Quarterback battle thread…

[RagnarLothbrok]

Didn’t see a thread about this other than the Ferentz quarterback controversy history that was started a few months ago.

Any tidbits on who might be separating himself a little bit or is it still neck and neck?

 

[HawksRule73]

Didn’t see a thread about this other than the Ferentz quarterback controversy history that was started a few months ago.

Any tidbits on who might be separating himself a little bit or is it still neck and neck?

If we find out, it’ll probably be after the night scrimmage they have at the end of fall camp before game week. If we don’t hear by then, it’s gonna go into the season.

 

[UIAlumFireFighter]

Didn’t see a thread about this other than the Ferentz quarterback controversy history that was started a few months ago.

Any tidbits on who might be separating himself a little bit or is it still neck and neck?

I believe Lester has already said the battle will probably go through camp and into the season, no?

I feel like they are willing to (Publicly) let the competition go for a lengthy period of time simply to not discourage the [eventual] loser.

 

[BigDonkey]

I feel like Brown may be the more accurate passer from things Ive heard. He's also more conservative of the 2. Maybe it depends how the Defense will be. If very stout like previous years then maybe Brown is the guy to methodically move the ball and not turn it over.If the defense gives up more points this year then maybe you want the gunslinger Hecklinski in there to hit more big plays and score more points but also turn it over at a higher rate ?

 

[Ripcord]

I can imagine three possible realities on the current status of the Qb situation:

1) neither of them is any good, so neither has separated himself from the other.

2) both are pretty good/very good and neither has separated himself from the other.

3) One or the other (take your pick which one) is noticeably better than the other and probably has all but won the competition in spring practice, but for obvious reasons they are not publicly announcing it and continue to characterize the situation as a neck-and-neck "open competition."

 

[nu2u]

I can imagine three possible realities on the current status of the Qb situation:

1) neither of them is any good, so neither has separated himself from the other.

2) both are pretty good/very good and neither has separated himself from the other.

3) One or the other (take your pick which one) is noticeably better than the other and probably has all but won the competition in spring practice, but for obvious reasons they are not publicly announcing it and continue to characterize the situation as a neck-and-neck "open competition."

3

 

[r_desihawk]

I can imagine three possible realities on the current status of the Qb situation:

1) neither of them is any good, so neither has separated himself from the other.

2) both are pretty good/very good and neither has separated himself from the other.

3) One or the other (take your pick which one) is noticeably better than the other and probably has all but won the competition in spring practice, but for obvious reasons they are not publicly announcing it and continue to characterize the situation as a neck-and-neck "open competition."

4. Tradon Bessinger era begins

 

[UIAlumFireFighter]

I feel like Brown may be the more accurate passer from things Ive heard. He's also more conservative of the 2. Maybe it depends how the Defense will be. If very stout like previous years then maybe Brown is the guy

More conservative play from the QB….

I vote Absolutely NO

 

[eyesofhawk]

More conservative play from the QB….

I vote Absolutely NO

Then there wouldn't be any reason to expect the defense to remain as strong

 

[Passing Is For COMMIES]

Then there wouldn't be any reason to expect the defense to remain as strong

Absolutely, don’t these blue pills understand that a low QB completion percentage downgrades the defenders stats in the matrix?

 

[eyesofhawk]

Absolutely, don’t these blue pills understand that a low QB completion percentage downgrades the defenders stats in the matrix?

Complementary football

 

[Passing Is For COMMIES]

Complementary football

Deacon Hill completed 48.6% of his passes, not exactly complementary there. Complementary football goes both ways.

Let’s add on, the offense collapsed after Nate Stanley left, the defense went from giving up 14 PPG (2019) to 14.8 PPG (2023). Somehow, the team won the same amount of games those years, despite this dramatic decline of the defense. But 2023 was actually better in Points per drive, had a higher stop rate, and a lower yards per play.

Were they just lucky? Maybe, just maybe, the defense was just as talented that year, so they performed the same (better actually). But with Stanley Iowa actually won games against top 25 opponents, notably beating undefeated #7 Minnesota and crushing #22 USC in that 2019 season. But with Deacon Hill Iowa lost by an average of 30.5 points against the 2 ranked teams he started against (with zero points scored).

