Wistrom Disciple

Williams forcing too much, trying to play hero. No flow this half after a great first half. Officiating has been brutal.

He threw six interceptions and had five touchdown passes (no rushing TDs) for the season. He had more turnovers than scoring plays. Therefore, one could make the argument that Iowa won despite the performances of their QB. If the criteria of QB quality is based on whether or not the team wins, then you are ignoring individual accountability. It would be like saying Drew Brees (115 games lost) and Brett Farve (114 games lost) were two of the worst QBs of all-time because they lost the 4th & 5th most games as starters in the history of the NFL. To reduce QB play to the end result is ill-advised. I agree with you. Haarberg was a better game manager with an occasional play that made us say WOW. I believe he regressed as the year went on however, becoming more of a liability than an asset for the team. I still don't know how we were able to pull off that Northwestern win after a first play interception, a three and out, and then another interception, but I'm glad we did. For whatever reason, Sims just could not seem to get out of his own way. He has all the tools of being a playmaker, it just wouldn't click for him this year.

Safe to assume you also believe Iowa won 10 games because of their QB play? He caught the snaps, had a season long run of 18 yards, and averaged throwing one touchdown pass every other game! He played the most important position on the field. My sarcastic comments aside, I was impressed that we were able to win with Haarberg as our QB. He did an admirable job under the circumstances. That said, I hope the coaches can find or coach up other QBs to handle leading the team next year. I do not currently see a lot of upside with HH as our quarterback in the future.

Please expand on how and why we won because of HH instead of winning despite HH. I'm assuming you'll fail to mention his 49% passing completion percentage and the way he regressed through the season. But I know your schtick is to nitpick single pieces of a larger statement to try and get a rise out of others. If that gives you your jollies, so be it. My comment was answering the question of whether Sims earned the starting spot at the beginning of the season versus being handed the position. I did not hear a peep from others suggesting that Purdy or Haarberg should be the starter so I tend to assume that neither of them earned the starting spot. Sims' performances did not justify the starting spot and consequently he was benched.

Sims earned it. Purdy was hurt and Haarberg was playing QB, but moonlighting as a tight-end. Until HH started winning (against the largely the easiest teams on our schedule), the assumption was that Sims would come back and start once healthy. Bummer for him, but we kept winning and couldn’t justify swapping. Then when he did get opportunities, he did not capitalize and solidified his spot on the bench.

Some of that can be attributable to the kids, but a lot of that can be improved upon with proper coaching and development. Until Rhule, we really have not had good, true coaching since Pelini. Bo and his staff had a knack for identifying relatively under the radar talent and maximizing their production. Rhule appears to have the same skills based on the one year sample size. I was specifically impressed with Princewell, Lenhardt, Coleman, Lloyd, and the several fill-in offensive linemen this year. If this first year was any indication, we should see several future pros coming through the program once again... and hopefully the wins will follow as these guys develop.

Sure, but we threw money at Sims who was arguably considered a potential NFL prospect (at the time), Wisconsin threw it at Mordecai, Card at Purdue, etc. You can throw money at kids until you're blue in the face, however at the core, success comes down to development and execution.

Yeah... no chance that happens, but nice in theory. What's frustrating is that many fans think it is as simple as just throwing money at the recruits/kids and boom we win 10+ games. I would argue that development of talent and focused practice of repetition are the keys to success. Not saying the donors are irrelevant by any means, but that money is not what has stopped us from being a winning program recently.

But is our luggage "Louis"? Money is not our problem, development has been and hopefully Rhule & staff will be able to correct that in the months and year ahead.

*The NCAA quietly enters the chat*

I'm going to miss Brian Ferentz.

Always keep them guessing, duh!

I wasn’t worried. Better idea is to a commitment to running the ball, and not just on second down after an incomplete pass on first. Settling for drop backs on 2/3 plays is not looking like a successful idea for this team.

Absolutely not.

We need to run the ball and churn out some first downs. Defense being out there way too much.