Nate Stanley

[HawkeyeDenis]

My assessment of Nate Stanley.

Good quarterback with a lot of upside. He has the prototypical size you want in a college or NFL quarterback. Good arm. He can make the deep throws and the touch passes. Makes good decisions. Tendency to get flustered late in games.

In short. He has all the things you want in a major college or NFL quarterback. What's lacking is confidence. He second guesses himself. Not a lot. Just enough to where he doesn't get the ball where it needs to go. Sometimes it's too hard, sometimes it behind the receiver. That split second is the difference sometimes.

Nate is a competitive guy, just not a Drew Tate. Drew was totally focused on that field. Sometimes to a negative. But he was fighting out there from the first play on. He was the captain out there. He had no problem getting in the face of a 300 pound lineman. He was the guy you want on your side in a scrap.

Rick Stanzi had a defensive backs mentality. He could throw a few interceptions, settle down and be the quarterback you want in the fourth quarter. Nate doesn't have that.

 

[clim3]

I think Nate is still developing mentally. He’s good and getting better.

 

[BVHawk95]

He was balling out until the last two drives. That scramble and throw to Hock was a beauty. If he can become that guy full time, he'll end up an all time great at Iowa.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

I think next year h could be a very good QB. This year he is growing.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

He's not a finished product yet. He's not exactly perfect with his reads just yet but when he does make the right read and decisive throw he can be absolutely awesome. That camera view from behind Stanley of his first TD to Fant was a perfect example of how the timing of Easley cutting inside and forcing that safety to make a decision to either go with him or keep dropping back on Fant was a great play design. Stanley timed it just right to let that go as he was reading that safety if he kept going back he had Easley for about a 12 yard gain plus easy. Instead Stanleys eyes were on Easley and that safety bit up on him the rest is history

 

[phdsvp]

He's a junior, kids. He's not some redshirt freshman. Iowa keeps ending up with these three-year starters who are barely passable as seniors. He's got a lot of natural talents but has shown almost zero chutzpah to win a game when it's on the line. If he loses another couple of games, I don't want to hear about "potential". I'd rather see if the two quarterbacks on the roster have potential AND the ability to come up big in big games. It's not time to panic at the QB position, but I can see it from here.

 

[SidFarkas]

The first two games this year he was poor.
The Wisconsin and NW games on the road last year, he was awful.
I gave him last year...can he win games when things go off schedule? Couldn’t Saturday.

 

[okeefe4prez]

The first two games this year he was poor.
The Wisconsin and NW games on the road last year, he was awful.
I gave him last year...can he win games when things go off schedule? Couldn’t Saturday.

Might have been able to. Give him a pass on 4th and 1 and a rollout pass on that 3rd and goal from the 2 and I think we win that ball game. Sometimes you gotta take the Ferrari out of 1st gear.

 

[HawkGold]

His weaknesses are pretty fundamental. Not likely to change. Lot's of good attributes. Really good at some.

Not being able to finesse passes when needed will keep this from being a stellar team.

BF is kinda the same way. Shows a lot of promise. Not sure he will ever be able to really manage a complete game. He doesn't get certain basic things. He made some great calls. With NS as QB you need a protected pocket.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

My assessment of Nate Stanley.

Good quarterback with a lot of upside. He has the prototypical size you want in a college or NFL quarterback. Good arm. He can make the deep throws and the touch passes. Makes good decisions. Tendency to get flustered late in games.

In short. He has all the things you want in a major college or NFL quarterback. What's lacking is confidence. He second guesses himself. Not a lot. Just enough to where he doesn't get the ball where it needs to go. Sometimes it's too hard, sometimes it behind the receiver. That split second is the difference sometimes.

Nate is a competitive guy, just not a Drew Tate. Drew was totally focused on that field. Sometimes to a negative. But he was fighting out there from the first play on. He was the captain out there. He had no problem getting in the face of a 300 pound lineman. He was the guy you want on your side in a scrap.

Rick Stanzi had a defensive backs mentality. He could throw a few interceptions, settle down and be the quarterback you want in the fourth quarter. Nate doesn't have that.

Funny, I was going to start a thread weeks ago asking the general question if Stanley has that "IT" factor. Stanzi had that Moxi. Tate was Clutch. The question is if Stanley has or can develop that "IT" factor.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Might have been able to. Give him a pass on 4th and 1 and a rollout pass on that 3rd and goal from the 2 and I think we win that ball game. Sometimes you gotta take the Ferrari out of 1st gear.[/QUOTE]


Nice line.

 

[uihawk82]

The first two games this year he was poor.
The Wisconsin and NW games on the road last year, he was awful.
I gave him last year...can he win games when things go off schedule? Couldn’t Saturday.

Things didnt go off schedule until there were only 57 seconds left in the game.

After the second punt fumble when Wisky went ahead Nate led us on a great answering drive to get the lead back.

The first drive of the game we go on a great 80 yard drive but get no points, should have maybe got 3 points.