Maybe, just maybe, a good passing game is important to winning, and good WRs aren’t just shiny toys that distract you. Since I know you’ll make some comment like “I never said that” I’ve screenshotted it below:

Yes, complementary football is good, and helps you win. It also goes the other way, the offense has to complement the defense by scoring. If they don’t you only beat average teams, and get whooped by the real teams.

Then there wouldn't be any reason to expect the defense to remain as strong

 

[eyesofhawk]

Deacon Hill completed 48.6% of his passes, not exactly complementary there. Complementary football goes both ways.

Let’s add on, the offense collapsed after Nate Stanley left, the defense went from giving up 14 PPG (2019) to 14.8 PPG (2023). Somehow, the team won the same amount of games those years, despite this dramatic decline of the defense. But 2023 was actually better in Points per drive, had a higher stop rate, and a lower yards per play.

Were they just lucky? Maybe, just maybe, the defense was just as talented that year, so they performed the same (better actually). But with Stanley Iowa actually won games against top 25 opponents, notably beating undefeated #7 Minnesota and crushing #22 USC in that 2019 season. But with Deacon Hill Iowa lost by an average of 30.5 points against the 2 ranked teams he started against (with zero points scored).

Maybe, just maybe, a good passing game is important to winning, and good WRs aren’t just shiny toys that distract you. Since I know you’ll make some comment like “I never said that” I’ve screenshotted it below:

Yes, complementary football is good, and helps you win. It also goes the other way, the offense has to complement the defense by scoring. If they don’t you only beat average teams, and get whooped by the real teams.



View attachment 1387362

1. All of this in response to me simply making the point that risk taking qb's can make it hard on the D/smart qb's can compliment the D?

Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.

2. No need to mischaracterize something you've to linked verbatim. People can read.

3. I only claim having never said things about stuff that I've never said

 

[2D]

We won't hear anything definitive until the first game week Tuesday presser with Kirk. I'll even take what we see on Kids Day with a grain of salt, but that will be the one time we can see what the guys look like after a few months. I still think we'll definitely see split reps for the first game.

 

[eyesofhawk]

We won't hear anything definitive until the first game week Tuesday presser with Kirk. I'll even take what we see on Kids Day with a grain of salt, but that will be the one time we can see what the guys look like after a few months. I still think we'll definitely see split reps for the first game.

No "go Hawks"?

You can't abandon the cover up now.

Go Hawks!

 

[Passing Is For COMMIES]

1. All of this in response to me simply making the point that risk taking qb's can make it hard on the D/smart qb's can compliment the D?

Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.

2. No need to mischaracterize something you've to linked verbatim. People can read.

3. I only claim having never said things about stuff that I've never said

1. This is a response to you ruining every thread on here. I spend more time on here than I should because usually I enjoy it, but you just kill it. 90% of all threads that start trending in a positive direction, are fun to read/comment on, and have people giving some solid opinions or thoughts, result in some dumb argument between you and someone else. (Just like I’m doing now, JFC) Because you cannot possibly fathom the idea of someone else having an opinion that differs from your own.

And that’s not what you said, at all. Your response, which I quoted, was “then there wouldn’t be any reason to expect the defense to remain strong.” Therefore a QB that isn’t conservative can’t support a defense at all, per your words. The key word here is any, meaning you believe there is zero reason the defense could remain strong with a less efficient QB. Which is frankly not true at all. Stanzi, Beathard, and Tate were all aggressive QBs that had a great defenses to support them, defenses that were great despite their non risk averse nature. Notably, their starting seasons account for almost all of Kirk’s best seasons.

I, unfortunately, have to waste my precious time on this earth to be as specific as possible, because you will find the tiniest loophole to exploit and drag this out as long as possible. No matter how dumb it makes you look.

For example:
“Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.” Obviously a QB that throws no picks supports the defense. A QB also has to pick up first downs, eat up TOP, score points, etc. That involves risk. You cannot, and will not, win at the highest level without taking risks. But you just ignore all nuance, and boil it down to the simplest possible idea, probably because that’s all you can mentally handle.

You deflect the point everyone makes to overly simplistic ideas, hopefully to ragebait them into arguments. I truly, TRULY, hope you are just a troll, because the other option is a sickening level of mental illness/disability that doesn’t allow you to absorb new information and grow/develop as a person. The other option is that you’re just stuck in some pre pubescent state of mental development.

I’ll quote your response again at the bottom, as reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit of yours. As you have proven many times over.

2. You don’t understand the definition of mischaracterization, clearly. Please explain how it was mischaracterized. I would love to wake up to a good laugh tomorrow.

