Nate Stanley Confirms: "IowalawWasRight on QB Development"

IowaLawWasRight

IowaLawWasRight

Well-Known Member
It's been said over the years that Iowa develops elite OL, DBs, TEs and DL. But when it comes to quarterbacks, fans scratch their heads at the lack of improvement shown by QBs over the years. In fact, arguments have been made that QBs actually regress.

While the stats for multi-year starters like Drew Tate, CJ Beathard, Nate Stanley, etc. show little improvement (which is remarkable considering the obvious improvement at other positions), no one has been close enough to the program to pinpoint why Iowa QBs hit their peak after 2 or 3 starts and never really progress after that. For an example, look no further than Nate Stanley, who was touted as a "sure fire first round draft pick" after both his sophomore & jr seasons, but never found a way to duplicate his sophomore year performance against OSU.

There is now a shocking and disappointing explanation for the phenomena straight from the horse's mouth...Per Nate Stanley, no one on Iowa's high dollar coaching staff, including the $5MM head coach, his boy wonder offensive coordinator, his QB whisperer O'Keefe, or their former offensive coordinator OLine coach, teaches Iowa's QBs throwing mechanics. It's not even a consideration. Instead, Nate acknowledged that after 5 years in Iowa's system, the only real QB coaching he's ever received was outside Iowa City at camps taught by QB gurus.

So why does Iowa have a six figure "QBs coach" position on staff? It's mostly ceremonial, was only recently instilled when O'Keefe was let go from his NFL job, and involves mainly footwork.
 
You mean the Nate Stanley that is 2nd in career yards in school history?

Or the Nate Stanley that just finished the 6th best single season in school history in passing yards?

I bet you mean the Nate Stanley that threw for 68 TD's in 3 years, 2nd most in school history.

Ok, now I am just trolling, you probably mean the Nate Stanley that just lead us to our 9th double digit win season ever as a program.

yeah, his mechanics suck. Just ask the QB guru he went to, he probably wasn't selling anything.
 
InGoodCo said:
You mean the Nate Stanley that is 2nd in career yards in school history?

Or the Nate Stanley that just finished the 6th best single season in school history in passing yards?

I bet you mean the Nate Stanley that threw for 68 TD's in 3 years, 2nd most in school history.

Ok, now I am just trolling, you probably mean the Nate Stanley that just lead us to our 9th double digit win season ever as a program.

yeah, his mechanics suck. Just ask the QB guru he went to, he probably wasn't selling anything.
Click to expand...
Kinda won 3 strait bowl games too to pile on.
 
IowaLawWasRight said:
It's been said over the years that Iowa develops elite OL, DBs, TEs and DL. But when it comes to quarterbacks, fans scratch their heads at the lack of improvement shown by QBs over the years. In fact, arguments have been made that QBs actually regress.

While the stats for multi-year starters like Drew Tate, CJ Beathard, Nate Stanley, etc. show little improvement (which is remarkable considering the obvious improvement at other positions), no one has been close enough to the program to pinpoint why Iowa QBs hit their peak after 2 or 3 starts and never really progress after that. For an example, look no further than Nate Stanley, who was touted as a "sure fire first round draft pick" after both his sophomore & jr seasons, but never found a way to duplicate his sophomore year performance against OSU.

There is now a shocking and disappointing explanation for the phenomena straight from the horse's mouth...Per Nate Stanley, no one on Iowa's high dollar coaching staff, including the $5MM head coach, his boy wonder offensive coordinator, his QB whisperer O'Keefe, or their former offensive coordinator OLine coach, teaches Iowa's QBs throwing mechanics. It's not even a consideration. Instead, Nate acknowledged that after 5 years in Iowa's system, the only real QB coaching he's ever received was outside Iowa City at camps taught by QB gurus.

So why does Iowa have a six figure "QBs coach" position on staff? It's mostly ceremonial, was only recently instilled when O'Keefe was let go from his NFL job, and involves mainly footwork.
Click to expand...
Looking for a pat on the back? To me Stanley developed pretty well. He's not perfect. He's not Andrew Luck. But he's a really solid QB that most programs knowing how good he was would have wanted him. He may even develop into a darn good pro QB as well. As with everything NFL related the right team/coaches and fit is paramount for that but we'll see.
 
