QB Regression

hawkdrummer1 said:
Banks only played as a Sr so there's no comparator
Tate is one of the exceptions to every QB post re: the KFz era. He was a real play maker.
CJB is another exception, but even his Sr stats were under his Jr year.
The jury may be out on Stanley (some would disagree) but nothing short of a sweep in the last 4 games will elevate him.

Perhaps if the discussion was framed as "IOWA QBs never peak as Seniors" instead of "they regress" there'd be a more solid argument. A Senior QB, especially in his 3rd year as starter...is expected to be exceptional. KFz's typically have not.
Click to expand...

I think most of the QB angst has to do with disappointing seasons, that seem to coincide with the QB's Sr. year. Obviously 2010 stands out. I mean you really have to do statistical gymnastics to argue that Stanzi's Sr. season wasn't by far his best season. The problem that year was the D kept giving up leads (that isn't on Stanzi). CJB had nobody to throw to his Sr. year, and the team simply wasn't anywhere near what the 2015 team was. Tate as you even said was hurt.

I just don't see "regression", but what did happen was disappointing seasons as a team with a Sr. QB at the helm.
 
InGoodCo said:
Stanley leads the B1G in passing yards and has a 10-5 TD to int ratio - Iowa also has a better record at this point in the West division then it has had the past 3 seasons. How is this regressing?

oh and could it be that the more defenses see a QB the easier it is to game plan against them? Seriously.... name me a running QB in the NFL that didn't regress after their breakout season? Is that because they suddenly forgot how to run or D's adjusted?
Click to expand...

Steve Young
 
Seth53 said:
I know, I know....this has been hashed and re-hashed many times on this board.

I'm 61, been an astute Hawkeye watcher, etc for 5+ decades...i.e. I'm not some wild-eyed kid acting on emotion.

But for the life of me, I don't see how one can argue against the rationalization that the longer an Iowa QB (under the current coaching staff(s)) is in the system, the worse they perform.

I'm not talking about stats, which pile up naturally with more starts. I'm talking about game management, picking up defenses, making smart choices...not repeating errors over and over they made earlier in their career, etc...fill in the blank.

Stanley is the quintessential example of this. He isn't playing any better now than he did three years ago.

My theory is there is a pretty big blanket thrown on the QBs regarding what and what not to do and it ends up being suffocating.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This Flow Chart Explains it all with IA QBs (from Middle School to Senior Iowa QB)

Reverse-Evolution.jpg
 
Stanzi did look like a better QB in 2010. Like most Iowa QBs as they gain experience they check down more, but that's what stanzi needed to do vs those sideline throws that would get picked.

Unfortunately in 2010 he didn't have the same magic on offense, but it was really more our defense. Things have changed a little bit on our defense where if you're named a starter you don't have to play 100% of the snaps. How many times did our DL get gassed by the end of games due to no substitutions ? Injuries also hurt the team at LB, and on the OL. Just a bad year that Iowa has never really recovered from, save 2015.

Jake R wasn't a bad QB, but by his Junior year all he did was throw 3 yard passes to Bullock. I can't remember which team it was against, maybe Maryland where Iowa has to drive down the field to win the game with very little time on the clock and all Jake did was check down over and over and over.

Nate's numbers have also benefited from the fact that Iowa doesn't throw the ball down the field much. 90% of their throws are three yard outs, with the occasional lob pass to the sideline. I think Nate has had to adjust how he throws those "deeper" passes because he know longer puts any zip on them. The throw to the TE this last Saturday that was juggled would have probably been a TD if Nate leads him with the ball. Instead LaPorta had to slow down, jump up and haul it in allowin the defender to manipulate his arms a bit.

Iowa's QBs are taught to take less risks as they gain more experience. Exceptions being Tate and CJB because they both had a certain swagger that wasn't going to be changed. Unfortunately both of those guys took a pounding their Senior year and couldn't replicate their previous year(s)

The stats are better, but the plays are different. Less risk, higher completion %, disappointing seasons (2019 TBD)
 
Maybe it's the take what they give approach.
But since they don't give much we don't take much. I would think a three yr starter would surly know to throw it away instead of long sack.... But hell what do I know…... and that's football!
 
2 QB's from 20+ years ago....nailed it. My point still stands. QB's typically "regress" the more tape you get on them. Are they regressing or are D's finally catching up? I remember this off season when the site was swooning over Adrian Martinez too. Looks like there is more tape on the kid this go around. Seriously, Vick, RG3, Scam, Vince Young... the NFL is ALL about running QB's and the RPO right now and that will shift again once D's learn their tendencies and see it more often.
 
