Live chat with Babb at 11:30 today...

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

And some of us saw him play a fair bit and were never all that impressed.

I think he could develop into a fine long-term backup, along the lines of Todd Collins, but I would be surprised if he became much more than that. Pleasantly surprised, because it would be a real boon for the franchise, but surprised nonetheless.

Stanzi played at a 2nd-tier Big 10 school and all he did was put together one of the most successful 2-season stints in the history of the school.

You know I have a ton of respect for you and your football takes, but if you honestly saw him a "fair bit" and were never all the impressed, I have to question what the hell you were looking for.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Stanzi played at a 2nd-tier Big 10 school and all he did was put together one of the most successful 2-season stints in the history of the school.

You know I have a ton of respect for you and your football takes, but if you honestly saw him a "fair bit" and were never all the impressed, I have to question what the hell you were looking for.

Well, we're a year removed now, but as I recall I tended to think of him as a stronger-armed Greg McElroy. Which was why I always expected him to be drafted here, both because of the Ferentz connection and because the franchise seems to want a game manager behind center. And I thought he made some real strides his final season, after what I considered to be a couple of lackluster initial years as a starter. But in the end, heading into the 2011 draft, my opinion of him was that he was a high floor/low ceiling player, and I thought his most likely upside would be as a career backup. Which is why around the draft that year I was one of the ones against the idea of drafting him in the 2nd or 3rd round, but ultimately okay with taking him in the 5th.

I would love nothing more than to see him exceed my expectations...

And I'd never pretend to be some kind of QB guru or something. It's just my opinion on the guy, and it might well turn out to be wrong. All you have to do to see that is look back at my takes on Drew Brees back in '01.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Well, we're a year removed now, but as I recall I tended to think of him as a stronger-armed Greg McElroy. Which was why I always expected him to be drafted here, both because of the Ferentz connection and because the franchise seems to want a game manager behind center. And I thought he made some real strides his final season, after what I considered to be a couple of lackluster initial years as a starter. But in the end, heading into the 2011 draft, my opinion of him was that he was a high floor/low ceiling player, and I thought his most likely upside would be as a career backup. Which is why around the draft that year I was one of the ones against the idea of drafting him in the 2nd or 3rd round, but ultimately okay with taking him in the 5th.

The problem with your analysis is that he wasn't a game manager at all. In both his junior and senior seasons, he won games all by himself. In his junior season, he had to win several games because it was his interceptions that put them in a hole in the 1st place. He was the antithesis of a game manager for 75% of his time at Iowa. My guess is the one or two times you REALLY got to see him was when he played Michigan or Georgia Tech. Those are pretty specific game plans that called for him to play like that.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

And I'd never pretend to be some kind of QB guru or something. It's just my opinion on the guy, and it might well turn out to be wrong. All you have to do to see that is look back at my takes on Drew Brees back in '01.

I was wrong about Brees too. After his first couple of seasons in Sandy Eggo, I declared him a bust.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The problem with your analysis is that he wasn't a game manager at all. In both his junior and senior seasons, he won games all by himself. In his junior season, he had to win several games because it was his interceptions that put them in a hole in the 1st place. He was the antithesis of a game manager for 75% of his time at Iowa. My guess is the one or two times you REALLY got to see him was when he played Michigan or Georgia Tech. Those are pretty specific game plans that called for him to play like that.

Iowa's on ESPN all the time, man. Pretty sure I watched him play more than twice.

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success. So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Iowa's on ESPN all the time, man. Pretty sure I watched him play more than twice.

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success. So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

I'm in full agreement here

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Iowa's on ESPN all the time, man. Pretty sure I watched him play more than twice.

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success. So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

Good post.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

His picks are part of the reason I put him in the McElroy category.

Not to overplay his flaws, but recklessness with the ball and a propensity to press and throw picks is the opposite of game manager, right?

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I called him Ricky Cassel heading into the draft, because I thought that's the kind of player he would have to be at the pro level: heavily constrained in the confines of a safe system to have any success.

Well, I have to disagree there. They let him open it up quite a bit his senior season and he did pretty well in protecting the ball while continuing to push it downfield. The comparison to Cassel is laughable.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

So the only way I could ever see him playing at this level was in a strictly controlled manager role. He was not somebody that I would expect (or want) to try and carry a pro team. He's not Stafford or Ryan or even Dirty Sanchez. And I would guess that scouts agreed with that assessment, since he was ultimately drafted where he was.

He's inferior to Stafford all around and superior to Sanchez where it matters, intangibles.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think if he was a sure-fire stud the way that some Iowa fans seem to believe that he was, he would not have been drafted in the fifth round. And "second tier Big 10 school (which Iowa is not anymore, they're one of the better teams in the league now)" would not be a reason for that fall, since QBs from no-name schools, who couldn't even hope to be in the same class as Iowa, regularly get drafted early now.

I never said he was a sure-fire stud. In fact, I never suggested he could guaranteed be a full-time starter in this league.

However, labeling him a game manager or career backup before he's EVER taken a regular season snap is ridiculous.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

However, labeling him a game manager or career backup before he's EVER taken a regular season snap is ridiculous.