3. False. At the very best, you can say you’ve claimed to have never said things that you have heavily implied.

Then there wouldn't be any reason to expect the defense to remain as strong

Don’t expect a response to whatever dumbass comment you make troll. I, unlike you, have a life, and cannot respond here all day every day. I went out drinking with some friends on a Friday night, and you caught me in a drunken motivation to respond to your ragebait when I got back home. I don’t have the time to be on here 24/7 dragging every argument out to the end of the earth. I’ve responded in a moment of weakness, unfortunately. The worst part is that I do think you’re a troll, so you’re probably reading this and just laughing at me. SMH

 

[The Big Z]

1. This is a response to you ruining every thread on here. I spend more time on here than I should because usually I enjoy it, but you just kill it. 90% of all threads that start trending in a positive direction, are fun to read/comment on, and have people giving some solid opinions or thoughts, result in some dumb argument between you and someone else. (Just like I’m doing now, JFC) Because you cannot possibly fathom the idea of someone else having an opinion that differs from your own.

And that’s not what you said, at all. Your response, which I quoted, was “then there wouldn’t be any reason to expect the defense to remain strong.” Therefore a QB that isn’t conservative can’t support a defense at all, per your words. The key word here is any, meaning you believe there is zero reason the defense could remain strong with a less efficient QB. Which is frankly not true at all. Stanzi, Beathard, and Tate were all aggressive QBs that had a great defenses to support them, defenses that were great despite their non risk averse nature. Notably, their starting seasons account for almost all of Kirk’s best seasons.

I, unfortunately, have to waste my precious time on this earth to be as specific as possible, because you will find the tiniest loophole to exploit and drag this out as long as possible. No matter how dumb it makes you look.

For example:
“Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.” Obviously a QB that throws no picks supports the defense. A QB also has to pick up first downs, eat up TOP, score points, etc. That involves risk. You cannot, and will not, win at the highest level without taking risks. But you just ignore all nuance, and boil it down to the simplest possible idea, probably because that’s all you can mentally handle.

You deflect the point everyone makes to overly simplistic ideas, hopefully to ragebait them into arguments. I truly, TRULY, hope you are just a troll, because the other option is a sickening level of mental illness/disability that doesn’t allow you to absorb new information and grow/develop as a person. The other option is that you’re just stuck in some pre pubescent state of mental development.

I’ll quote your response again at the bottom, as reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit of yours. As you have proven many times over.

2. You don’t understand the definition of mischaracterization, clearly. Please explain how it was mischaracterized. I would love to wake up to a good laugh tomorrow.

3. False. At the very best, you can say you’ve claimed to have never said things that you have heavily implied.


Don’t expect a response to whatever dumbass comment you make troll. I, unlike you, have a life, and cannot respond here all day every day. I went out drinking with some friends on a Friday night, and you caught me in a drunken motivation to respond to your ragebait when I got back home. I don’t have the time to be on here 24/7 dragging every argument out to the end of the earth. I’ve responded in a moment of weakness, unfortunately. The worst part is that I do think you’re a troll, so you’re probably reading this and just laughing at me. SMH

Ignore him. It makes your life a lot better. Anyone who tries to justify Deacon Hill playing deserves no 2nd thought.

 

[BHoppy]

I have no idea but wonder if it does go into the season for both QBs, how do they react.

Will they focus on not making mistakes, as KF sometimes likes a QB that does not take chances. Does Lester have the final say? Have no idea and hope they both have a great fall camp.

 

[Heathen Raider]

I have no idea but wonder if it does go into the season for both QBs, how do they react.

Will they focus on not making mistakes, as KF sometimes likes a QB that does not take chances. Does Lester have the final say? Have no idea and hope they both have a great fall camp.

Lester has a big vote, a huge vote, Per KF , I also think Lester will pick the right Guy, Fans including Myself want Heck to win the comp and for Lester to be full clockwork orange holding the eyes open on Bessinger for playbook study to fast track that Kid

 

[Garzatough85]

Run first offense including a QB with legs seems to work best for us.

 

[Passing Is For COMMIES]

Ignore him. It makes your life a lot better. Anyone who tries to justify Deacon Hill playing deserves no 2nd thought.

I normally do but the booze took over last night lmao

 

[eyesofhawk]

Ignore him. It makes your life a lot better. Anyone who tries to justify Deacon Hill playing deserves no 2nd thought.

