Iowalaw's Post Game Analysis: Maryland

[deanvogs]

@IowaLawWasRight I got your back here. Keep putting these out after the games, who cares if I agree with you or not.

What I do want to know is about your screen name. Remind me of what you were right about again?

 

[Gibsonian]

I agree mostly with IowaLaw game analysis. He just kinda puts a negative spin on things, but really pretty accurate. Was a dominant performance really, Stanley just had an off game at a not bad time (super windy game). He'll be back. I guarantee you he will watch the film and not be happy with what he sees.

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

Stanley is still a concern. He isn't the complete product yet. Still to tentative.

 

[Northside Hawk]

He picked a good game to be bad Nate. They could have played until midnight and Maryland wasn't getting into the end zone.

The team had his back. He will have theirs another day. In fact, it may be soon.

 

[Jonrn]

Nice, clean game, with few penalties.

Dominate the trenches to win, especially in a "bad weather" game.

Iowa is getting deep: DL, OL, QB, RB, LB, Secondary.

Lack of injuries have been a good news story.

The second of the two "big games" this season vs PSU, looms. Just do it.

BTW...when a received punt now lands without being caught, the Iowa special teams players treat it like a hand grenade...get the hell out of the way!!! Hot round on the ground!

How about no penalties

 

[IowaLawWasRight]

While blindly touting Stanley as the best thing since sliced bread, even after an objectively bad performance, is cute, it's not accurate. It's easy to blame the wind for him hitting on less than 50% of his passes, but that would only make sense if this game was a statistical anomaly. It was not. Stanley's super man performance against Indiana was the statistical abnormality, while his Maryland performance was simply, as Jon Miller likes to say, a regression to the mean.

1. NIU game (played in perfect conditions) 11/23 for 108 yrds, 1 td 1 int
2. ISU game (played in perfect conditions) 16/28 for 166 yrds, 0 td
3. Maryland (played in windy conditions) 11/22 for 88 yrds, 1 td 1 int

He laid eggs in 1/2 of this season's games so far. He played really well in half of this season's games as well. That's not "bias" or an "agenda," and it's not the "wind." It's simply stats. Given his body of work, things tend to regress to the mean. NIU, ISU, and Maryland wins were each attributed to our top 5 national defense. Each game would have been won regardless of whether Stanley, Petras or Mansell playing QB.

Here's to hoping Stanley plays above the mean in the games that need it, and saves is "off" performances for the Nebraskas of the world.

 

[uihawk82]

While blindly touting Stanley as the best thing since sliced bread, even after an objectively bad performance, is cute, it's not accurate. It's easy to blame the wind for him hitting on less than 50% of his passes, but that would only make sense if this game was a statistical anomaly. It was not. Stanley's super man performance against Indiana was the statistical abnormality, while his Maryland performance was simply, as Jon Miller likes to say, a regression to the mean.

1. NIU game (played in perfect conditions) 11/23 for 108 yrds, 1 td 1 int
2. ISU game (played in perfect conditions) 16/28 for 166 yrds, 0 td
3. Maryland (played in windy conditions) 11/22 for 88 yrds, 1 td 1 int

He laid eggs in 1/2 of this season's games so far. He played really well in half of this season's games as well. That's not "bias" or an "agenda," and it's not the "wind." It's simply stats. Given his body of work, things tend to regress to the mean. NIU, ISU, and Maryland wins were each attributed to our top 5 national defense. Each game would have been won regardless of whether Stanley, Petras or Mansell playing QB.

Here's to hoping Stanley plays above the mean in the games that need it, and saves is "off" performances for the Nebraskas of the world.

You like stats, have you kept track of receiver drops and very smart throw aways by Nate? Go back and count them in and give me his effective percentage and add in yards from the drops.

Many NFL and even college qbs are helped by receivers that catch nearly everything and get great YAC yards

Overall I think Nate is doing very well with only decent receivers and two very good TEs. I think the coaches could help him out with some early plays with the receivers running deep in man coverage and hitting some easy swing passes to the backs.

