deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I disagree totally on Stanzi. He was visably and statistically a much better QB in 2010. Tate battled injuries is Sr year.
Jon did NOT destroy the Iowa QB regression story
- Thread starter NoBeer
- Start date
I disagree totally on Stanzi. He was visably and statistically a much better QB in 2010. Tate battled injuries is Sr year.
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
"Great teams aren't always great, they are just great when they have to be." John Facenda, NFL Films.
The QB regression theory with Iowa Football is a fallacy. It all boils down to the line above. In 2010, Stanzi had good stats, but the offense had opportunity after opportunity in the games we lost to be great when the team needed to be. The defense that year had opportunity after opportunity to stop Pryor and Ohio State, Foles at Arizona, Dan Persa at Northwestern, and the punter from Wisconsin...and they couldn't get stops and their great players made the plays to beat us.
If the defense gets stops in all the games above, or the offense makes plays to comeback and win those games...do you think anyone is talking about a QB regression?
The QB regression theory with Iowa Football is a fallacy. It all boils down to the line above. In 2010, Stanzi had good stats, but the offense had opportunity after opportunity in the games we lost to be great when the team needed to be. The defense that year had opportunity after opportunity to stop Pryor and Ohio State, Foles at Arizona, Dan Persa at Northwestern, and the punter from Wisconsin...and they couldn't get stops and their great players made the plays to beat us.
If the defense gets stops in all the games above, or the offense makes plays to comeback and win those games...do you think anyone is talking about a QB regression?
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
which was borderline criminal. Talk about a harbinger of things to come.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
you mean with the next 2 guys and probably the 3rd being NFL drafted QB's?
- I do know what you mean tho - what happened with JVB was criminal and not at all his fault.I posted this on another thread, I will throw it in here as well (re: Stanzi).
Maybe your eyes are being deceived by the confounding factor that the 2009 D gave up 15.4 pts/game (14.5 over their last 4 games) and the 2010 D gave up 17.0 pts/game (23.0 over their last 4 games as the LB group was decimated).
Or by the fact that Stanzi's performance took a dive over the last 5 games as he lost Adam Robinson and his starting guards (rating over 170 prior, around 120 over the last 5 games) ?
Or the fact that the defense could not hold 4th quarter leads that Stanzi helped create vs. Wisc (6 pt lead), OSU (7 pt lead), NW (10 pt 4th Q lead), or Minnesota (4 pt lead). In those 4 games, Stanzi had 8 TDs and 1 int, and he passed for the go-ahead TD in the 2nd half of all but OSU (4th Q go-ahead TDs vs. Minn and Wisc).
Imagine everything played out exactly the same that 2010 season, except...
- Iowa did not give up the fake punt vs. Wisc OR stopped Wisc on the 4th and 5 they converted on that drive
- Iowa did not give up 2 long TD drives to NW in the 4th quarter
- Iowa did not allow a 4th and 10 conversion on a Terrell Pryor scramble vs. OSU
- Iowa did not allow a go-ahead TD drive vs. MN in the 4th
NO ONE would be saying, "I know his stats are good and the team was 11-1, but my eyes are telling me he just was not as good as 2009 when he threw for 2417 yards with 56.3% completion and 17/15 TD/Int." All it would have taken is for the defense to come through a few times for your eyes to completely change the story they were telling you.
NCHawker
Well-Known Member
wasn't his fault
This is just dumb. Stanzi was leaps and bounds better his Senior year.at about everything.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
I believe the OP was focusing on JM's statement that he "destroyed" the regression argument, which he has not done, and Deace chuckled and let it go when Jon said it. There are valid arguments made in either direction. I haven't heard anyone destroy an argument on this topic.
Man it's too bad we didn't cut bait with Davis right after that yr...
Correct, because Stanzi is the only statistical counter punch that exists. Tate and CJ were injured and therefore regressed statistically, proving nothing. Christensen regressed or didn't improve enough to prevent getting beaten out, same with Rudock. Everyone else was a one and done. If you lined them up and tried to slap a P-value on it, you would not beat that 0.05 mark. Not enough data.