Say what you want about his career totals, there are not a lot of stats that suggest that Stanley got better in his senior year.

Well, other than the total wins Iowa had each year. But other than that I did not see a lot of numbers go up.
 
guffus said:
Say what you want about his career totals, there are not a lot of stats that suggest that Stanley got better in his senior year.

Well, other than the total wins Iowa had each year. But other than that I did not see a lot of numbers go up.
Click to expand...

One could argue he played a tougher schedule this past season, but his #'s were pretty similar. Less TD's but also less INT's - pretty similar in yards and completion rating. Less 2 first round tight ends too. The only thing I am certain of is he was one of the more elite passers to ever come thru the school. Coaches have only so much time allowed with these guys, most QB's that have NFL aspirations go the QB guru's. Most of them go WAY before their senior seasons. They only exist to help players with perceived issues. This guy is selling a service. Nate is selling his services to the NFL. Not everyone can be so daft to understand how sales work.
 
A cynic might say Nate knows he's going to be a late draft choice so he says he wasn't taught mechanics as if to give teams the impression that he was pretty good even without them and imagine how good he'd be if he had better mechanics.
 
SteveGarvey1 said:
A cynic might say Nate knows he's going to be a late draft choice so he says he wasn't taught mechanics as if to give teams the impression that he was pretty good even without them and imagine how good he'd be if he had better mechanics.
Click to expand...

Weird, it's almost like he's trying to get a job or something?
 
InGoodCo said:
You mean the Nate Stanley that is 2nd in career yards in school history?

Or the Nate Stanley that just finished the 6th best single season in school history in passing yards?

I bet you mean the Nate Stanley that threw for 68 TD's in 3 years, 2nd most in school history.

Ok, now I am just trolling, you probably mean the Nate Stanley that just lead us to our 9th double digit win season ever as a program.

yeah, his mechanics suck. Just ask the QB guru he went to, he probably wasn't selling anything.
Click to expand...

stanley should have left surpassing chuck long's career records by a lot. stanley has stated iowa doesn't work on mechanics, but on game planning, to paraphrase him. so, when a qb is struggling with mechanics that affect how well he can implement a game plan, then why do you not start working on the mechanics?
 
ArvadaHawk said:
stanley should have left surpassing chuck long's career records by a lot. stanley has stated iowa doesn't work on mechanics, but on game planning, to paraphrase him. so, when a qb is struggling with mechanics that affect how well he can implement a game plan, then why do you not start working on the mechanics?
Click to expand...

Based on his numbers he didn't really have any trouble implementing Iowa's game plan. He lost some games but is that really on Nate's mechanics? There's a lot of other moving parts that go into winning and losing games. We're talking about one of the most prolific Iowa quarterbacks to ever play at this school. He should have beaten Chucks records. I have almost no doubt he does if two 1st round TE's stay thru their eligibility like they did back when Chuck played. It just seems like a really dumb hill to die on and it's nitpicking. "QB Mechanics" sounds like off season work to me. Was Doyle on that? Was Nate putting in the work? I mean, Iowa coaches have a time limit of interaction with their players. It shouldn't shock anyone to find out that Iowa is more concerned with beating their opponents then making sure their players have all the right mechanics for what teams are looking for in the NFL.
 
The entire Stanley thing is very complicated. Why did he look so great while at other times not so good? What could we have done if the o-line blocked better in some games? What would last year look like if at least one or both TEs came back? What if Wrs caught the wide open drops they had and were able to extend drives ro score TDs. There are so many what ifs with Stanley as well as many other Qbs both at Iowa and in college.

You have to remember that the coaches only get so many hours with these guys during the week. To me Stanley's mechanics were not terrible and at least from my perspective I would think it is better to devote time to the game plan and nuances of the offense rather than several minutes on hip rotation, delivery angle, etc.

