QB improvement needed

vegashawki

Well-Known Member
One of BTN Josh Perry’s takeaways from observing the Hawks this week. I don’t understand how we seem to always be missing that piece of the puzzle. I hope he is wrong, but to hear being said so close to the start of the season is concerning.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
One of BTN Josh Perry’s takeaways from observing the Hawks this week. I don’t understand how we seem to always be missing that piece of the puzzle. I hope he is wrong, but to hear being said so close to the start of the season is concerning.
The first part is that they’re aren’t a lot of good QBs to go around in the first place. And then when you add to it the fact that our offense is run first and has been one of the most anemic in all of D1 for the past several years…makes it a pretty tough recruiting sell to get a good quarterback here.
 

HaydenHawk56

Well-Known Member
To think how we had QBs back in the day like Chuck Long, Chuck Hartlieb, Matt Rodgers, Brad Banks, Drew Tate..........and for one day where Stanley got possessed by the QB Gods in combination with extremely poor planning by Wife Cheating, Head-Ache faking, Urban Myer.
 

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
The first part is that they’re aren’t a lot of good QBs to go around in the first place. And then when you add to it the fact that our offense is run first and has been one of the most anemic in all of D1 for the past several years…makes it a pretty tough recruiting sell to get a good quarterback here.
When BF is your Qb coach and OC that's not exactly a selling point either. Especially when other schools do their negative recruiting tactics and just tell it like it is with his resume... Can't even blame them. Stating that BFs pretty much the worst OC over the duration of his tenure the last 5 yrs in D1 is just a fact...

A lot of eggs have been put in the Lainez kids basket I think. But it'll be awhile till he's going to be suited up. Till then it's the Petras show and who knows what else
 

SCHawkeye2

Well-Known Member
We have had a few 'playmaker' QB's in the Ferentz era - Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Beathard. They also happen to coincide with our best seasons.
The QB's usually described as 'serviceable' or 'game managers' seem to be at the helm during our lesser seasons (last season being the exception due to our schedule).
I submit there is a positive correlation between our level of QB playmaking ability and our seasonal success.
My frustration is rooted in KF's decision on multiple occasions to continue to start a 'serviceable' game manager when he has a 'playmaker' on the bench (who often gets little or no playing time).

McCann > Banks
Christenson > Stanzi
Rudock > Beathard

My question is why?
Inability to evaluate potential talent?
Irrationally risk averse?
Other?
 

dagdaj

Well-Known Member

A really good o-line can make turn a serviceable game manager into a solid QB.
A really good o-line with a really good running back can make them into a very good quarterback.
A really good o-line with a really good running back and an exceptional tight end or two can turn you into a name that's whispered in hallowed grace by alumni for all eternity. At least, at Iowa.
 

racerhawk

Well-Known Member
A really good o-line can make turn a serviceable game manager into a solid QB.
A really good o-line with a really good running back can make them into a very good quarterback.
A really good o-line with a really good running back and an exceptional tight end or two can turn you into a name that's whispered in hallowed grace by alumni for all eternity. At least, at Iowa.
Well put. Certainly, would love to have a better QB option this year, but some of what happened last year was absolutely due to a sub par o line.
 

dagdaj

Well-Known Member
Of course, a good place kicker, a good punter, an above average special teams, and a punishing defense and you'll look even better.

But, as someone asked earlier in the thread..."why can't we ever put all the pieces together?" Outside of a few schools, nobody really can. Even harder for a school that's not one of the handful perennial "contenders". That used to be about a dozen teams. Nebraska, Penn State, Notre Dame fell off that list years ago. Miami? LSU? Even Michigan is out of that mix now. Texas? Long gone. That list is down to about 6 teams that can have a full boat of above average pieces and parts year in, year out. That list isn't going to grow with NIL and superconferences and the binary focus on "the national championship".

I just hope the Hawks can stay on that secondary list of teams that occasional knit something special together. And I hope that something special can be a great season. Big 10 title contention won't get any easier as the conference swells. I will have to find my bliss elsewhere.

At least I'm not a Mizzou fan. That would be miserable.
 

SmokeTownHawk

Well-Known Member
Of course, a good place kicker, a good punter, an above average special teams, and a punishing defense and you'll look even better.

