Jon did NOT destroy the Iowa QB regression story

[NoBeer]

Jon brought up "destroying" the Iowa QB regression soundbyte on the podcast that dropped yesterday. I listened to that podcast and remember rolling my eyes so hard I pulled a muscle. Jon in multiple cases dismissed worse statistics as being the fault of something else such as WR changes and in other cases called worse statistics a push. I really don't want to have to pull up that podcast and re-listen to lay out out in this post but his idea that he "destroyed" that story is laughable at best.

 

[tksirius]

I caught that as well. Let's just say that JM doesn't exactly know how to be wrong.

 

[deanvogs]

I caught that as well. Let's just say that JM doesn't exactly know how to be wrong.

Jon is right here, the people who think Stanzi, Tate and CJ regressed are the ones who are wrong. To say those 3 regressed is like saying the Dan Marino regressed after his second year in the NFL. I mean Marino could never manage 5000 yards again, and he only threw for over 30 TD's one other time after he put up 48 TD's in '84.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Jon is right here, the people who think Stanzi, Tate and CJ regressed are the ones who are wrong. To say those 3 regressed is like saying the Dan Marino regressed after his second year in the NFL. I mean Marino could never manage 5000 yards again, and he only threw for over 30 TD's one other time after he put up 48 TD's in '84.

So they all just had amazing first year seasons and then regressed to the mean? Uh...no.

 

[deanvogs]

So they all just had amazing first year seasons and then regressed to the mean? Uh...no.

Marino's best year by far, and it isn't even close was his second year. Did he then regress to the mean, did he become a worse QB?

Plus when anyone argues that 2500 yards, 17 TD's and 15 INT's is a better year than 3000 yards, 25 TD's and 6 INT's I just laugh. The 2010 team was a disappointment, but it certainly wasn't because Stanzi "regressed".

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I think some folks just define regressed differently... I mean the NFL drafted CJ after the 'regressed' year he had right? Yet there was less than a zero percent chance he'd have been drafted if he'd have left after his JR year so something has to give with that logic right? Well maybe I shouldn't say zero but he sure wouldn't have gone in the 3rd round and have been looked at the same. Your surrounding circumstances dictate your overall performance more than what you have direct control over as a QB. That's just a fact. How many games was CJ healthy his SR yr? I could go on and on with the different reasons why CJ struggled his SR yr with on the field stats/success. But the point being when it's not his fault it's just not his fault..

 

[David79]

If by regressed, you mean that their final year they had worst stats then yeah some regressed. However, that is a really shallow view of regression and doesn't really tell the whole story. A QB can be better individually but the if the players around him are worse he isn't going to put up better numbers. In addition, the only players that I think had way worse Senior years were Beathard and Vandeberg and that crap wasn't their fault. Beathard was dinged most of the year and the supporting case in the receiving game and pass blocking was bad. Vandeberg suffered from Greg Davis and the cluster that was his first year. No one was on the same page.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

Marino's best year by far, and it isn't even close was his second year. Did he then regress to the mean, did he become a worse QB?

Plus when anyone argues that 2500 yards, 17 TD's and 15 INT's is a better year than 3000 yards, 25 TD's and 6 INT's I just laugh. The 2010 team was a disappointment, but it certainly wasn't because Stanzi "regressed".

Stanzi's stats were good in 2010, you're right. So why does this narrative persist? There's a reason more than "people are idiots". There's something to it. Is it the offensive scheme? the staff's inability to leverage a more experienced QB (see the audible to stretch play into the short sideline).

What's your take Dean...We've seen enough of a pattern for it to be a legit question.

 

[InGoodCo]

Stanzi's stats were good in 2010, you're right. So why does this narrative persist? There's a reason more than "people are idiots". There's something to it. Is it the offensive scheme? the staff's inability to leverage a more experienced QB (see the audible to stretch play into the short sideline).

What's your take Dean...We've seen enough of a pattern for it to be a legit question.

The team regressed. D's gave up more points, skill players weren't equal from 1 year to the next. Pretty simple. QB's are as good as the weapons they have around them.

 

[Ree4]

Vandenberg was the only one who regressed - gdGD

 

[Fryowa]

Pretty simple. QB's are as good as the weapons they have around them.

It’s not that simple.

By that logic Tyler Wiegers or Jake Christensen or Kyle McCann are just as good as Stanley with the same OL, Fant, and Hockenson.

Doesn’t work that way. QBs regress just like any other position. The reason it doesn’t become as apparent is because in college they usually only have two years as a starter. They don’t have 6 or 7 years to compare to like NFL guys do.

 

[Fryowa]

I think some folks just define regressed differently... I mean the NFL drafted CJ after the 'regressed' year he had right? Yet there was less than a zero percent chance he'd have been drafted if he'd have left after his JR year so something has to give with that logic right? Well maybe I shouldn't say zero but he sure wouldn't have gone in the 3rd round and have been looked at the same. Your surrounding circumstances dictate your overall performance more than what you have direct control over as a QB. That's just a fact. How many games was CJ healthy his SR yr? I could go on and on with the different reasons why CJ struggled his SR yr with on the field stats/success. But the point being when it's not his fault it's just not his fault..

CJ is a little bit of a strange case because his game has always been tailored to the NFL style game rather than NCAA. He’s one of the rare guys who will thrive better at that level than he did in college. I think he got drafted more on his toughness and smarts than he did football results on a college field.

