HawkeyeGameFilm takes an In Depth Look at Iowa Passing game
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
GesterHawk
Well-Known Member
Why would you pull out the jet sweeps for Jake's numbers? Aren't they rushing plays while he was QB?
LG210
Well-Known Member
Yep.
There is logic to excluding or equalizing outliers (for example, a break away run from 40 yards out for a touchdown and a break away run from 80 yards out for a touchdown likely should be valued the same in making a comparison of a QB's effectiveness in boosting the run game--otherwise, one data point is "penalized" simply due to field position prior to the play), but if you are to exclude/equalize some outliers, all should be excluded/equalized for both QBs.
Really, I think the sample sizes are too small to eliminate idiosyncratic variability--down, distance for first down, score, opposing defense, random play making (or errors), stategy, weather, personnel, etc.
I was wondering if there was such a marked difference that a conclusion could be drawn one way or the other, but I don't think that is possible given the relatively small difference between the run games when each QB was playing.
Seacrest out.
Pretty obvious who the starter should be.
Ah this is great.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
Pretty obvious who the starter should be.
Awesome town. This is derp Davis offense strategy. It's so obvious jake, figure it out.
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
I didn't pull them out -- they are included in the original numbers. I just thought it was worth noting how much of the rushing yards came on 2 plays (and didn't even address that it was against FCS competition). Also, I wanted to note them because they are "non-traditional" rushing plays and I felt should be considered in the context of analyzing the RB's productivity under Jake. Afterall, isn't the lack of production from the "base" running game -- Weisman, Canzeri, Bullock, Daniels -- the critical issue for most?
It's no question, the RB production is significantly higher with CJB at QB than Jake. This could be interpreted as validating what many believe to be the intangible benefit that CJB brings that Jake has yet to achieve -- the long ball threat -- which helps relieve the box a bit. At the same time, it could also simply be a matter that the OL and RB's are finally developing, both as individual units and co-dependent units.
We will find out soon enough. If the rushing productivity takes a step back with Jake starting and resurges when CJB is in the game, you begin to elimate the interpretation that it was a "chemistry and development" issue and can more reliably conclude that CJB makes the whole offense more productive.
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
Simple ...
Jake has 31 + 17 + 17 +7 = 72 / 3.5 games = 20.6 ppg, so far 2014. This is significantly lower than 2013.
Without breaking down every qtr, giving Jake credit for 321 (of the 342 total) points scored over an equivalent of 12 games = 26.75 ppg.
CJ has 17 + 24 = 41 / 1.5 games = 27.3 ppg, so far in 2014.
(Same estimate as above for 2013) 21 points / 1 game equivalent.
Again, small sample size for CJ but a pretty significant improvement, none the less -- both personally, year-over-year and relative to Jake.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
The runningback cohort of Weisman/Canzeri/Daniels/Bullock is performing significantly better when CJB is in the game. (I would consider this group to be the better indicator of how "the running game" is producing.)
Also points per game and points per play are higher under CJB.
Although the sample size is small.
That's nitpicking. We can slice these these things anyway we want. CJB isn't andrew luck in college... Very little difference b/w CJ and JR. as there are stats and reasons to back both up...despite the vocal opinions of some.
Our season will ride on D, balanced o, and error free ball. Penalties are under control... What will make it potentially what we all want is big plays on D(TOs and points), and advantages on special teams... It's probably not the qb position. I know this will fall on deaf ears
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
It's not nitpicking. It's separating the signal from the noise. If you remove the WR runs and jet sweeps and look at the traditional rushing attack, it has clearly performed better under CJB (small sample though). Jake is getting almost a half yard per carry lift from these non-traditional plays. That is significant and should be taken into account.
The problem with the analysis is small sample and lots of variables that we can't control (opponents, down and distance, etc.) But if you want the best analysis available of how the running game is performing under each QB (and I think this is, in fact, the fundamental question people are asking), look at the RBs.
Yes small sample, but taking out plays that happened are silly. If us play that game take out the tipped pass at the line of scrimmage that luckily Parker reeled in and went for 40.
QB isnt the position holding us back.
Difference of opinion.
Shorter fields, plays from the other 2/3 of the units will help both. D is solid, but void of big plays so far, special teams are not special yet.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
The pass to Parker was also an outlier and I agree that it could be excluded if it were relevant to what we were talking about.
The "run" to Powell should be taken out (and it was taken out since we're comparing the running back production under the two QBs).
The running back production has been clearly better under Betheard both in terms of efficiency (ypc) and overall production (yards per game). I'm not sure why this is being debated.
The "run" to Powell should be taken out (and it was taken out since we're comparing the running back production under the two QBs).
The running back production has been clearly better under Betheard both in terms of efficiency (ypc) and overall production (yards per game). I'm not sure why this is being debated.
gohawkz
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
I'm no coaching genius but if a team played Iowa every week with Jake at qb I could be a defensive Einstein. Put everybody in the box every play. We win.
We debate because it passes the time before our team plays again, and because the team rushes for 3.64 yd/carry with JR., 3.5 something wit CJ. Both pretty dang dismal, and not much of a difference. The QB stats are pretty indistinguishable too. The only difference so far is one throws harder, and one has more proven experience. That can be good.
FWIW, not much will convince me this position is what's holding the O back. I agree with Ferentz that we have two good ones. I think we have a very favorable situation as we head into the meat of the schedule. One has already been knocked out of a game...it certainly could happen again. I also think this dismal rushing average will improve, and it won't be because of who is under center..That's all.
MoseSchrute
Well-Known Member
Why do you think it will improve? What will make it improve?
OLine timing. It's a scheme that is dependent on timing and orchestrated movement. Bye week came at a good time.
Running back rythum? Canzeri' health has to be improving. Wiseman will get 15 + carries. And, I think you'll see Parker have some impact in spots. Plewa returning, kenny learning the position.
LD probably only plays if Weisman goes down, and Damon if healthy will probably just be a third and medium/long option. If LD plays w/o MW getting hurt, it's good because he's young, and his upside will be emerging.
It usually does improve. Some don't like to hear it, but we are indeed a developmental program, with a staff of good teachers. it usually takes some time to put it together.
I don't expect an explosive attack, but enough to give us credible balance. That's why I am optimistic.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I think to me this is the only measure that really matters. How much does the offense score when CJ or JR is in the lineup. It isn't like our running game has been some unstoppable juggernaut, so I think this is the best measure to look at. The QB is responsible for so much in getting the team in and out of plays, has to move the offense down the field that they should get the credit for points scored while they are at the helm.
hawkeye12345
Well-Known Member
Let's not forget the competition that each of these QBs faced while in there. JR was playing against DII UNI, Iowa STATE (Loss by the way), and Ball State. Those teams are a combined 4-11 and pretty much suck. You should EXPECT to put up much bigger numbers against this inferior competition.
Additionally, JR was a starter all last year. Should have experience with the offense and should be able to come out firing on all cylinders. Timing shouldn't be much of an issue due to the high # of reps that he's had in practice.
CJB is a new starter, playing against better (although not great) competition. You would expect to see his #s to be not on par and yet the team is scoring more points, running the ball better, and passing the eye test.
Ferentzs' decisions boggle the mind and it's been time for him to go for more than 4 years now.
Additionally, JR was a starter all last year. Should have experience with the offense and should be able to come out firing on all cylinders. Timing shouldn't be much of an issue due to the high # of reps that he's had in practice.
CJB is a new starter, playing against better (although not great) competition. You would expect to see his #s to be not on par and yet the team is scoring more points, running the ball better, and passing the eye test.
Ferentzs' decisions boggle the mind and it's been time for him to go for more than 4 years now.
