I sound like Tim Tebow lovers when I say this, but Stanzi knew how to win.. Plain and Simple, he made the plays to WIN.. Stanzi is clearly coachable as that shows (which is probably why Kansas City wanted him) Vandenberg will get there.. He's got the tangibles, now all he needs is that thing between his shoulders wiser and he'll be fine, it's not like he hasn't played at FOSU on the road with the big 10 championship on the line or anything......
Stanzi v Vandenberg
- Thread starter j21j42m
- Start date
bcl20
Well-Known Member
But... we went 8-5 last year. In 2010 he did not make the plays that allowed us to win. In fact, I'd say he was more tentative in 2010 and that's why his INT total was low. I would say that he did not make the plays that allowed us to win.
Also, what makes it clear that Stanzi is coachable?
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
First off, Iowa went 8-5 last year ... and it wasn't JUST do to issues that Stanzi may or may not have had. Yes, the effectiveness of our passing game went down some in the latter part of the season ... however, arguably the bigger issues was the lack of production of our running game AND some issues we had in pass-pro. It's hard for Stanzi to do his old magic when he's running for his life. Don't get me wrong ... Stanzi made plenty of mistakes ... and I'm sure that he'd be the first one to list them off for you. However, those were TEAM losses ... and the TEAM could have done A TON of the little things better ... little things that could have been the difference between a win and a loss.
Stanzi was clearly coachable because every time the coaches are quoted as saying that there were features of Stanzi's game that they were focusing on working on ... Stanzi then proceeded on improving significantly in those areas. Here are a few examples:
- After his SO year, the coaches placed a big emphasis on taking care of the football. After that point, Stanzi ended up fumbling the ball far fewer times.
- After his JR year, making better decisions was a big emphasis. And, as was evident, his TD numbers continued to go up ... and his INT numbers went down. Even more obvious, during his first 2 seasons starting ... in almost every game he would threw a pass that was a bit too forced and would hit a defender right in the hands. Fortunately to Stanzi, only a small percentage of those passes actually ended up getting picked-off. During his SR year, he threw far fewer of those balls.
- The coaches preach a lot about doing the work, about caring about the details, and about having the right attitude. To Stanzi's credit, he did all of those things AND more! When a guy puts in the time in the film room like Stanzi did ... that's one of biggest elements to being coachable. He clearly listened to the coaches critiques AND he also worked his tail off!
- Another element that illustrated how Stanzi was coachable is how he adapted his film prep based on suggestions made to him by David Raih. Given that Raih is a graduate assistant and has worked under Norm Chow ... it also shows pragmatism and smarts on Stanzi's part of taking some of those suggestions.
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
I'm absolutely in agreement with you there. As I see it, Reiff is a pretty essential ingredient for the 2012 season.
bcl20
Well-Known Member
And 2009 had teams wins in which Stanzi made plays that led to the win, but so did other players. That was kind of my point in regards to Stanzi being a winner. I just hate the term "this guy is a winner" when it comes to high level sports.
The guy is a BCS college athlete, regardless of the teams record I'd say the guy has done well for himself. Were guys on Ferentz's first couple of teams losers?
I'm also glad you gave solid evidence for Stanzi being coachable and not just basing it upon what people see on TV. That's pretty much the reason I asked the question.
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
The guys in Ferentz's first couple of squads had to install and buy into Ferentz's schemes and philosophy first. After that, they needed to learn how to execute in all facets of the game ... to do the "little things."
The great thing about those early teams is that they worked hard, they had a great attitude, and they bought into the system even in spite of all the adversity. You have to recall that folks were calling for Ferentz's head at that time and the pro-Stoops crowd was really making quite a stink. It was pretty cool how the team stood by Ferentz and then proceeded to put together a pretty darn solid '01 season.
Thus, I wouldn't call those guys losers ... I just wouldn't call them winners either ... at least not winners ON the gridiron. Off the gridiron ... a lot of those guys really excelled and have made very good lives for themselves. That too is a testament to their hard work ... and also to the fact that Ferentz and Co place such a strong emphasis on academics!
Anyhow, as for the '09 season, Stanzi definitely made plays ... and that was certainly important. However, what was also important is how tough and effectively Moeaki played ... even in spite of the fact that he was playing at less than 100%. Credit goes to Clayborn for making that great play against PSU. Credit goes to Ballard for moving inside in order to allow Binns to see the field. Credit goes to Klug for making so many plays and attracting a lot of attention ... Klug and Clayborn really helped eachother out quite a bit. Credit goes out to our kick coverage for being fairly consistent. Credit goes to the OL for really playing admirably in spite of all the adversity. Credit goes to Dace Richardson for having such a tremendous season up until his injury. Credit goes to Prater for really playing great as a first-year starter opposite Spievey. Credit goes to the Iowa DL for really responding well after playing so bad against ISU. Credit goes to the LBs for making so many great plays. Credit goes to McNutt for really emerging as a big weapon for our O.
There were just so many important pieces that went together in order to help make the '09 season as successful as it was.
Many fans and potentially several players may have taken it for granted that the 2010 squad would be successful. The problem is that the 2010 squad simply didn't respond all that well to adversity. Don't get me wrong ... at least the group didn't implode like the '06 squad and turn on each other. Unfortunately, however, the 2010 squad lost hope, lost focus, and lost its motivation ... or, as Clayborn put it, they lost their will to win.
hawkeye2011
Well-Known Member
Curious if you could tell me how many Juniors had been selected as a captain by the player's council in previous seasons. JVB has been selected as a captain now 4 weeks in a row.
Seems to me he must be a leader to his teammates.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Nope, both 3-1. We lost at Arizona...hard as I try to forget!
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Fact is, Stanzi never lost a bowl game as our starter. He also never beat Northwestern. On balance, I'm happy with his bowl record!
rdemp4hawks
Well-Known Member
I am going off of how the team responds to him. how they act around him. when stanzi went down against northwestern you could tell (even watching it on TV) that the team almost lost its identity. being elected captain doesn't make you a great leader. I am not knocking on vandy. but there is a difference of leadership between the 2. if you can't see that then your blind to how much stanzi did mean to this team. again I will point this out for a second time. vandy in my opinion will be a better all around qb than stanzi but the leadership is not the same. hopefully vandy will get to that point.
superfan12
Well-Known Member
Whoa. Pump the breaks buddy.