But, as someone asked earlier in the thread..."why can't we ever put all the pieces together?" Outside of a few schools, nobody really can. Even harder for a school that's not one of the handful perennial "contenders". That used to be about a dozen teams. Nebraska, Penn State, Notre Dame fell off that list years ago. Miami? LSU? Even Michigan is out of that mix now. Texas? Long gone. That list is down to about 6 teams that can have a full boat of above average pieces and parts year in, year out. That list isn't going to grow with NIL and superconferences and the binary focus on "the national championship".

I just hope the Hawks can stay on that secondary list of teams that occasional knit something special together. And I hope that something special can be a great season. Big 10 title contention won't get any easier as the conference swells. I will have to find my bliss elsewhere.

At least I'm not a Mizzou fan. That would be miserable.
With the move to super-conferences, conference titles in football to teams like Iowa will become much like titles in basketball, in that it's seen as more satisfying to many fans to finish in the top third of the conference. An outright B1G championship will require a perfect storm for a team, even a very good Iowa team to achieve.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
With the move to super-conferences, conference titles in football to teams like Iowa will become much like titles in basketball, in that it's seen as more satisfying to many fans to finish in the top third of the conference. An outright B1G championship will require a perfect storm for a team, even a very good Iowa team to achieve.
Kinda like now...
 

NorthKCHawk

Well-Known Member
I took Perry's comments to mean that Iowa needs to improve its QB play compared to last year, not that Iowa's QB play in camp was below where it was supposed to be. I may have misunderstood. If my hearing of it was correct, then I hardly think it is newsworthy. There is not a fan or pundit out there that watched Iowa last year that does not agree that Iowa needs material improvement in QB play. I am confident Petras will be better, the question is will it be marginally better or will he take a bigger step forward.

He has the arm talent, is a bright kid, and a good leader. If he can play within the offense and have some early season success, he can be one of the better QBs in the West (which isn't that high a hill to climb).
 

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
We have had a few 'playmaker' QB's in the Ferentz era - Banks, Tate, Stanzi, Beathard. They also happen to coincide with our best seasons.
The QB's usually described as 'serviceable' or 'game managers' seem to be at the helm during our lesser seasons (last season being the exception due to our schedule).
I submit there is a positive correlation between our level of QB playmaking ability and our seasonal success.
My frustration is rooted in KF's decision on multiple occasions to continue to start a 'serviceable' game manager when he has a 'playmaker' on the bench (who often gets little or no playing time).

McCann > Banks
Christenson > Stanzi
Rudock > Beathard

My question is why?
Inability to evaluate potential talent?
Irrationally risk averse?
Other?
Because the younger player couldn't recite the playbook backwards to the coaches blindfolded. I think it's just a stubborn way of running teams. They for whatever reasons are hesitant to go with the player with more playmaking ability with their legs until the other player involved is just so bad it's undeniable that the other is better.

KF once he makes a decision doesn't like to change either. It's like an admission that he'd decided wrong to begin with and human nature isn't to want to admit that either.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
KF once he makes a decision doesn't like to change either. It's like an admission that he'd decided wrong to begin with and human nature isn't to want to admit that either.
As a coach myself I've never understood that mindset. Granted, I'm not a P5 coach that has to answer to cameras and media other than some generic questions from the local newspaper, but I make changes all the time if things aren't working. I want to win.
 

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
As a coach myself I've never understood that mindset. Granted, I'm not a P5 coach that has to answer to cameras and media other than some generic questions from the local newspaper, but I make changes all the time if things aren't working. I want to win.
Yeah the QB position is weird like that for some. Remember when Moss was a freshman and had to come in and Purdue went deep on him like 2 or 3 times in a row? Iowa yanked him out after that.

What game was it last yr when Petras couldn't hardly throw the ball 25 yards with anything on it but yet they started him for a series before putting Padilla in? I mean holy crap you mean to tell me they couldn't tell in warm ups that Petras couldn't throw yet still put him out there? Whatever their reasons for it I can't say I agree with any of them.
 

NorthKCHawk

Well-Known Member
I have said it before, but I would love to see BF come up with a package for Labbas to run. I am not going to fret over KF's conservative approach to the QBs, and wanting the guy in there that he trusts the most. That is just who he is. But, you have a dual threat QB sitting on the bench and an offense in desperate need of a kick start. Why not have the kid come in and run some read option or gadget play for 4-5 plays. As long as he is told that any sort of turnover will result in his butt being superglued to the bench, what harm is there? 50/50 shot the normal offense goes 3 and out anyway. Let's see what the kid can do. And maybe give opposing DCs a reason to not go on vacation the week they are prepping for Iowa.
 
Top