So, the Iowa staff deserves no 2nd thought? Gotcha.

What don't you understand about Labas not having been an option?

 

[Ripcord]

4. Tradon Bessinger era begins

you are being facetious, I have to assume.

As far as Bessinger, I too am excited about him, but my biggest fear is that he has to wait two (or very possibly three) years to start and that he might therefore transfer. Sort of similar to the "problem" with the running back room having a good bit of talent.

 

[r_desihawk]

you are being facetious, I have to assume.

As far as Bessinger, I too am excited about him, but my biggest fear is that he has to wait two (or very possibly three) years to start and that he might therefore transfer. Sort of similar to the "problem" with the running back room having a good bit of talent.

no i was somewhat serious. i am definitely in the minority but neither hank unable to take advantage of an incredible opportunity brown nor jeremy lack of measurable hecklinski seems like the answer to a great season. i also hope i am wrong.

 

[eyesofhawk]

1. This is a response to you ruining every thread on here. I spend more time on here than I should because usually I enjoy it, but you just kill it. 90% of all threads that start trending in a positive direction, are fun to read/comment on, and have people giving some solid opinions or thoughts, result in some dumb argument between you and someone else. (Just like I’m doing now, JFC) Because you cannot possibly fathom the idea of someone else having an opinion that differs from your own.

And that’s not what you said, at all. Your response, which I quoted, was “then there wouldn’t be any reason to expect the defense to remain strong.” Therefore a QB that isn’t conservative can’t support a defense at all, per your words. The key word here is any, meaning you believe there is zero reason the defense could remain strong with a less efficient QB. Which is frankly not true at all. Stanzi, Beathard, and Tate were all aggressive QBs that had a great defenses to support them, defenses that were great despite their non risk averse nature. Notably, their starting seasons account for almost all of Kirk’s best seasons.

I, unfortunately, have to waste my precious time on this earth to be as specific as possible, because you will find the tiniest loophole to exploit and drag this out as long as possible. No matter how dumb it makes you look.

For example:
“Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.” Obviously a QB that throws no picks supports the defense. A QB also has to pick up first downs, eat up TOP, score points, etc. That involves risk. You cannot, and will not, win at the highest level without taking risks. But you just ignore all nuance, and boil it down to the simplest possible idea, probably because that’s all you can mentally handle.

You deflect the point everyone makes to overly simplistic ideas, hopefully to ragebait them into arguments. I truly, TRULY, hope you are just a troll, because the other option is a sickening level of mental illness/disability that doesn’t allow you to absorb new information and grow/develop as a person. The other option is that you’re just stuck in some pre pubescent state of mental development.

I’ll quote your response again at the bottom, as reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit of yours. As you have proven many times over.

2. You don’t understand the definition of mischaracterization, clearly. Please explain how it was mischaracterized. I would love to wake up to a good laugh tomorrow.

3. False. At the very best, you can say you’ve claimed to have never said things that you have heavily implied.


Don’t expect a response to whatever dumbass comment you make troll. I, unlike you, have a life, and cannot respond here all day every day. I went out drinking with some friends on a Friday night, and you caught me in a drunken motivation to respond to your ragebait when I got back home. I don’t have the time to be on here 24/7 dragging every argument out to the end of the earth. I’ve responded in a moment of weakness, unfortunately. The worst part is that I do think you’re a troll, so you’re probably reading this and just laughing at me. SMH

- I replied to a guy who posted he "absolutely (did) not (want more conservative play from qb's)."

So I told him, in that case, it shouldn't be expected for the "D to remain AS strong."

I'm not advocating for overly conservative play. Simply making the point that part of the reason Iowa's D has been so good for 2.5 decades, is their qb's haven't put them in a lot of bad positions.

There isn't a football coach in all of history that would have a problem with what I first posted. And I can promise you that Iowa's qb's have been taught to play with their defense in mind.

- It takes more than one poster to "ruin" a thread. And there was nothing in my first post that was at all destructive in nature. Had no one replied to it, that would have been my lone contribution to the thread. But you did reply to it. Am I then not allowed to reply to you?

I'm allowed to have thoughts about this stuff too. And imagine what I think about some of the posts on here. You don’t think I find a lot of it offensive?

When people have differing opinions, doesn't it then come down to supportive reasoning and who is able to counter the other's points. Having takes that are strong enough to be "argued" has nothing to do with not being able to fathom opposing opinions.

