My Two Cents On Nate Stanley
Five years ago as a staff writer for vikingsterritory, I successfully identified Danielle Hunter as a potential Vikings draft target in one of of my pre-draft articles. I hope my fifteen minutes of fame then will allow me to exercise my "authoritative hack" status when sharing my opinion on Nate Stanley in this forum.
With the 244th pick in the 2020 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings selected Nate Stanley in the seventh round. As a seventh round rookie, Stanley is looking at a $2.7 million, four-year deal with a $77,500 signing bonus.
So what exactly are the Vikings getting with Stanley. The obvious answer of course is “a career backup quarterback”. That answer is indeed spot on, but I think there might be more to Stanley than what first meets the naked eye.
Before Stanley took over the reins as the starting QB for the Iowa Hawkeyes, the team had lost their previous five consecutive bowl appearances between 2011 to 2016.
Stanley however, went on to flip that table and sets the Iowa record for bowl wins in a career with three. Stanley helped guide the Hawkeyes to wins over Boston College in the 2017 Pinstripe Bowl, Mississippi State in the 2019 Outback Bowl, and USC in the Holiday Bowl. In those three wins, Stanley was 47 of 73 for 526 yards 6 TDs and 1 INT.
Stanley is the second leading passer in yards (8297) and touchdowns (68) in Iowa history with a completion percentage of 58.3 and a record of 27-12 as a starter.
Stanley is 4th on the Vikings QB depth chart at the moment,.. but it wouldn't surprise me to see him climb that ladder this pre-season.
Sean Mannion is the incumbent Vikings backup who, like Stanely, is a tall big armed pocket passer. Mannion is the more decorated and accurate thrower of the two.
So why do I favor Stanley over Mannion in the long run? Answer: Leadership intangibles and the ability to win ball games. Mannion started 43 games in his college career, completing 64% of his passes for 13,600 yards, 83 touchdowns and 54 interceptions. As a senior he became the Pac-12 all-time leading passer breaking Matt Barkley’s record. But when it’s all said and done, his Oregon State football teams finished with a combined 26-26 record from 2011 to 2014 with only two bowl appearances.
Mannion started ten games as freshman (winning three) and another eight as sophomore helping lead the Beavers to the 2012 Alomo Bowl. His coach, Mike Riley, decided to start Cody Vaz in that game over Mannion because he though Vaz (a junior) was the most ready to start. That might tell me all I need to know about Mannion's early work ethic and leadership ability.
Mannion has two NFL starts under his belt. Both have been on playoff teams in end-of-the-year meaningless mop-up duty. Both times his teammates played uninspired football around him in losing efforts.
My point is, Stanley is not going to wow you with his ability to take over a game. He was never the MVP candidate during Iowa's biggest wins, yet his teams constantly found ways to play well around him. Despite some of his accuracy issues running a quick strike up-tempo passing attack, he does possess a high football IQ and the ability to protect the football.
For a backup quarterback who will be relegated to holding a clipboard for the majority of his career, I’m not going to get too nit-picky over ball placement issues at this point. I like this kid.
In the Holiday Bowl clip below you will see some inaccurate throws on a few shorter route, (you can’t hide that on film). However, we also see his big arm as he throws the ball well on out routes and deeper shots down field.
Reminds me of an old commercial,
“Stanley, we want to help you do things right!”
I get bored with the constant attempts at judging QB talent by "wins", as though football was a 1-on-1 game. Stanley's team win games. Stanley is, relatively speaking, a bum.
A 7th round draft pick isn't having many expectations placed on him. Its up to Stanley, the bridge to the #3 QB is not a long one. I'd start with that hurdle before ever getting close to discussing him being a potential #2 guy. He's got some decent intangibles, but his accuracy needs to improve or he'll be just another late round guy that didn't make it. He got drafted because he played in a good conference, has a nice arm and NFL size and was a 3-time captain.
He's has some tools, has some upside, He's coachable. He was a good team leader with the Hawkeyes, Farentz got what he wanted from him and I hope our coaches do the same. He's not the SOD, but he's a Viking.
He's not the flashiest late round QB I've ever seen, but as Sticky said, his size and arm should keep him on a roster. But three QB sneaks in a row vs. the Trojans? Kid's got some toughness.
@"Ralphie" said: He's not the flashiest late round QB I've ever seen, but as Sticky said, his size and arm should keep him on a roster. But three QB sneaks in a row vs. the Trojans? Kid's got some toughness.Yep, Ralphie, he's got some intangibles. It would be great if the kid was some kind of pleasant surprise but that means he'll have to change some weaknesses at the pro level and that's very hard to do. Look at board favorite Kyle Sloter: all the physical attributes you could want but he never played enough games or was able to overcome switching position in college to the hardest spot (QB). He didn't think like a QB. NFL Europe would have been so beneficial to a guy like Sloter because real reps under center in game situations are golden. Preseason is garbage football. They can't be replicated. Stanley has a better chance at sticking because of all the intangibles (games played, 3 time captain, BIG 10 conference, pro system, etc.)
