Jon's Podcast on Iowa Qbs and regression

HaydenHawk56

HaydenHawk56

Well-Known Member
Pretty solid stuff from Jon there. On an objective test and looking at straight raw data, we actually see a lot of improvement from Iowa Qbs progressing through the program. Jon makes a lot of good points about intangibles that factor into decreased performance by Iowa QBs.

I do feel though, Stanzi was more willing to take chances his junior year as compared to his senior year. That shows in the numbers. I would be curious to see how efficient Stanzi was his junior year compared to his senior year in terms of scoring drives and their critical impacts for those games at the time. I felt Stanzi was more money when he needed to be in his junior year compared to his senior year. He might have piled on more favorable stats in his senior year, but he seemed more Brett Favre like his junior year. I felt he played more cautious his senior year and that played a factor in the 2010 results.

Again, and I agree with Jon, I don't feel Stanzi is to blame for 2010. But, I do like 2009 Stanzi better for leading the team down the field. Kind of felt like the coaching staff coached him into being afraid of throwing a pick in 2010.
 
HaydenHawk56 said:
Again, and I agree with Jon, I don't feel Stanzi is to blame for 2010. But, I do like 2009 Stanzi better for leading the team down the field. Kind of felt like the coaching staff coached him into being afraid of throwing a pick in 2010.
Click to expand...

Stanzi wasnt close to being the problem in 2010. Two key linebacker injuries and an offensive guard injury, the Wegher situation, plus not rotating defensive linemen cost the hawks in several games. But they also knocked off a top 15 Missouri team which made up for a couple of losses.
 
uihawk82 said:
Stanzi wasnt close to being the problem in 2010. Two key linebacker injuries and an offensive guard injury, the Wegher situation, plus not rotating defensive linemen cost the hawks in several games. But they also knocked off a top 15 Missouri team which made up for a couple of losses.
Click to expand...


A-rob got hurt in the MSU game. Iowa went from averaging 30+ a game to somewhere in the high teens. A-rob wasn't the best ever at any one thing he just did everything very well.
 
QB's get better. They just get more and more cautious to the point where they don't even try to make plays. When you have a team of playmakers like the 2010 team had, it makes more sense to let them make plays instead of trying to win close games against inferior teams. That goes for offense and defense.

When you have a guy like Clayborn, play tighter coverage so he has a couple seconds to make a play. It had to be so frustrating for him to get to the qb fast, only to be a split second late because a guy was wide open for a 8 yard gain on 3rd and 7.

On offense you have two of the better receivers ever at Iowa and a borderline NFL qb. Coach your guy to take some chances and don't be afraid to let DJK and McNutt try to make some plays. Turnovers don't kill you when you have a great defense and an offense that can score points. If you make too many of them, you end up in a close game and you might lose. If you don't make too many of them, you win with ease. Better that than to just concede a close game before kickoff.
 
It's not that our QBs regress. The more starts the QBs have, the more film opposing DCs have. Defensive coordinators are highly paid for a reason. Once they have 12-15 games worth of film on an opposing QB, they know exactly what that QB likes to do and what they don't like to do. Then they put all of their efforts into forcing that QB to do things he doesn't like to do.
 
revkev73 said:
Yes, defensive coordinators for the opposing teams spend a high amount of time trying to "figure out" that high octane Iowa offense. The candles are burning late at night around the country trying to prepare for Kirk ball.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the offense, Clown.
 
Jon had an agenda and the result is self-confirming bias.

1. He “doesn’t count” Tate’s senior season. Even though Tate played almost the entire year, Jon tells us his stats don’t matter because he was also hurt the entire year. This is a convenient omission to support the hypothesis. If a player plays, the stats count—and that’s assuming Tate was as damaged as much as Jon now claims he was.

2. Christeson was a 5 star recruit and in the program over 2 years. Jon barely mentions him.

3. If a QB is the most or second most important player on a team, then there should be a positive correlation between experience and wins. I don’t care about stats—did the QB lead Iowa to victory?

4. If the defense and/or other units take a big dip from year to year, and you want to blame those dips for the negative correlation, then I look forward to the podcast on recruiting and/or developmental failures.
 
ferentz4life said:
Jon had an agenda and the result is self-confirming bias.

1. He “doesn’t count” Tate’s senior season. Even though Tate played almost the entire year, Jon tells us his stats don’t matter because he was also hurt the entire year. This is a convenient omission to support the hypothesis. If a player plays, the stats count—and that’s assuming Tate was as damaged as much as Jon now claims he was.

2. Christeson was a 5 star recruit and in the program over 2 years. Jon barely mentions him.

3. If a QB is the most or second most important player on a team, then there should be a positive correlation between experience and wins. I don’t care about stats—did the QB lead Iowa to victory?

4. If the defense and/or other units take a big dip from year to year, and you want to blame those dips for the negative correlation, then I look forward to the podcast on recruiting and/or developmental failures.
Click to expand...
Agree with point one -- can't take out 20% of the sample because you don't like the outcome.
 
