Nate Stanley Weighs In on Fant Usage



The coaches aren't doing any favors with Stanley when Fant isn't out there. Stanley is struggling now and needs every weapons available out there on offense.

Fant wasn't even on the field a lot so the defense didn't take him out of the plays. Max Cooper isn't the weapon they needed on that 3rd down end zone pass. Not a knock on him and I could be wrong, but Fant was on the sideline for that play.

I bet deep down Stanley is pretty frustrated. Who wouldn't be when statistically, one of your best Tight Ends in school history isn't out on the field.
 


Look, at this point Fant is a first round pick. Part of it could be him going into knee or head protection mode and he might not be giving it all for the team. We saw something kind of similar with Clayborn as Iowa started losing games in 2010. Clowney did the same at South Carolina. It's pretty common nowadays and we can piss and moan about Ferentz, but we have no idea what is going on in practice and what the coaches see that maybe we don't. Ferentz wants to win games, I can't imagine him thinking "this guy is the best TE I've had in a decade and I'm not gonna play him." There's gotta be something else going on.
 


I doubt the protection plan is in place. Otherwise he would rarely see the field.

Lack of leadership across the board from AD to coaches to players.
 


Agree with concept that other defenses will try to out scheme your personal. However, other team's sure don't seem to have a problem getting the ball in their playmakers hands more than once a game. Unless Fant is not good enough or something else is going on we are not aware of, it is like playing with two hands tied behind your back when you don't have your best players out on the field to make plays.

Hayden had the same problem with Tim Dwight. I don't think as drastic as what is going on here though.

Maybe someone has been watching the movie Hoosiers to much. :)
 



he's right. but, that isn't the question. and it isn't for stanley to explain why fant isn't in the game. but stanley did (essentially) confirm fant not on field = coaches decision. i'm not a college qb and i never was, but if fant is that good and if tj is that good (they are) then you'd have to double both of them, which you can't do mathmatically, so fant not being on the field immediately helps the defense. period. end of discussion. no alternative, positive to iowa's chances to win, way of looking at this.
 


HaydenHawk56 said:
Agree with concept that other defenses will try to out scheme your personal. However, other team's sure don't seem to have a problem getting the ball in their playmakers hands more than once a game.
Click to expand...

If other teams have a playmaker at WR, they can get him the ball by moving him around and it's harder for our defense to adjust to. Sometimes we'll run a cover two and there is a period where the guy is behind the CB and the safety ain't there yet. Sometimes we'll play way off the guy (actually we do that often) and it opens up quick passes. That's just how our defense is built. I think with Fant the other teams are basically doubling him with a LB and a safety and one of them is told "don't bite on the run at all, just stay with Fant" which takes away the chance for the play action.

The fact is, they can do that on our offense because we don't have the playmakers on the outside to punish them for allocating safety help to Fant every play. We don't have the RBs to punish them for not respecting the run when they try to double Fant and make sure one guy doesn't bite on a play action. When you lack playmakers at WR and RB and can't punish the defense for a double team, you're in big trouble and it goes beyond X's and O's. Furthermore, the line ain't great, so even if we had a guy on the outside who could torch the defense deep, the QB ain't got time to throw, and even if he did, he probably would airmail it 3/4ths of the time. And because the line ain't great, there's almost always an unimpeded defender waiting for our RB either at the LOS or within a yard of it, so it's hard as hell to run the ball for even 3 yards in such a scenario.
 




The few times Fant was in the game, looked like Stanley was checking down all the time anyway and didn't even look for Fant, who was sometime wide open. Never seen so many check downs and safe, almost lateral passes in general by Nate last game. I guess BF and KF might have pushed him to be safer with this throws for all we know.
 


HaydenHawk56 said:
Agree with concept that other defenses will try to out scheme your personal. However, other team's sure don't seem to have a problem getting the ball in their playmakers hands more than once a game. Unless Fant is not good enough or something else is going on we are not aware of, it is like playing with two hands tied behind your back when you don't have your best players out on the field to make plays.

