Nate Stanley Confirms: "IowalawWasRight on QB Development"

giphy.gif
 
InGoodCo said:
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.
Click to expand...

completing passes to wide open receivers, presumably, is part of every game plan. stanley overthrew multitudes of deep passes and had his share of dirt balls and he was inconsistent on his sideline throws on quick outs. he was good on the medium middle and seem routes and deep in routes. so, in this context, the "executing the game plan" is executing a play. i'll give him credit for very few muffed handoffs over 3 seasons if that helps. :)
 
ArvadaHawk said:
completing passes to wide open receivers, presumably, is part of every game plan. stanley overthrew multitudes of deep passes and had his share of dirt balls and he was inconsistent on his sideline throws on quick outs. he was good on the medium middle and seem routes and deep in routes. so, in this context, the "executing the game plan" is executing a play. i'll give him credit for very few muffed handoffs over 3 seasons if that helps. :)
Click to expand...

And don't forget he was Iowa's all time greatest player ever at executing the QB sneak.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
completing passes to wide open receivers, presumably, is part of every game plan. stanley overthrew multitudes of deep passes and had his share of dirt balls and he was inconsistent on his sideline throws on quick outs. he was good on the medium middle and seem routes and deep in routes. so, in this context, the "executing the game plan" is executing a play. i'll give him credit for very few muffed handoffs over 3 seasons if that helps. :)
Click to expand...

he also won more football games in a 3 year span then maybe a handful of programs did in the country, I give him credit for that too, but good lord let's hang him for some incomplete passes cause no other QB's have those.
 
Also, let me state that Nate Stanley was not and is not as good as I thought he would ultimately be. I expected more. He did a lot of things wrong. Missed throws, had weaknesses.... but I also realize that's the case with every god damn one of them that plays the position. He was very good for Iowa. Not average, very good and to insinuate otherwise is hot garbage.
 
InGoodCo said:
he also won more football games in a 3 year span then maybe a handful of programs did in the country, I give him credit for that too, but good lord let's hang him for some incomplete passes cause no other QB's have those.
Click to expand...

dude, the topic we're discussing is his mechanics and why iowa doesn't work on qb mechanics when it could translate into even MORE wins. you conflated ideas and put words into my mouth.

edit: what you said about career wins over 3 years i am not disputing or discounting. that is simply not the topic i am discussing.
 
guffus said:
And don't forget he was Iowa's all time greatest player ever at executing the QB sneak.
Click to expand...

so right. who here was disappointed we didn't just qb sneak all the way in for that TD vs USC? oh, i SOOOOOO wanted to be able to say "take that you elites football snobs! you couldn't stop an entire series of qb sneaks for a TD. but, i'll live with the win.
 
I actually played a lot of basketball back in the day. There were a couple of instances where I missed 'big" free throws late in games..Someone would ask me what happened, and I would say: My mechanics were poor. In reality, I simply choked (short armed them).

Maybe a little bit of that is going on with Stanley's statement about mechanics. It is really about confidence in the heat of competition. Stanley developed confidence during his junior and senior years, but needs to develop more to succeed in the NFL. Improving "mechanics" is a way of developing more confidence.

I'm sure the Iowa coaching staff is aware of the "mechanics" of a good throwing motion.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
dude, the topic we're discussing is his mechanics and why iowa doesn't work on qb mechanics when it could translate into even MORE wins. you conflated ideas and put words into my mouth.

edit: what you said about career wins over 3 years i am not disputing or discounting. that is simply not the topic i am discussing.
Click to expand...

I didn't put words in your mouth. So, please get that and I hope you understand that I didn't. I didn't say "you said" this. I didn't state you said anything really. Also, I am not really JUST talking to you, but in general to anyone who wants some. I stated that Nate won more games in the last 3 seasons then all but a handful of programs in the country. I realize we are talking about mechanics, but my points are to help ease your or anyone's pain or concern about his mechanics. He was pretty good and my point is, it worked out well for him and Iowa. Well enough for him to be pretty high on the leader boards of Iowa football. Well enough for him to win 27 games in 3 seasons (the same as Long and better any other Iowa QB in a 3 year period). Well enough to throw 68 touchdowns. How bad were his mechanics? How bad was his coaching?

I'm not calling you out specifically so I do apologize if it felt that way.

Fact is, we don't know if better mechanics would have made him a better player. How do we know if the coaches would have concentrated on mechanics instead of game plan that it would have resulted in more wins? We don't. If they put their efforts there instead of somewhere else, something else might have lacked.
 
InGoodCo said:
I didn't put words in your mouth. So, please get that and I hope you understand that I didn't. I didn't say "you said" this. I didn't state you said anything really. Also, I am not really JUST talking to you, but in general to anyone who wants some. I stated that Nate won more games in the last 3 seasons then all but a handful of programs in the country. I realize we are talking about mechanics, but my points are to help ease your or anyone's pain or concern about his mechanics. He was pretty good and my point is, it worked out well for him and Iowa. Well enough for him to be pretty high on the leader boards of Iowa football. Well enough for him to win 27 games in 3 seasons (the same as Long and better any other Iowa QB in a 3 year period). Well enough to throw 68 touchdowns. How bad were his mechanics? How bad was his coaching?

I'm not calling you out specifically so I do apologize if it felt that way.

Fact is, we don't know if better mechanics would have made him a better player. How do we know if the coaches would have concentrated on mechanics instead of game plan that it would have resulted in more wins? We don't. If they put their efforts there instead of somewhere else, something else might have lacked.
Click to expand...

If you want to take this one more step, the mechanical changes he discussed were shortening his base, not stepping into the throw as much, generating more power from hip rotation. Or as he put it, more like swinging a bat at a baseball, less like trying to throw a baseball.

So if he makes these changes early in his Iowa career, hopefully his accuracy improves, and then maybe he has fewer misses. But he is also taking velocity off the ball. Think of all the throws he fit into tight windows that just barely missed a defender's fingertips: some of those throws might turn into INTs with less velocity.

It is really hard to say definitively that, "mechanical change X, if implemented 2 years ago, would have won us more games."
 
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...
So I don't usually do this, but IALawser failed to incite an angry mob on this site. So he took this routine over to another site. And they are not having it there either.
 
InGoodCo said:
It's not like 4 of the last 5 starting QB's at Iowa haven't been drafted either. I guess unless you think NS won't go in the draft. Jesus, super lazy trolling at best.
Click to expand...
Jesus doesn't troll. Well, at least super lazy trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top