 

[Knight78]

I didn't watch the Iowa game, only the highlights. Went to Wartburg's homecoming and watched that game. One thing I concluded from my seat was that the wind was going to affect a LOT of things. In the Wartburg / Central game, I saw a five yard hook pattern pass move about six feet (and fall incomplete). I saw several good punts - with the wind. Against the wind I saw a punting average of about 15 yards. Twice the players were waiting on the ball while rolling and it stopped and rolled the other way before they could down it (they had overrun it in coverage).

I'm not saying that the wind changed the outcome of the game, but I would definitely say it was the single largest factor in how the game was played. And I don't think the wind was any different in Iowa City than it was in Waverly yesterday.

 

[HawkGold]

Stanley is still a concern. He isn't the complete product yet. Still to tentative.

Stanley will get better, but the things he is weak on won't be corrected much. He has little finesse. When he loses Fant, hmmmm.

 

[HawkGold]

Is he really complaining about the receivers and passing game today? Dude... Just don't. We won that game pretty much EXACTLY how papa KF would draw it up on a crazy windy day. Iowa had ZERO PENALTIES. None at all. Not even any that were declined. Unreal. Iowa smoked them in TOP. You can't do that and complain about the offense to any degree. We did what it took to win the game. I guess you can nit pick and say we shoulda got TDs instead of fgs in the first half but with how our D was playing clearly that didn't end up mattering. As far as breaking down the QB or receivers in this game just throw it out the window. Break this down as a team win. Defense just totally shut down an O that had been running the ball on everyone they've played till now. I mean holy crap that was big time and I would hope that performance will be turning some heads on the national level.

Check the NE passes to RBs compared to Iowa. I think that is the biggest take.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Check the NE passes to RBs compared to Iowa. I think that is the biggest take.

Wind was much different. About 20mph less.

 

[HawkGold]

Wind was much different. About 20mph less.

Wind was terrible for any qb. That doesn't change the fact that Nate has little finesse. Hitting a screen pass is actually pretty hard to do and takes finesse.

 

[HuckFinn]

While blindly touting Stanley as the best thing since sliced bread, even after an objectively bad performance, is cute, it's not accurate. It's easy to blame the wind for him hitting on less than 50% of his passes, but that would only make sense if this game was a statistical anomaly. It was not. Stanley's super man performance against Indiana was the statistical abnormality, while his Maryland performance was simply, as Jon Miller likes to say, a regression to the mean.

1. NIU game (played in perfect conditions) 11/23 for 108 yrds, 1 td 1 int
2. ISU game (played in perfect conditions) 16/28 for 166 yrds, 0 td
3. Maryland (played in windy conditions) 11/22 for 88 yrds, 1 td 1 int

He laid eggs in 1/2 of this season's games so far. He played really well in half of this season's games as well. That's not "bias" or an "agenda," and it's not the "wind." It's simply stats. Given his body of work, things tend to regress to the mean. NIU, ISU, and Maryland wins were each attributed to our top 5 national defense. Each game would have been won regardless of whether Stanley, Petras or Mansell playing QB.

Here's to hoping Stanley plays above the mean in the games that need it, and saves is "off" performances for the Nebraskas of the world.

KF said that this was not a good performance by Nate, though he did say the wind was an issue. He was right on both counts. I was in the stadium and that wind was brutal; not only the velocity, but the changes in the swirling direction. But, Nate did get tentative after the INT.

Your next assignment should be to take a look at comparisons with other QB's. I think you could change the names and write similar articles about many others. Nate is not perfect...news flash. But, he is pretty darn good in many areas, with some areas for improvements needed. Not sure I want to accept your analysis on QB skills.

 

[deanvogs]

While blindly touting Stanley as the best thing since sliced bread, even after an objectively bad performance, is cute, it's not accurate. It's easy to blame the wind for him hitting on less than 50% of his passes, but that would only make sense if this game was a statistical anomaly. It was not. Stanley's super man performance against Indiana was the statistical abnormality, while his Maryland performance was simply, as Jon Miller likes to say, a regression to the mean.