@"Ralphie" said: He's not the flashiest late round QB I've ever seen, but as Sticky said, his size and arm should keep him on a roster. But three QB sneaks in a row vs. the Trojans? Kid's got some toughness.What's funny is all of my friends and I were laughing at how good he was at QB sneaks. It felt like the guy would get 7 yards every time that play was called. Nate is a lot more athletic than people think, he just didnt show it in a lot of games. When he did scramble, you'd see that high 4.7 speed. Cannon for an arm but absolutely zero touch on a deep ball and way too many inconsistencies on easy routes.
If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team.
IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad.
If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
@"Jor-El" said:If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad. If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.
You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%
The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
@"Carl Knowles" said:@"Jor-El" said:If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad. If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
What does your QB quiz look like when comparing players of the same era? The game has evolved greatly from the time your HOF players were in college vs your failures time. The more open offenses leads to more targets and more predictable and easier throws.
Completion percentage is such a difficult thing to evaluate without context. Nate had pretty poor receiver talent at Iowa, especially earlier in his career. Lots of drops, poor routes that impacted timing, and so forth. He isn’t the type to shift blame and would never do so in the open. He did have a tendency to sail passes on deep throws, which he admits was due to mechanical issues that he has tried to address through private coaching this offseason, and he would sometimes put a little extra on short throws that required more finesse.
I’ll say this. The kid is really smart. He’s a really hard worker. He is receptive to coaching. The arm and intangibles are there. I’ll enjoy following his career. I doubt he ever becomes an above average NFL starter, but I’m rooting for the kid.
@"claykenny" said: Completion percentage is such a difficult thing to evaluate without context. Nate had pretty poor receiver talent at Iowa, especially earlier in his career. Lots of drops, poor routes that impacted timing, and so forth. He isn’t the type to shift blame and would never do so in the open. He did have a tendency to sail passes on deep throws, which he admits was due to mechanical issues that he has tried to address through private coaching this offseason, and he would sometimes put a little extra on short throws that required more finesse.I’ll say this. The kid is really smart. He’s a really hard worker. He is receptive to coaching. The arm and intangibles are there. I’ll enjoy following his career. I doubt he ever becomes an above average NFL starter, but I’m rooting for the kid.
Question: why does Stanley get this rep as being this lumbering dump truck in the pocket? I'm not saying he's Lamar Jackson, but he's certainly more mobile than Kirk Cousins. He also ran a 4.7 forty at the Combine. Yes, he is a pocket passer for sure, but its not like he can't move around a little.
@"StickyBun" said:@"claykenny" said: Completion percentage is such a difficult thing to evaluate without context. Nate had pretty poor receiver talent at Iowa, especially earlier in his career. Lots of drops, poor routes that impacted timing, and so forth. He isn’t the type to shift blame and would never do so in the open. He did have a tendency to sail passes on deep throws, which he admits was due to mechanical issues that he has tried to address through private coaching this offseason, and he would sometimes put a little extra on short throws that required more finesse.I’ll say this. The kid is really smart. He’s a really hard worker. He is receptive to coaching. The arm and intangibles are there. I’ll enjoy following his career. I doubt he ever becomes an above average NFL starter, but I’m rooting for the kid.
Question: why does Stanley get this rep as being this lumbering dump truck in the pocket? I'm not saying he's Lamar Jackson, but he's certainly more mobile than Kirk Cousins. He also ran a 4.7 forty at the Combine. Yes, he is a pocket passer for sure, but its not like he can't move around a little.
To answer your question, we couldnt figure that out the last 3 years. I think his pocket awareness and willingness to be more mobile just wasnt there. When he did scramble he was quite good at it so it made no sense to me that he was a statute in the pocket. Even on roll-outs he would choose to wait for a guy to get open instead of running 6 yards. I dont know if Brian Ferentz told him to be that way?Nate had a good receiving corps last year so the drop in statistics was inexcusable to me. All of us Hawk fans kept waiting for him to make that jump and some times he showed it, but it consistently never happened. Not saying that can't happen with the Vikes, but I wouldnt hold my breath.
@"JimmyinSD" said:@"Carl Knowles" said:@"Jor-El" said:If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad. If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
What does your QB quiz look like when comparing players of the same era? The game has evolved greatly from the time your HOF players were in college vs your failures time. The more open offenses leads to more targets and more predictable and easier throws.