Goal line offensive play calling needs to revolve around the TEs I think rather than some runs. Pass on first down like to fant and hock.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Funny, I was going to start a thread weeks ago asking the general question if Stanley has that "IT" factor. Stanzi had that Moxi. Tate was Clutch. The question is if Stanley has or can develop that "IT" factor.

I don't think you develop it, I think you either got it or you don't. Stanley has it, but he's playing for a Coach and O-Coordinator who refuse to let him let his nuts hang. Guys who have sons know what I mean. Kid wants to go do something fun and if mom or grandma is around it's all like "no lil pookie bear, I don't want you jumping across the bed trying to catch the football mid air, what if you fall and get a boo boo?" My guess is Mama Bear Ferentz runs a tight house and it has rubbed off on the boys and consequently our team. I mean, I can picture O'Keefe letting his 12 year old grandson jump off the back of the Davenport to execute an atomic leg drop off the top rope on his cousin, but I can't see any of that shit going down at the Ferentz house. Just look at how O'Keefe let Banks, Tate and Stanzi play the game versus the "I just walked into Lake Superior in March and my nuts are buried in my stomach" mentality that the guys have had since O'Keefe. Thoughts?

 

[HuckFinn]

He's a junior, kids. He's not some redshirt freshman. Iowas keep ending up with these three-year starters who are barely passable as seniors. He's got a lot of natural talents but has shown almost zero chutzpah to win a game when it's on the line. If he loses another couple of games, I don't want to hear about "potential". I'd rather see if the two quarterbacks on the roster have potential AND the ability to come up big in big games. It's not time to panic at the QB position, but I can see it from here.

Thank the good Lord you are not coaching the team.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

He had an opportunity to start a legacy in the fourth quarter of the Wisconsin game. He came up empty three times.

That was disappointing because he really played well the first three quarters, but I think he has what it takes. At some point this season...he's going to have to make plays in the fourth quarter to win a game...maybe several games. Jury is out, but the question will be answered this year.

The good thing is that he has improved every game in my opinion. He's going to need to play well at Minnesota too.

 

[trj]

The magic he has with Hockenson and to a lesser degree Fant needs to be spread to the other receivers. I feel bad for Easley because he should have twice as many catches than he has. Klatt made a great observation during the game those dig routes(or whatever they are called) that the Patriots run with their slot receivers is exactly what BF has been doing with Easley. Those routes are such a killer on 2nd and 5, 3rd and 4, Stanley has gotta consistently hit them.....They are not difficult throws.

 

[4thngoal]

I agree, all he needs is a little more confidence.
He's coming along.
I agree with KF, that maybe he was just trying to be to perfect and it had negative impacts. Instead of being a little tiny bit off, he was quite a ways off.
Little relaxation and confidence goes a long way.
I think maybe some coaches pushed the higher completion thing and he just got to focused if you know what I mean. Instead of putting it in a position where you have to trust your receivers a little, he got to focused. You hear it all the time "he needs to catch that one".
On another note, we are like TE U now, huh??
Get a couple guys to do a little more at wr and we could have a really nice passing game.
Ol. Check. Qb. Check. Te. Check. Rb...... Good, but it sure would be nice to get a few more to the next level. Which we are getting there.

 

[okeefe4prez]

He had an opportunity to start a legacy in the fourth quarter of the Wisconsin game. He came up empty three times.

That was disappointing because he really played well the first three quarters, but I think he has what it takes. At some point this season...he's going to have to make plays in the fourth quarter to win a game...maybe several games. Jury is out, but the question will be answered this year.

The good thing is that he has improved every game in my opinion. He's going to need to play well at Minnesota too.

No. That coaching staff called the most absurd play on 3rd and 5 with about 6 minutes to go in the 4th. They needed to call a damned screen or some short quick hitter instead of running guys off like they did. There was literally no play he could have made against that kitchen sink blitz.

And Stanley did win the damned Iowa State game. We needed a play in the 4th, he made it. The kid is good, he was shaky early and missed a ton of deep passes but he clearly was on Saturday night.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

Is it just me, or does Stanley look a little bloated this year...or does the camera add 10 pounds? Seriously, has the extra bulk helped his game? The kid does have his moments. He showed his rocket arm on Saturday.
[URL='https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiZkpzw8dTdAhVFlKwKHSOkBYgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesworld.net%2Ffat-men-little-coats-the-oral-history-of-tommy-boy.html&psig=AOvVaw0izUBpRrWxy-vd0tz5DL5J&ust=1537921368025189'][/URL]

 

[Adam]

Funny, I was going to start a thread weeks ago asking the general question if Stanley has that "IT" factor. Stanzi had that Moxi. Tate was Clutch. The question is if Stanley has or can develop that "IT" factor.

Stanley has the body and all the arm talent in the world. The "IT" factor you are talking about I attribute to just being an intense competitor. Stanley is a soft spoken kid who I believe is very cerebral. I don't ever see him being any teams emotional leader. He needs to approach the game in a manner that fits his personality. That is cool and calculated. We don't need Johnny Manziel at QB to win. We need 4 full quarters of what we got for 3 against Wisconsin and this team will be darn good.