Personally, I don't think you end up with as many talented QBs as we've had without development. This season will probably make JM look smart and help those stats, but I also think that Iowa's development style is a better fit for some guys than others. And I think they've realized that and started recruiting more for it. Count me among those who believe the old dog Ferentz has still been learning new tricks along the way.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
It isn't hard to "destroy" the regression argument, the problem lies in that fact some can't or don't want to acknowledge the obvious. I mean if you aren't willing to accept that 2+2 = 4 for instance, I'm not going to waste me time trying to explain it to you. Same with the "regression" crap.
As long as you are making intellectual arguments here....you are an idiot. An 11-2 2009 team with a play-making, gamer vs the 2009 7-5 team with a still good, but ultra-conservative Stanzi. And Stanzi not playing in one of the losses in 2009, and injured in the NW game. Yes, his stats were better in 2010, and there were a lot of other factors, but I'll take 2009 Stanzi any day. Apparently, you were not watching Hawkeye football those two years. Let me guess; you like the game manager Rudock types vs winners?
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Jeez, first it's snake oil, now it's math.
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
The big years are the ones that tend to stand out in peoples minds. Say, ten wins or more. The big years were 2002,2003, 2004, 2009, 2015. Iowa regressed after 2004, 2009, and 2015.
Iowa repeated success after 2002 & 2003. The repeats are a single streak of three good years. Iowa happened to change quarterbacks each year. The regression years 2005, 2010 & 2015 all of which had returning quarterbacks. It only takes a single year to break the pattern. If Iowa didn't do well in 2004 they regress every year after a winning season.
Iowa repeated success after 2002 & 2003. The repeats are a single streak of three good years. Iowa happened to change quarterbacks each year. The regression years 2005, 2010 & 2015 all of which had returning quarterbacks. It only takes a single year to break the pattern. If Iowa didn't do well in 2004 they regress every year after a winning season.
I've never said there was a QB "regression" because there really hasn't been one. The stat I always point out is that every QB of the Ferentz era had the most wins, for a variety of reasons, in the season he earned the starting spot outright.
Stanzi was a much better QB in 2010 if you don't look at the wins column. The lack of LB depth doomed that season. Banks proved in 2002 what many said in 2001 - he should have got more playing time early on. Eligibility kept us from seeing his growth over another year. Injuries damped Tate's and Beathard's stats. JVB got smothered by a new offense and and a new offensive coordinator. Rudock and Christensen got pushed out by better players.
Past performance is not an indicator of future results and I would like to see Stanley have a break out year in 2018.
Stanzi was a much better QB in 2010 if you don't look at the wins column. The lack of LB depth doomed that season. Banks proved in 2002 what many said in 2001 - he should have got more playing time early on. Eligibility kept us from seeing his growth over another year. Injuries damped Tate's and Beathard's stats. JVB got smothered by a new offense and and a new offensive coordinator. Rudock and Christensen got pushed out by better players.
Past performance is not an indicator of future results and I would like to see Stanley have a break out year in 2018.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
He was also playing with injuries his entire Sr. year. He missed 1 game, but he talked about playing injured the whole year when we was doing that podcast.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
You haven't heard it because the argument has valid points on both sides.
Much as I don't think Stanzi regressed--he was one of Teddy Greenstein's Heisman picks at mid-season on BTN shows--he also seemed to be less flashy.
There were no "2009 Indiana" comebacks, and even his best games were almost "methodical". And while the NW game could be considered a "blown save" by the defense, Stanzi DID throw a downfield INT with the Hawks in the lead (although, as too often happened, DJK "watched" it happen, making no apparent effort to fight for the ball).
He "looked" more gunslinger in 2008 and 2009. But..we then forget that he was a more mature QB in 2010, and at least in the early/mid season, "methodical" Stanzi was pretty much a cut above the "best" of most other QBs.
Amen hallelujah
Good lord this is even worse. You apparently don't know much about football.
And your last question doesn't make any logical sense. Stanzi wasn't ultra conservative in 2010. Taking 2009 Stanzi means you better take the 2009 defense because with a mediocre defense that team is probably only winning 6-7 games.