- You characterized me as saying, "good WR's are just shiny toys that distract you."

Whereas in the material you linked, it can be seen that my words mentioned "speedy WR's", as part of a GROUP of toys that can "TEMPT" OC's to "TOO OFTEN" grasp for the shine, and "CAN make it EASIER to forget" the stuff of substance.

- Again, the only things I claim to have not said are things that I have not said. I know what I have and have not posted. So unless you’re able to provide links that delegitimize my word, at the very best, you are left with the choice to accuse another man of lying

 

[Istvan Teleky]

Ignore him. It makes your life a lot better. Anyone who tries to justify Deacon Hill playing deserves no 2nd thought.

This is the correct response.

Just ignore Eyes, there is no value whatsoever to his/her posts. Simply do not read them.

If anyone does find the urge to argue, might I suggest taking it to the dedicated thread created just for Eyes. It would be a better place for that battleground AND keep threads on track.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

3

Gut or inside info?

 

[nu2u]

Gut or inside info?

Speculation. But I don’t think a coach like Lester gets through weeks long practices & scrimmages without having a pretty solid notion about QB1 - the player who can only lose it at Fall camp.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Then there wouldn't be any reason to expect the defense to remain as strong

That’s a really lousy way of looking at it, and, frankly, a false dichotomy.

Obviously, the first job of the quarterback is to take care of the football. The problem with your position is we have seen ultra conservative play from the quarterback position still result in multiple turnovers in a game. Hence why prior to last year Iowa had a goose egg in the win column against top 25 teams spanning multiple seasons. So, your “RUN THE BALL” hot take is a much better take than this one.

Second, the primary purpose of the offense is to move the football and put points on the board. Novel, I know. To accomplish that, you need a quarterback capable of making plays and moving the chains. Three yard outs on 3rd and 8 do not accomplish that objective. Now, if nothing else is open after your second and third read, then, yes, check it down and live to fight another day. Unfortunately, for multiple seasons, the problem had been the ultra conservative mindset (you alluded to as key for the defense) had become so pronounced that the 3-yard check down pass more often than not appeared to be the quarterback’s second read and at times even primary read. (Now, in fairness to past Iowa quarterbacks, O-line play at one point had been so bad that no one could blame whoever for coming off that first read in a nanosecond to check it down before getting buried in the turf.) Regardless, that is not winning football anymore than excessive dependence on punting is.

The bottom line is Iowa needs a quarterback not only capable of taking care of the football but also capable of moving the chains. Last season, Mark Gronowski settled in and filled that role quite nicely—something we hadn’t seen in a long time. It’s no coincidence that Iowa’s improved success on offense, particularly the second half of the season, coincided with having a quarterback able to extend plays and pick up first downs with his legs. And more times than not, a drive will depend on a third down situation in which a quarterback has to make a play with his legs to keep the chains moving. Otherwise, the punt team is trotting out on to the field.

You want to help the defense? Keep them off the field.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Complementary football

Garbage offense + elite defense is no sane person’s understanding of “complementary” football. That ******* euphemism should have been retired in 2022.

But, hey, you at least get props for spelling the word correctly.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

1. All of this in response….qb's can compliment the D?

Whoops. Never mind.

You must have just gotten lucky the first time.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Speculation. But I don’t think a coach like Lester gets through weeks long practices & scrimmages without having a pretty solid notion about QB1 - the player who can only lose it at Fall camp.

I have every faith in Lester to make that determination.

 

[Lionhawk85]

I think it’s going to be Heck, but the staff knows a mobile and smaller QB is pretty dangerous to rely on all season, so they NEED to keep Brown engaged and thinking he has playing opportunity so he doesn’t bolt and leave the position perilously thin with experience. I think that’s always been a bit of KFs M.O. but especially this year and with transfer portal being an easy escape route.

All speculation of course….on a different note, can we refer to the quarterback competition (battle) as the Quarter-battle? I kid I kid

 

[uihawk82]

I have no idea but wonder if it does go into the season for both QBs, how do they react.

Will they focus on not making mistakes, as KF sometimes likes a QB that does not take chances. Does Lester have the final say? Have no idea and hope they both have a great fall camp.

Several poor practices by one of the two QBs could make the decision come sooner. My feeling is that since they arent getting hit hard in practice they are confident enough to make most all the plays

 

[uihawk82]

you are being facetious, I have to assume.

