Kempt is great...but....

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

ZB4CY

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2012
2,801
4,526
113
I could very well see us losing the next 4, beating Baylor, and losing to KSU.. yes.

Once these Defenses figure out what were doing and they will. We won't be able to throw it down field. Kempt's progression are nothing compared to what Parks were. Park would sit back there and go through a 4 WR progression before coming back to option 1 and hitting for 15 yards. Kempt isn't going to do that.

Guys can say what they want about him going to OSU and playing for a HS team that won 9 state titles.. blah blah blah. It doesn't mean anything.

Will he progress through the rest of the year? I would assume so. But right now his reads aren't anything compared to Park.

Our playbook is still very limited with Kempt behind center. It will continue to be limited as well. He's a Pro Style quarterback.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: aauummm and ComCY

jsb

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 7, 2008
30,263
32,715
113
We'll be 5-7 if Kempt is the starter the rest of the year.

The same argument could be made if park starts the rest of the games. Getting to 5 wins is going to be tough.
 

ZB4CY

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2012
2,801
4,526
113
I can understand that (although I’m not sure if I agree).

I'm not trying to take anything away from Kempt. He's been hurled into a tough situation.

But there is a reason he had to walk on at Iowa St.

Personally, I think Zeb is better but obviously Kempt is getting the nod because of experience.
 

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,841
8,549
113
Estherville
No he's not. He's not on the team.

If, or when, he does return... I don't think he should start right away if we keep winning with Kempt. That's all I'm saying. Don't ruin a good thing.

If Park returns and Kempt is struggling, that's a different story.

Yes he is. He is on the team and he's been around the facilities.

You constantly fail to see nuance in discussions.
 

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,841
8,549
113
Estherville
I could very well see us losing the next 4, beating Baylor, and losing to KSU.. yes.

Once these Defenses figure out what were doing and they will. We won't be able to throw it down field. Kempt's progression are nothing compared to what Parks were. Park would sit back there and go through a 4 WR progression before coming back to option 1 and hitting for 15 yards. Kempt isn't going to do that.

Guys can say what they want about him going to OSU and playing for a HS team that won 9 state titles.. blah blah blah. It doesn't mean anything.

Will he progress through the rest of the year? I would assume so. But right now his reads aren't anything compared to Park.

Our playbook is still very limited with Kempt behind center. It will continue to be limited as well. He's a Pro Style quarterback.

You have no clue what you're talking about. You're just repeating things you've heard guys say on TV before. He hasn't had to go through progressions. You also would know what a progression looks like.

Your last point is very incriminating evidence that you're talking out of your ass. Kempt has done more in the designed running game than Park has. Park had no desire to keep the ball in any sort of run design. Second, there isn't much in designed QB run game in this offense right now unless Lanning is in. The running game is dynamic in different ways.
 

RonBurgundy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 5, 2017
3,108
4,253
113
41
I don't believe we beat Oklahoma with him so I'd be interested to know where 3 more wins come from.

Exactly. We do not beat OU with Park at the helm, and we would need 3 more wins for a bowl instead of 2 wins. Park may be more talented (when healthy), but give me a heady QB who relies on a team effort, does not turn the ball over, and does not try to win the game all by himself.

Kempt played a near perfect game at OU, and played just how the coaches wanted him to in the slop last Saturday. As long as he is the man, he has 100% of my support and I see no reason the season cannot be a success if he gets all the remaining games.
 
Last edited:

ZB4CY

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2012
2,801
4,526
113
You have no clue what you're talking about. You're just repeating things you've heard guys say on TV before. He hasn't had to go through progressions. You also would know what a progression looks like.

Your last point is very incriminating evidence that you're talking out of your ass. Kempt has done more in the designed running game than Park has. Park had no desire to keep the ball in any sort of run design. Second, there isn't much in designed QB run game in this offense right now unless Lanning is in. The running game is dynamic in different ways.

You're right.. I would know!

But you seem to know my background better than I do, so please continue to tell me things that I supposedly do and do not know!


He hasn't had to go through progressions? Your right, because the plays are designed for him to throw the ball 5 yards and don't require him to go through an extensive progression. Manning clearly knows his reads aren't what Parks are. You don't know that, though.

You clearly don't know what your watching.
 
Last edited:
  • Funny
Reactions: aauummm and ComCY

Tre4ISU

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 30, 2008
27,841
8,549
113
Estherville
You're right.. I would know!

But you seem to know my background better than I do, so please continue to tell me things that I supposedly do and do not know!


He hasn't had to go through progressions? Your right, because the plays are designed for him to throw the ball 5 yards and don't require him to go through an extensive progression. Manning clearly knows his reads aren't what Parks are. You don't know that, though.

You clearly don't know what your watching.

you're*

Yeah, Parks progression was so awesome against Texas. I mean, how can you argue against that? The whole argument that because someone hasn't proven to be able to do something means they can't do it is ridiculous. At what point in either of Kempt's starts would it have been appropriate to start running a bunch of route trees requiring more blocking, time and risk? Never. There was never a need.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: aauummm

ZB4CY

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2012
2,801
4,526
113
you're*

Yeah, Parks progression was so awesome against Texas. I mean, how can you argue against that? The whole argument that because someone hasn't proven to be able to do something means they can't do it is ridiculous. At what point in either of Kempt's starts would it have been appropriate to start running a bunch of route trees requiring more blocking, time and risk? Never. There was never a need.

Ah! The classic your/you're comeback. You got me good there!

Did I ever once say Park played well against Texas? Nah. Of course we're not going to open up the playbook and consistently run deep routes with Kempt starting down in Norman. We would have lost the game by 50 if we did that. Manning deserves a lot of credit for the play calling. There will be a need once defenses start to defend what we are trying to do. You can't really compare what he did in the Kansas game b/c of the conditions.

Why didn't Kempt start the season if he's so good in your eyes?

I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You seem to know everything as it is. I'm clearly wasting my time.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: aauummm and ComCY

cyattack69

Member
Oct 5, 2017
94
173
8
35
you're*

Yeah, Parks progression was so awesome against Texas. I mean, how can you argue against that? The whole argument that because someone hasn't proven to be able to do something means they can't do it is ridiculous. At what point in either of Kempt's starts would it have been appropriate to start running a bunch of route trees requiring more blocking, time and risk? Never. There was never a need.

Want to know how to stymie an argument? Correct the person on their grammar. Well played sir.
 

SCarolinaCy

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2011
3,147
1,289
113
Greenville, SC
Anyone see the KU mishandled punt midway in the 3rd Qtr. As bad as the shank was, (On replay), it appears that the kick was not actually blocked by ISU, and that the refs could have called roughing the kicker on ISU?