Hayden had the same problem with Tim Dwight. I don't think as drastic as what is going on here though.

Maybe someone has been watching the movie Hoosiers to much. :)
Click to expand...

Yes and No. Finding him ways to get the ball more....yes. But he was on the field. Fant often watches from the sidelines.
 


The issue is that our coaching staff never adjusts our scheme to get a player like Fant open. I'd put him in the slot, out wide, tight to the line, and I'd run him in motion behind the LOS, to keep him from being double teamed or jammed coming off the line. It's stupid not to do this for a player like Fant.
 


I get what Nate is saying, but for fvck sakes Fant needs to be out there. Move him to receiver! So stupid marching guys like Cooper and Groeneweg out there and having Fant on the sideline. Nate has to have more awareness, but this is on the coaches. Noah Fant and Hockensen should NEVER be off the field on an offensive play
 




My first check would be is Fant one on one with someone. If so my decision process ends right there. Ball to Fant. up to Fant to get the ball.
 


Meh, Stanley's words are the exact ones that came out of KF's mouth in the press conference. Everyone knows that question is coming from the media and they were both coached up on the "react to what the defense gives you" which is true to an extend, but complete BS when the offense should be dictating the play and putting their play makers in a position for mismatches.

Fant should be in (with TJH) on as many plays as possible because he is a mismatch (tall, athletic freak and super fast). Most especially a mismatch when NWestern has 2nd and 3rd strong DBs in there. Ok, they doubled Fant up and grabbed him to slow him down. You gotta keep him in the game for both of those reasons (doubling up opens other receivers and eventually the ref will call a PI).
 




So basically we are screwed
okeefe4prez said:
If other teams have a playmaker at WR, they can get him the ball by moving him around and it's harder for our defense to adjust to. Sometimes we'll run a cover two and there is a period where the guy is behind the CB and the safety ain't there yet. Sometimes we'll play way off the guy (actually we do that often) and it opens up quick passes. That's just how our defense is built. I think with Fant the other teams are basically doubling him with a LB and a safety and one of them is told "don't bite on the run at all, just stay with Fant" which takes away the chance for the play action.

The fact is, they can do that on our offense because we don't have the playmakers on the outside to punish them for allocating safety help to Fant every play. We don't have the RBs to punish them for not respecting the run when they try to double Fant and make sure one guy doesn't bite on a play action. When you lack playmakers at WR and RB and can't punish the defense for a double team, you're in big trouble and it goes beyond X's and O's. Furthermore, the line ain't great, so even if we had a guy on the outside who could torch the defense deep, the QB ain't got time to throw, and even if he did, he probably would airmail it 3/4ths of the time. And because the line ain't great, there's almost always an unimpeded defender waiting for our RB either at the LOS or within a yard of it, so it's hard as hell to run the ball for even 3 yards in such a scenario.
Click to expand...
 


HaydenHawk56 said:
So basically we are screwed
Click to expand...

More or less, yes. Typically, if a defense takes away one player or aspect of the game, it opens up something else. But Iowa has no running game whatsoever and no real receiving threat other than the TEs. So you take the TE away and the turd we laid on the field against Northwestern, Wisconsin and PSU is what we have left.
 


Stanley explaining what he 'sees' is hilarious. The guy doesn't see anything at qb, and probably has the worst field vision of any qb I can remember at Iowa. Plenty of times Fant has been wide open, and Nate has had plenty of time and already checked down.
 


Caddy said:
Stanley explaining what he 'sees' is hilarious. The guy doesn't see anything at qb, and probably has the worst field vision of any qb I can remember at Iowa. Plenty of times Fant has been wide open, and Nate has had plenty of time and already checked down.
Click to expand...
Well, if that's the case, maybe we should hire a guy strictly for coaching quarterbacks. Don't go cheap on it, either. Pay the guy Coordinator money. Let's say 500k to 600k.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top