1. NIU game (played in perfect conditions) 11/23 for 108 yrds, 1 td 1 int
2. ISU game (played in perfect conditions) 16/28 for 166 yrds, 0 td
3. Maryland (played in windy conditions) 11/22 for 88 yrds, 1 td 1 int

He laid eggs in 1/2 of this season's games so far. He played really well in half of this season's games as well. That's not "bias" or an "agenda," and it's not the "wind." It's simply stats. Given his body of work, things tend to regress to the mean. NIU, ISU, and Maryland wins were each attributed to our top 5 national defense. Each game would have been won regardless of whether Stanley, Petras or Mansell playing QB.

Here's to hoping Stanley plays above the mean in the games that need it, and saves is "off" performances for the Nebraskas of the world.

We don’t beat ISU without Stanley. Look at how bad their D made Grier look. Stanley drove down the field in the 4th quarter, dropped a dime into Smiths lap and we scored the clinching TD.

 

[Iceman]

While blindly touting Stanley as the best thing since sliced bread, even after an objectively bad performance, is cute, it's not accurate. It's easy to blame the wind for him hitting on less than 50% of his passes, but that would only make sense if this game was a statistical anomaly. It was not. Stanley's super man performance against Indiana was the statistical abnormality, while his Maryland performance was simply, as Jon Miller likes to say, a regression to the mean.

1. NIU game (played in perfect conditions) 11/23 for 108 yrds, 1 td 1 int
2. ISU game (played in perfect conditions) 16/28 for 166 yrds, 0 td
3. Maryland (played in windy conditions) 11/22 for 88 yrds, 1 td 1 int

He laid eggs in 1/2 of this season's games so far. He played really well in half of this season's games as well. That's not "bias" or an "agenda," and it's not the "wind." It's simply stats. Given his body of work, things tend to regress to the mean. NIU, ISU, and Maryland wins were each attributed to our top 5 national defense. Each game would have been won regardless of whether Stanley, Petras or Mansell playing QB.


Here's to hoping Stanley plays above the mean in the games that need it, and saves is "off" performances for the Nebraskas of the world.

Hope he plays at the second standard deviation come Saturday

 

[InGoodCo]

Wind was an issue, Stanley was extremely efficient on 4th downs which is the most important thing in a ball control game like this. They ran the ball 52 times and passed 24. The difference in plays was 76-39. Play calling was directly impacted by the weather as well. Iowa was conservative because that’s all it needed to do to win in a poor weather game like this. Stanley could have came away with 3 more TD’s that ended up as FG’s in this game. He’d be the first to tell you he needed to be better, but it’s hard to be too critical of his performance with such a dominating performance on both sides of the ball. He missed some throws, so does Tom Brady. Stanley is the best QB prospect to play at Iowa in decades.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Check the NE passes to RBs compared to Iowa. I think that is the biggest take.

Yeah NE throws it a ton to their RBs. It's a huge part of what they do. I don't think our O lineman are all that great at releasing and blocking down field like that. Our Rbs can all do that so it'd be a nice wrinkle to do more of it that's for sure.

 

[InGoodCo]

Iowa ran the ball 52 times Saturday. The game plan effected Stanley, and they threw shorter passes instead of chucking the ball all around. He played conservative cause that's what the coaches asked for with the game plan. Only someone with a bias already built in would come on here and say he laid an egg in this game. He came up empty on 3 drives in the redzone where he normally would throw a TD, the wind was nasty and didn't play a lot of the 2nd half. He's not perfect, no one is, but if you can't see how good he is, you're one of the only ones.

 

[ssckelley]

I love it when statheads only look at the statistics that support their narrative. Anybody that actually watch the games can see what the scouts love about Stanley. Most of his mistakes are on over throws, that's fixable. In the NFL he will struggle to over throw legitimate wide receivers.

Nothing against our current crop of WR's but it has been a while since Iowa has seen a legit WR. I can only imagine how good Stanley would be if he had a DJK or a McNutt to compliment the tightends, and those were not even NFL caliber WR's. I'm hoping the changes in the offensive philosophy will assist the recruiting.

 

[Jonrn]

Stanley will get better, but the things he is weak on won't be corrected much. He has little finesse. When he loses Fant, hmmmm.

I’m not saying Stanley becomes a first round draft or heisman pick, but his accuracy made a huge stride between 2017 and this year, so no reason to think he’s not going to take another step.