I don't understand the "injury doesn't count argument". If my car's engine gets damaged its performance regresses. I don't get the argument regarding injuries don't count as regression. And just because we have a coaching change doesn't mean that cannot affect the performance of a quarterback. Vandenberg regressed badly. Just because a horrible coach caused his regression doesn't mean he didn't regress.
 
Ok so QBs get a little bit better as they go between being a Sophomore and JR. Ok that's great but what's that matter if they stink their Senior year due to injuries, coordinator changes etc? How about developing a 2nd string QB that's worth putting in if the starter is too hurt or just not playing well enough to be effective? Evidently that's not happening or the coaches are too stubburn (for the lack of a better one word term for it) to tell the starter he's too hurt to be effective. CJ for much of his senior year had no business being in there and it hurt the team. The coaches have no problem subbing out any other position if they are too nicked up to play well. Why are QBs treated totally different in that regard? I can understand their being some grey area to it but if the guy is hobbling around and can't do his part then..

Greg Davis's problem to some degree is his system doesn't work without a more athletic QB and receivers. He wouldn't adjust to his personnel. I suppose most coordintors would look good with Vince Young and McCoy back there running around slinging it to 4 star WRs. But CJ and JR were both more of the traditional type. They could run a little but nobody was going to confuse them with a Vince Young. That change of system is a legit reason why Vandenberg had such a bad senior yr no doubt about it.
 
Hawkfnntn said:
Ok so QBs get a little bit better as they go between being a Sophomore and JR. Ok that's great but what's that matter if they stink their Senior year due to injuries, coordinator changes etc? How about developing a 2nd string QB that's worth putting in if the starter is too hurt or just not playing well enough to be effective? Evidently that's not happening or the coaches are too stubburn (for the lack of a better one word term for it) to tell the starter he's too hurt to be effective. CJ for much of his senior year had no business being in there and it hurt the team. The coaches have no problem subbing out any other position if they are too nicked up to play well. Why are QBs treated totally different in that regard? I can understand their being some grey area to it but if the guy is hobbling around and can't do his part then..

Greg Davis's problem to some degree is his system doesn't work without a more athletic QB and receivers. He wouldn't adjust to his personnel. I suppose most coordintors would look good with Vince Young and McCoy back there running around slinging it to 4 star WRs. But CJ and JR were both more of the traditional type. They could run a little but nobody was going to confuse them with a Vince Young. That change of system is a legit reason why Vandenberg had such a bad senior yr no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with your last paragraph. The New England Patriots run the same type of passing offense as GD employed (having QBs and receivers find the soft spots in pass coverage).

NE is one of the most successful passing teams in all of pro football and do it without a super athletic QB or wide receivers. New England has, for example, high-star 'athletes' receiver from Texas Tech (Amendola), TEs Gronkowski (Arizona) and Chandler (Iowa), receiver but former QB from Kent State Edelman and QB Brady picked in the sixth round of the NFL draft.

Getting open is most important than athleticism (running static passing routes) assuming Iowa can't get athletes at receiver and QB. Besides, most of the NFL teams employ some sort of getting open scheme to passing so the scheme would best prepare Iowa receivers for the NFL.
 
Last edited:
lightning1 said:
It's not that our QBs regress. The more starts the QBs have, the more film opposing DCs have. Defensive coordinators are highly paid for a reason. Once they have 12-15 games worth of film on an opposing QB, they know exactly what that QB likes to do and what they don't like to do. Then they put all of their efforts into forcing that QB to do things he doesn't like to do.
Click to expand...

This is true but there are other macro factors...such as

TATE: He suffered an oblique injury in training camp going into his senior year. In baseball, that takes 6 to 8 weeks of NOTHING to heal from. Tate never had 'nothing' time to heal. Also as a soph, his stats were better...but his defense wasn't. The 2004 to 2005 defenses were not comparable.

STANZI: Senior Rick was absolutely the best Ricky Stanzi. He didn't lose leads late in five games. Iowa had DL depth issues, and those guys were gassed.

JVB: The move to the Davis system pretty much killed him, and the Iowa offense. He had one of the best statistical seasons ever by an Iowa QB as a junior, throwing for 3000+ yards and 25 TD's. The only two QB's in Iowa history to throw for 3000+ yards and 25 or more TD's? Chuck Long and JVB...to go from that to just 8 passing TD's and the worst or second worst Iowa passing offense in the last 40 years the next year is NOT on JVB.

RUDOCK: Junior Rudock was better than soph Rudock, and the Iowa defense went from 9th in scoring D in 2013 to 50th in 2014.

CJB: He was told not to run as a senior. If you want to go here, you can. Frankly of all of them, this would be the biggest coaching impact, along with the change to Davis. But CJB was just never a healthy QB, physically, at Iowa after the ISU game in 2015, the second game that year.

I know folks won't agree in step with me...but I am convinced of this...so in advance, I will agree to disagree with some of you ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top