InGoodCo said:
Seriously, Vick, RG3, Scam, Vince Young... the NFL is ALL about running QB's and the RPO right now and that will shift again once D's learn their tendencies and see it more often.
Click to expand...

Newton and Young simply couldn't throw. Vick had a very prolific career. RG3 likely would have if he had not destroyed his body.

The NFL took about 8 weeks to figure out how to shut down the RPO without exposing another weakness and that is what led to the demise of Kaepernick. Plus I think a lot of coaches don't want their guys running too much anymore because the risk of injury is way too high. The running guys might have a decent year where they run a fair amount, but I think a lot of that is because they don't get the offense and resort to their legs.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Newton and Young simply couldn't throw. Vick had a very prolific career. RG3 likely would have if he had not destroyed his body.

The NFL took about 8 weeks to figure out how to shut down the RPO without exposing another weakness and that is what led to the demise of Kaepernick. Plus I think a lot of coaches don't want their guys running too much anymore because the risk of injury is way too high. The running guys might have a decent year where they run a fair amount, but I think a lot of that is because they don't get the offense and resort to their legs.
Click to expand...

That's probably right... all I know is that when I see a QB that is lauded for running in the NFL I immediately think... well, this guys had a nice career, we'll never see that again.
 
Seth53 said:
I know, I know....this has been hashed and re-hashed many times on this board.

I'm 61, been an astute Hawkeye watcher, etc for 5+ decades...i.e. I'm not some wild-eyed kid acting on emotion.

But for the life of me, I don't see how one can argue against the rationalization that the longer an Iowa QB (under the current coaching staff(s)) is in the system, the worse they perform.

I'm not talking about stats, which pile up naturally with more starts. I'm talking about game management, picking up defenses, making smart choices...not repeating errors over and over they made earlier in their career, etc...fill in the blank.

Stanley is the quintessential example of this. He isn't playing any better now than he did three years ago.

My theory is there is a pretty big blanket thrown on the QBs regarding what and what not to do and it ends up being suffocating.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I think the regression is more about surrounding personnel than the quarterback actually getting worse. Look at the players we lost prior to the decline of the QB's performance. The narrative: Tate declined after 2004. Stanzi dropped off after 2009 (even though his stats were terrible in 09), Vandenburg was bad after 2011 (This one is absolutely true, not his fault) CJB was bad in 2016, Stanley bad in 2019. Look at who these QB's lost the year before.

The supporting cast, receivers, running backs, oline seem (to me) to be in their prime during the QB's early years. The loss of Fant and Hock last year has destroyed our red zone passing offense this year. It's funny though that Nate Stanley is/was leading the B1G in total passing yards.
 
So I'm reading it's maybe more of an overall offense regression versus a QB regression.
I'd buy that. But it still begs the same question....why?

Bad luck, missing pieces, sense of urgency....
 
Seth53 said:
I know, I know....this has been hashed and re-hashed many times on this board.

I'm 61, been an astute Hawkeye watcher, etc for 5+ decades...i.e. I'm not some wild-eyed kid acting on emotion.

But for the life of me, I don't see how one can argue against the rationalization that the longer an Iowa QB (under the current coaching staff(s)) is in the system, the worse they perform.

I'm not talking about stats, which pile up naturally with more starts. I'm talking about game management, picking up defenses, making smart choices...not repeating errors over and over they made earlier in their career, etc...fill in the blank.

Stanley is the quintessential example of this. He isn't playing any better now than he did three years ago.

My theory is there is a pretty big blanket thrown on the QBs regarding what and what not to do and it ends up being suffocating.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

His TDs are way down with a better WR corps. His stats have declined. Of course having a middle line that leaks like a sieve and 0 running game will do that to you if you are a pro-style offense.

I don't understand why Iowa can recruit athletes on defense but not on offense. I'm pretty sure that they just don't want them at this point.
 
eveningnewsteam said:
Stanley has 1 chance left to step up on the big stage on the road[/QUOTE
Probably the coaches and Nate don't care too much about stats. I would think they care more about wins and loses. Sure they probably go hand in hand ,but we lost to the 2 best teams we had the schedule so far and Nate as well as the rest of the team have to play clean, get some breaks, and defense has to contain Taylor at Wisconsin to have a chance. I think it is safe to say if Nate turns in a Michigan/Penn St. performance we lose.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top