs. Purdue and the coaches came out on the wrong end of chasing 2-pt conversions in the 2nd half, so Stanely is not a winner.

QBs get too much credit and too much criticism, that is nothing new. But the way some treat Stanley's performance on this forum is ridiculous.

Bingo.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

I agree, coaches should have called TO. The other aspect of this play that needs to be mentioned is 10 guys on offense ran a play, and one (Fant) got caught doing nothing as he was trying to communicate to the WR oustide of him. That play was obviously drawn up specifically for that situation, and Fant's job was to clear out coverage. Because he did not run a route his defender was standing right where Young's route was heading. Frankly, it would have been a TD if Fant had moved, but his defender easily made the interception in this case.


If Stanley had been perfect that play, he would have called TO because he noticed his team wasn't ready, or he would have recognized post-snap that Fant didn't move, their designed play was FUBAR, and he would have rifled it at Young's feet. Stanley could have been better, but there is a lot of blame to go around on that one.

This. He just threw it into a bunch...when it was clear Fant wasn't dialed in on the play.