I have said it in other threads. If Nate wants to play QB in the NFL I think he has the tools to do so and now he can use his free time to work on those little things. You have to look at it from both sides and there is no way to know if the time spent was reversed if it would have made a difference or not.
 
SteveGarvey1 said:
Funny thing is, normally you bash a former employer (so to speak) at a job interview, it hurts your chances of getting the job.
Click to expand...
sometimes yeah and I don't think Nate is or was really doing that in this interview, but he IS trying to sell that he is better and despite some of his issues in college, he's now fixed those issues and that he never really concentrated on that sort of thing until now. Stating it was all about winning and losing ball games. It's not that out of the ordinary for guys to say "hey, that was the old me, I'm way better now" when you're trying to get someone to give you moneys.
 
kameltoez102 said:
The entire Stanley thing is very complicated. Why did he look so great while at other times not so good? What could we have done if the o-line blocked better in some games? What would last year look like if at least one or both TEs came back? What if Wrs caught the wide open drops they had and were able to extend drives ro score TDs. There are so many what ifs with Stanley as well as many other Qbs both at Iowa and in college.

You have to remember that the coaches only get so many hours with these guys during the week. To me Stanley's mechanics were not terrible and at least from my perspective I would think it is better to devote time to the game plan and nuances of the offense rather than several minutes on hip rotation, delivery angle, etc.

I have said it in other threads. If Nate wants to play QB in the NFL I think he has the tools to do so and now he can use his free time to work on those little things. You have to look at it from both sides and there is no way to know if the time spent was reversed if it would have made a difference or not.
Click to expand...

So wait, you can't just blame the coaches without any context at all? Or get on a public forum to brag about how "right" you were without having a shred of evidence to the contrary? That's not very fun....
 
InGoodCo said:
So wait, you can't just blame the coaches without any context at all? Or get on a public forum to brag about how "right" you were without having a shred of evidence to the contrary? That's not very fun....
Click to expand...


I am not blaming the coaches or anyone, and it is far too early to say if I am right about Stanley.

I think you are talking to the OP? My point was that it is nearly impossible to say either way the decision of the coaches to work or not work with Nate on Mechanics affected his performance.

My biggest emphasis was that the coaches only have so much time with these guys so they had to decide on what to work on and it was obvious that they chose to work on game planning which I think can also be proven to be a good argument to work on as well but you can't have it all at this level.

I think if Nate gets with the right organization straight away after the draft he could have a nice career in the NFL.
 
As a parent I was around a top Iowa high school baseball program for 4-5 years and the best players start to go to camps when they are 12. Many of you parents have gone through this with the coaching. If someone identifies a kid as being very talented their youth coaches and even high school coaches are not near as astute as making them better. By high school these players are specializing and getting top notch work at camps if they can afford it.

I dont know but I would think Nate S. might have gone to camps toward the end of high school and during summers at Iowa.
 
kameltoez102 said:
I am not blaming the coaches or anyone, and it is far too early to say if I am right about Stanley.

I think you are talking to the OP? My point was that it is nearly impossible to say either way the decision of the coaches to work or not work with Nate on Mechanics affected his performance.

My biggest emphasis was that the coaches only have so much time with these guys so they had to decide on what to work on and it was obvious that they chose to work on game planning which I think can also be proven to be a good argument to work on as well but you can't have it all at this level.

I think if Nate gets with the right organization straight away after the draft he could have a nice career in the NFL.
Click to expand...
We have the same exact ideals on Nate, I was trolling the OP. I agree w/ your take 100%, also Nate Stanley has good mechanics, could make every throw and was a good QB for Iowa. To suggest otherwise is bullshit
 
Two things which may have cut into Nate's numbers in 2019.

  • The team lacked a stud red zone tight end after back to back years of having two of them
  • The team did have a stud kicker and Kirk, for better or worse, leaned on him heavily and put the onus on Nate to "not turn it over in red zone". You saw a huge example of it early on in the Iowa State game and the risk aversement only escalated from there. It wasn't until the second half of the Wisconsin game that Kirk seemed happier to go for the TD when in field goal range. This continued through Minnesota, Nebraska, and especially the Holiday Bowl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top