As far as Bessinger, I too am excited about him, but my biggest fear is that he has to wait two (or very possibly three) years to start and that he might therefore transfer. Sort of similar to the "problem" with the running back room having a good bit of talent.

If Heck and Brown dont get it done then Bessinger has to feel it is his for the taking next season

 

[uihawk82]

Garbage offense + elite defense is no sane person’s understanding of “complementary” football. That ******* euphemism should have been retired in 2022.

But, hey, you at least get props for spelling the word correctly.

Retired!!?? That should never be the focus of a football team. The focus should be score a bunch and dont give up many scores at all. It is just amazing how the offensive line play improved a ton after Brian left. Lester's run scheme sets up a lot of great angles for the blockers.

 

[Grayhair1981]

Retired!!?? That should never be the focus of a football team. The focus should be score a bunch and dont give up many scores at all. It is just amazing how the offensive line play improved a ton after Brian left. Lester's run scheme sets up a lot of great angles for the blockers.

This!
The offense's job is to score points.
The defense' job is to prevent the other team from scoring. Some of the cult followers on here have come to believe that eschewing offense and having a punter pin the other team deep so the defense can score off turnovers is a reliable formula for winning. I mean it worked in that 7-3 SDSU masterpiece so why wouldn't it be just as effective against the OSUs of the world?

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Retired!!?? That should never be the focus of a football team. The focus should be score a bunch and dont give up many scores at all. It is just amazing how the offensive line play improved a ton after Brian left. Lester's run scheme sets up a lot of great angles for the blockers.

Well, okay, yeah. I agree. I hated the term from the beginning, but you know what I meant—the term was coined for the sole purpose of making a bullsh*t excuse for why the offense had to suck.

 

[2D]

1. This is a response to you ruining every thread on here. I spend more time on here than I should because usually I enjoy it, but you just kill it. 90% of all threads that start trending in a positive direction, are fun to read/comment on, and have people giving some solid opinions or thoughts, result in some dumb argument between you and someone else. (Just like I’m doing now, JFC) Because you cannot possibly fathom the idea of someone else having an opinion that differs from your own.

And that’s not what you said, at all. Your response, which I quoted, was “then there wouldn’t be any reason to expect the defense to remain strong.” Therefore a QB that isn’t conservative can’t support a defense at all, per your words. The key word here is any, meaning you believe there is zero reason the defense could remain strong with a less efficient QB. Which is frankly not true at all. Stanzi, Beathard, and Tate were all aggressive QBs that had a great defenses to support them, defenses that were great despite their non risk averse nature. Notably, their starting seasons account for almost all of Kirk’s best seasons.

I, unfortunately, have to waste my precious time on this earth to be as specific as possible, because you will find the tiniest loophole to exploit and drag this out as long as possible. No matter how dumb it makes you look.

For example:
“Do you not agree with that? Because I'm not exactly sure how some of what you've posted relates.” Obviously a QB that throws no picks supports the defense. A QB also has to pick up first downs, eat up TOP, score points, etc. That involves risk. You cannot, and will not, win at the highest level without taking risks. But you just ignore all nuance, and boil it down to the simplest possible idea, probably because that’s all you can mentally handle.

You deflect the point everyone makes to overly simplistic ideas, hopefully to ragebait them into arguments. I truly, TRULY, hope you are just a troll, because the other option is a sickening level of mental illness/disability that doesn’t allow you to absorb new information and grow/develop as a person. The other option is that you’re just stuck in some pre pubescent state of mental development.

I’ll quote your response again at the bottom, as reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit of yours. As you have proven many times over.

2. You don’t understand the definition of mischaracterization, clearly. Please explain how it was mischaracterized. I would love to wake up to a good laugh tomorrow.

3. False. At the very best, you can say you’ve claimed to have never said things that you have heavily implied.


Don’t expect a response to whatever dumbass comment you make troll. I, unlike you, have a life, and cannot respond here all day every day. I went out drinking with some friends on a Friday night, and you caught me in a drunken motivation to respond to your ragebait when I got back home. I don’t have the time to be on here 24/7 dragging every argument out to the end of the earth. I’ve responded in a moment of weakness, unfortunately. The worst part is that I do think you’re a troll, so you’re probably reading this and just laughing at me. SMH

Great job to you and everyone else fighting against that worthless loser's lies and delusions. I always used to destroy him in arguments, but reading his blatantly anti-Iowa beliefs and attempted fan policing was enough for me to cut him off. Just happy to see Hawk fans working together against a anti-Iowa troll. Maybe at some point we'll need to get Kakert's attention to see if we can't get him permabanned.