 

[InGoodCo]

It’s not that simple.

By that logic Tyler Wiegers or Jake Christensen or Kyle McCann are just as good as Stanley with the same OL, Fant, and Hockenson.

Doesn’t work that way. QBs regress just like any other position. The reason it doesn’t become as apparent is because in college they usually only have two years as a starter. They don’t have 6 or 7 years to compare to like NFL guys do.

It really is that simple tho. If your OLINE isn't as good, you're numbers are gonna be effected by it. 1, the running game isn't as good, 2, the pass blocking isn't as good and that's just 1 unit. Not to mention chemistry that has to line up for your QB to have good numbers. Of course QB's regress, but there is typically an underlying issue at hand that can help explain it in a lot cases rather then "well, he regressed" . WR's and TE options. Are you suggesting that CJ had just as good of options to throw to in 2016 as he did in 2015? That the defense was as good that season to put him in as good of field position to succeed? Did CJ regress? He certainly was more injured, but his team and parts around him were not nearly on par from 15 to 16.

As stated above, Stanzi had a much better 10 then 09 - Tate's #'s from his Soph to his JR year were better in almost every category.

It's not hard at all to diagnose which makes it all the more baffling that people with good understandings of the game don't see it. I am sure I'll get called names for this.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

It's a complex issue.

As a team sport, it's almost impossible to evaluate any player in a vacuum, and that's especially true at QB. New skill position players, new blockers, new schemes, etc., all can impact QB statistics in huge ways.

The other thing to consider is that when any player, particularly skill players, have break-out seasons, they are not going to have the luxury of "sneaking up" on anyone the following year. Opposing defensive coordinators are going to analyze the tape and scheme to slow them down, so it's quite common for standout players to regress after a big year.

 

[InGoodCo]

It's a complex issue.

As a team sport, it's almost impossible to evaluate any player in a vacuum, and that's especially true at QB. New skill position players, new blockers, new schemes, etc., all can impact QB statistics in huge ways.

The other thing to consider is that when any player, particularly skill players, have break-out seasons, they are not going to have the luxury of "sneaking up" on anyone the following year. Opposing defensive coordinators are going to analyze the tape and scheme to slow them down, so it's quite common for standout players to regress after a big year.

100% - if Fant doesn't have 11 TD"s this season (tall order IMO) has he regressed or are teams scheming against him differently. Could his Oline be different, might he have to block more to cover for other players being suspended in a game or injured that might skew his #'s. There's too many variables at play to consider when you are looking at such a small sample size of years in college football.

 

[InGoodCo]

BTW - I don't think Jon "destroyed" it on his cast either because he just didn't come strong enough with his thoughts or stats to back it up. I had several eye rolls with some of his theories that I think could have been built on, but themz the breaks when you try and keep your podcast short. IMO, I like the On Iowa one where they DGAF about length.

I do however agree with him, if that makes sense, just not so much with how he laid it out. Hardly destroyed it IMO.

 

[Hawk90]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Eye test; Tate and Stanzi were not the same QBs' in their senior years as they were their junior years. I am sure their stats looked better, but they were more conservative and not the big play makers that they were their previous year. Jon you are wrong.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

100% - if Fant doesn't have 11 TD"s this season (tall order IMO) has he regressed or are teams scheming against him differently. Could his Oline be different, might he have to block more to cover for other players being suspended in a game or injured that might skew his #'s. There's too many variables at play to consider when you are looking at such a small sample size of years in college football.

Valid question, but since when do teams have to adjust their scheme against Iowa? There's probably no team who changes LESS... from year to year than Iowa. No doubt Fant will get more attention, hopefully that will open things up for other guys and BF will be ready to take advantage of it.

If he drops more balls...that would be a more valid comparison to TD/INT ratio or completion percentage. Player touches vary...what you do with them is what counts. The QB is involved pretty consistently, so year to year stats are more comparable (recognizing that many moving parts as mentioned above play a role) unless a team drastically changes its offensive approach. (see gdGD and the football death of James Vandenburg)

 

[Hawkfnntn]

CJ is a little bit of a strange case because his game has always been tailored to the NFL style game rather than NCAA. He’s one of the rare guys who will thrive better at that level than he did in college. I think he got drafted more on his toughness and smarts than he did football results on a college field.

For sure. It's his projected attributes. He 'regressed' with his stats due to all the circumstances that year. Had nothing to do with his ability. (well his playing hurt didn't help either was he even at 75% of himself most of the year?) I don't think guys like him Stanzi, Tate or Vandenburg regressed so much either. Football is the ultimate team game. All the other things that go into a successful play, successful game and season need to be in synch. What they all showed was that when things are in synch that they can hold up their end of the bargain.

 

[deanvogs]

Stanzi's stats were good in 2010, you're right. So why does this narrative persist? There's a reason more than "people are idiots". There's something to it. Is it the offensive scheme? the staff's inability to leverage a more experienced QB (see the audible to stretch play into the short sideline).

What's your take Dean...We've seen enough of a pattern for it to be a legit question.

My take is they are different years with different players. Stanzi was clearly a better QB in 2010, the naked eye could easily see that. The 2010 team struggled for different reasons.

I’d say the only non injury related regression was by JVB in Greg Davis’ first year.