How about the same draft class as a comparison? Here it is JimmyinSD.Warren Moon 3277 - 48% vs Doug Williams 3286 - 51.4% (1st Rd)
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Jack Thompson 7818 - 55.3% (1st Rd)
Dan Marino 8597 - 57% vs Tony Eason 6608 - 61.4% (1st rd)
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs Chad Pennington 11,446 - 63.6% (1st Rd)Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4% vs Mike Glennon 7411 - 60.4%
Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1% vs Kirk Cousins 9131 - 64.1%
Brandon Weeden 9260 - 69.5% vs Brock Osweiler 5082 - 60.6%
David Fales 8382 - 68% vs Tom Savage 5690 - 56.8%Accuracy or completion percentage in college doesn't always translate as a sure fire indicator of whom will become the more successful NFL quarterback.
Stanley’s biggest problem was always locking on to receivers. He knew who he was throwing to before the play started 95% of the time and followed through with it. When they were covered tightly, he would get happy feet and ultimately good things would not happen. He’s got the arm, and his accuracy is not stellar, but better than people give him credit for. His “process time” is an issue in getting through progressions. He’d force the ball to his first option, while his third option would be open by 10-15 yards. I watched him VERY closely for the last three years. He’s an interesting prospect, but if the process time issues persist, he won’t be able to be more than a back-up at this level.
@"Waterboy" said: Stanley’s biggest problem was always locking on to receivers. He knew who he was throwing to before the play started 95% of the time and followed through with it. When they were covered tightly, he would get happy feet and ultimately good things would not happen. He’s got the arm, and his accuracy is not stellar, but better than people give him credit for. His “process time” is an issue in getting through progressions. He’d force the ball to his first option, while his third option would be open by 10-15 yards. I watched him VERY closely for the last three years. He’s an interesting prospect, but if the process time issues persist, he won’t be able to be more than a back-up at this level.Fair assessment. Yeah, any guy selected in the 7th round is going to be a work in progress. Odds are against him for sure.
@"Carl Knowles" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"Carl Knowles" said:@"Jor-El" said:If you're going to compare 2 NFL QBs based on their college stats, it's suspect if you cite wins (a team stat, as others have noted) but not completion percentage. For all the doubts about Mannion's winning, he completed almost 65% of his passes at Oregon State, compared to Stanley being under 59% - and Mannion threw over 1800 attempts compared to less than 1200 for Stanley - stats get more reliable as you accumulate more of them. Accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. IMO Stanley should only worry about Jake Browning. He's chasing him for accuracy but has a better arm and I wouldn't be surprised if he sticks on the practice squad. If Stanley sticks for a year or two, the biggest stat to compare with Mannion will be salary. At the moment, Mannion is relatively reasonable (about $1M/year) as a veteran NFL backup. But if he manages to play in a couple more games, maybe even win one and throw a couple TD passes, even in mop-up duty, he might become a mildly-expensive backup QB and the Vikings will look to replace him.
Suspect is correct. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges when I talk about Mannion vs Stanley but they have distinctly different attributes.You say accurate throwing is a better predictor of NFL success than playing on a winning team. College accuracy and career yardage doesn't always equally NFL success. Take the comparison quiz below and tell me you would always take the more accurate college thrower (these are career collage stats).
Warren Moon 3277 yards 48.8% vs Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4%
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1%
Dan Marino 8597 -57% vs Brandon Weeden 69.5%
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs David Fales 8382 - 68%The NFL Hall of Fame doesn't give a rats toot about how accurate a QB was in college.
Jor-El, because I appreciate your comment. I will edit my post to include Stanley's career yardage and his lackluster completion percentage.
What does your QB quiz look like when comparing players of the same era? The game has evolved greatly from the time your HOF players were in college vs your failures time. The more open offenses leads to more targets and more predictable and easier throws.
How about the same draft class as a comparison? Here it is JimmyinSD.Warren Moon 3277 - 48% vs Doug Williams 3286 - 51.4% (1st Rd)
Joe Montana 4121 - 52% vs Jack Thompson 7818 - 55.3% (1st Rd)
Dan Marino 8597 - 57% vs Tony Eason 6608 - 61.4% (1st rd)
Tom Brady 4773 - 61% vs Chad Pennington 11,446 - 63.6% (1st Rd)Geno Smith 11,662 - 67.4% vs Mike Glennon 7411 - 60.4%
Robert Griffen III 10,366 - 67.1% vs Kirk Cousins 9131 - 64.1%
Brandon Weeden 9260 - 69.5% vs Brock Osweiler 5082 - 60.6%
David Fales 8382 - 68% vs Tom Savage 5690 - 56.8%Accuracy or completion percentage in college doesn't always translate as a sure fire indicator of whom will become the more successful NFL quarterback.
but look at these comparisons in relation to your previous ones, these are much closer than what you had previously posted. shows that the passing game is getting much better in term of accuracy from the QB position. as far as college to the pros, I dont think there is any sort of barometer as to who will succeed and who wont, except that they get into a situation that fits the QB and allows them to grow without to much pressure and that they have a good/great supporting cast of coaches and players around them.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.