If projecting what you think a draft pick might be in the NFL is ridiculous, than all of us are ridiculous all the time every April.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

If projecting what you think a draft pick might be in the NFL is ridiculous, than all of us are ridiculous all the time every April.

You know what I mean, Kyle. You've written the guy off without giving him any chance to prove otherwise.

What kind of logic is that, especially when this team DESPERATELY needs a QB? Not saying he's Tom Brady (because he's obviously not) but Brady had similar concerns coming out and look where he ended up. If everybody had given up on him, we'd have missed seeing one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

[Easy 6]

Kent, ya know i love ya... thats why i'm going to kill you... before you do your reputation any more serious damage.

Stick with Cassel? hey! go out into that field, i left a bundle of money out there... no, a little farther, nope keep going... *click, BOOM*

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Stanzi played at a 2nd-tier Big 10 school and all he did was put together one of the most successful 2-season stints in the history of the school.

You know I have a ton of respect for you and your football takes, but if you honestly saw him a "fair bit" and were never all the impressed, I have to question what the hell you were looking for.

I was always very impressed with Stanzi.

Here's the kicker. QBs who fall to the 5th round usually have a significant fatal flaw. Character. Physical limitations (too short, weak arm, etc...). Dumb as a box of rocks. No big game / tough competition experience.

Stanzi had none of those red flags. He played in a competitive conference, has the size, arm strength and accuracy, and is a good leader.

32 teams said despite no flags, he's not good enough. That worries me more than just a little bit. There is most definitely some fatal flaw scouts saw in him for him to fall that low.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I was always very impressed with Stanzi.

Here's the kicker. QBs who fall to the 5th round usually have a significant fatal flaw. Character. Physical limitations (too short, weak arm, etc...). Dumb as a box of rocks. No big game / tough competition experience.

Stanzi had none of those red flags. He played in a competitive conference, has the size, arm strength and accuracy, and is a good leader.

32 teams said despite no flags, he's not good enough. That worries me more than just a little bit. There is most definitely some fatal flaw scouts saw in him for him to fall that low.

I'm a firm believer that EVERYTHING that was viewed as a flaw in his game is coachable.

He was seen as a quarterback that didn't have the arm strength to push the ball downfield in the NFL. Thing is, Zorn is probably the first premier position coach he has had. I could see the ball coming out of his hand better and with more zip than while at Iowa and that was only after a few short weeks of work.

He also made some mistakes early in games that put his team in holes.

Almost half of his picks came in the first quarter of his games on average. Half. He only threw 4 interventions last year and 3 of those came in the first quarter of games. That was likely viewed as a serious red flag to pro scouts and will definitely be something he needs to work on if he wants to stick as the starter once given a chance.

A lot of his picks came from forcing the ball and were thrown with lazy mechanics...he threw a few pick 6s that came off his back foot. Again, coachable faults in his game.

It's just totally tragic he didn't get a chance last year.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by BossChief

It's just totally tragic he didn't get a chance last year.

This is assuming that he wasn't given the chance to earn the job during the season and failed to do so. Is that a safe assumption to make?

Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm too trusting, but I'd tend to think that had he shown anything to the staff during the regular season on the practice field, he'd have gotten his shot. Especially with Palko out there shitting all over the field. And while I always take rumors with a hefty grain of salt, I have heard on a couple of different occasions from a couple of different sources that they were not entirely satisfied with Stanzi's development in 2011.

So maybe it's not a situation of him not being given a chance, maybe it's a situation of him not taking the job, when it was right there for him.

Which would also be a tragedy, of course...

But who knows.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

This is assuming that he wasn't given the chance to earn the job during the season and failed to do so. Is that a safe assumption to make?

Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm too trusting, but I'd tend to think that had he shown anything to the staff during the regular season on the practice field, he'd have gotten his shot. Especially with Palko out there shitting all over the field. And while I always take rumors with a hefty grain of salt, I have heard on a couple of different occasions from a couple of different sources that they were not entirely satisfied with Stanzi's development in 2011.

So maybe it's not a situation of him not being given a chance, maybe it's a situation of him not taking the job, when it was right there for him.

Which would also be a tragedy, of course...

But who knows.

Most people here believe Haley is a lunatic. If you believe that, it's nearly impossible to also believe that Stanzi had any chance to win anything.

I have it on pretty good authority that Palko was Haley's guy (he apparently went apeshit in the locker room after the Chicago win, as if he'd proven everybody wrong) and Palko was going to play no matter what.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Most people here believe Haley is a lunatic. If you believe that, it's nearly impossible to also believe that Stanzi had any chance to win anything.

I have it on pretty good authority that Palko was Haley's guy (he apparently went apeshit in the locker room after the Chicago win, as if he'd proven everybody wrong) and Palko was going to play no matter what.

You could probably fill a phone book with the conspiracy theories about it that have shown up here. Haley was playing Palko as a '**** you' to Pioli. Haley was playing Palko because Cassel is Pioli's guy and they didn't want a QB controversy after Stanzi came. It made for some entertaining reading during the season.