 

[eyesofhawk]

That’s a really lousy way of looking at it, and, frankly, a false dichotomy.

Obviously, the first job of the quarterback is to take care of the football. The problem with your position is we have seen ultra conservative play from the quarterback position still result in multiple turnovers in a game. Hence why prior to last year Iowa had a goose egg in the win column against top 25 teams spanning multiple seasons. So, your “RUN THE BALL” hot take is a much better take than this one.

Second, the primary purpose of the offense is to move the football and put points on the board. Novel, I know. To accomplish that, you need a quarterback capable of making plays and moving the chains. Three yard outs on 3rd and 8 do not accomplish that objective. Now, if nothing else is open after your second and third read, then, yes, check it down and live to fight another day. Unfortunately, for multiple seasons, the problem had been the ultra conservative mindset (you alluded to as key for the defense) had become so pronounced that the 3-yard check down pass more often than not appeared to be the quarterback’s second read and at times even primary read. (Now, in fairness to past Iowa quarterbacks, O-line play at one point had been so bad that no one could blame whoever for coming off that first read in a nanosecond to check it down before getting buried in the turf.) Regardless, that is not winning football anymore than excessive dependence on punting is.

The bottom line is Iowa needs a quarterback not only capable of taking care of the football but also capable of moving the chains. Last season, Mark Gronowski settled in and filled that role quite nicely—something we hadn’t seen in a long time. It’s no coincidence that Iowa’s improved success on offense, particularly the second half of the season, coincided with having a quarterback able to extend plays and pick up first downs with his legs. And more times than not, a drive will depend on a third down situation in which a quarterback has to make a play with his legs to keep the chains moving. Otherwise, the punt team is trotting out on to the field.

You want to help the defense? Keep them off the field.

- Again, you guys try to put a lot of words into my mouth and make this about things that I haven't commented about.

Again, the only point I've elaborated about is the fact that Iowa's defense wouldn't have been as good as it's been over 2.5 decades, had it's qb's put them in more bad spots. (There’s also an overarching point about fans assigning credit/blame to individual phases, and ignoring the complementary component of it. But we'll leave that asside for now).

You can try to make it into whatever you want. But I don't think there's any arguing the fact that Iowa's D wouldn't have been as good all these years had their qb's put the D in more bad spots. And again, I can promise you Iowa's qb's have been coached to play with their defense in mind.

- As for the stuff you've tried to make it into:

- You seem to imply that I'm advocating for ultra-conservative qb play, which I clearly did not.

- Iowa had a losing streak vs top 25 teams because of multiple turnovers? Thoughtful take there.

- No, the primary purpose of an offense is not to put points on the board, but rather, to do whatever it takes to help the team win the game. That's why later in games, teams determine the clock to be the main opponent when attempting to close out games.

- Not sure why you gave a 3rd and 8 example in realtion to how to move chains. If you're in 3rd and 8 very often, those chains won't be moving much. So you better be able to run it on early downs, if you want to talk moving the chains.

- I know you aren't at many games, as you've told us times you even quit watching them on TV. So tell me, how is it that you are able to comment on qb reads, without most of 3rd level action even fitting on the horizontal angle of TV broadcasts? (I'm guessing you don't have access to endzone or sky cam footage). Wait, silly me, why would I expect you to need footage of the defensive backfield to examine qb reads, when you've many times, given us your opinions without having even watched the games?

- Now, in fairness, you at least seem to recognize a couple seasons that simply came down to the o-line, and rendered so many narratives to be so secondary, at best.

- What you deemed to be not winning football averaged 9 wins over those 2 seasons, and won a division title.

- You first seemed to imply that less conservatism in the pass game is what it takes to move the chains. Then you use Grono as an example of playmaking. But Grono took almost zero risks through the air. His plays were made with his legs, and many were designed runs. Run the ball.

- Two things that must happen to be successful on 3rd downs are a good enough running game to stay out of 3rd and long, and a good enough running game to convert on 3rd and short. So, thanks for bringing up moving the chains. Run the ball.

- You are correct. Help the D by keeping them off the field. And especially with a lead, by keeping the clock running. Run the ball