Phil Steele-- starts lost to injury stat from 2013

D

desihawk

Well-Known Member
Apparently Iowa lost only 5-starts (only North Texas and PSU lost less) to injury in 2013 according to Phil Steele. Apparently, this translates into less than 30% chance that Iowa improves its record from last year.
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2014/JUNE14/DBJune16a.html

We were better off last year on the injury front than some past years but surely we lost more than 5 starts. Any way to explain away this stat and dodge Steele's creepy prognosis?
 


Well, Jordan Lomax must have been all 5. It took him at least 3 weeks to come back maybe more...by then King wasn't going anywhere. Weisman out at Purdue. Alvis was out a bunch too...that had to be at least five games. I call bulls shat. But it was a very good year for injuries.
 


The blog lists it as one offensive start lost, and four defensive starts.

Lomax was probably chalked up to zero. If he didn't start after returning, I don't think you can say he lost starts due to injury. Alvis missed five himself. Actually, a lot of Steele's number ignore bowl games, so maybe Alvis is four defensive starts. Who else missed a defensive start?

Of course, you can't expect a national talking head to have 100% accuracy for such a stat.
 


No, I actually agree with this analysis. One reason Iowa finished strong and Nebraska and Michigan did not was because # or injuries by the end of season. Nebraska was even starting their 3rd string QB by the end.

By the way, I think Weisman started all 13 games last year. But he got pulled pretty early against Purdue when he could barely move. But he was obviously hurt most of the conference season.

I think one reason the season worked out well in 2013 is because the bye weeks were perfectly timed in 2013. Iowa wont have that advantage in 2014. Having 2 bye weeks in October just 2 weeks apart is so dumb. Should have 1 bye in early October and 1 bye in middle of November.
 


Well, i think you have to say Lomax's were missed starts until he was healthy, which was at least three games or more. When he was health and wasn't considered the better option, then you say it's no longer missed.
 


guffus said:
No, I actually agree with this analysis. One reason Iowa finished strong and Nebraska and Michigan did not was because # or injuries by the end of season. Nebraska was even starting their 3rd string QB by the end.

By the way, I think Weisman started all 13 games last year. But he got pulled pretty early against Purdue when he could barely move. But he was obviously hurt most of the conference season.

I think one reason the season worked out well in 2013 is because the bye weeks were perfectly timed in 2013. Iowa wont have that advantage in 2014. Having 2 bye weeks in October just 2 weeks apart is so dumb. Should have 1 bye in early October and 1 bye in middle of November.
Click to expand...

Frankly, TWO bye weeks means there should either be at least 13 games OR they need to tighten the season so that last Saturday August is earliest game(s) and NO games in December.

Then again, those two bye weeks may be crucial with regard to injury/recovery.
 


I believe in 2015 the double-bye goes away that year but eventually comes back. Personally I would like to see the double-bye go away forever. But we are stuck with a schedule where the first weekend is labor day weekend and the 2nd to last weekend is thanksgiving weekend. So we are stuck with double-byes in some seasons.
 


iowa lives and dies by a. the quality of the OL and DL, and b. the amount of veteran depth on the field overall. and c. quality of special teams play.

if iowa can control the game (a.) be physically and mentally better than the opposition (b.) and make it really hard field position wise on the other team (c.) iowa will be in the game.

I see iowa being pretty strong on the lines, pretty good in respect to veteran depth and questionable at best on special teams.

and don't dismiss the outback bowl bounce! :) (paging steve deace to see if that factor is still going on)

i must say i think there are too many other factors at play when looking at injuries.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top