Yeah and if Tom Brady didn't get hurt last year, he would've thrown for 4,500 yards and 40 TDs.
Iowa vs Iowa State
- Thread starter Hawks4Life
- Start date
And let's take a look at rushing....just for fun lets take the sacks off of both QBs stats.....
Arnaud: 94 att, 519 yards, 5.5 YPC
Stanzi: 37 att, 214 yards, 5.8 YPC
So let's say Stanzi ran the ball 94 times like Arnaud did.....
Stanzi:94 att, 545 yards
The reason Arnaud's stats look better is because of the offense the Cyclones run. Stats show that if Stanzi would have been given equal opportunity to run and throw the ball as much as Austen Arnaud, he would have put up better numbers in both categories.
But let's not let facts get in the way of our opinions.
Arnaud: 94 att, 519 yards, 5.5 YPC
Stanzi: 37 att, 214 yards, 5.8 YPC
So let's say Stanzi ran the ball 94 times like Arnaud did.....
Stanzi:94 att, 545 yards
The reason Arnaud's stats look better is because of the offense the Cyclones run. Stats show that if Stanzi would have been given equal opportunity to run and throw the ball as much as Austen Arnaud, he would have put up better numbers in both categories.
But let's not let facts get in the way of our opinions.
You can't say player A is better than player B because of the stats they put up when player A threw the ball nearly 150 more times than player B.
Stanzi actually ran for 20 yards on 0.4 yards per carry last year. But lets not let facts get in the way.
Are you illiterate? I clearly said stats show if Stanzi would have thrown and ran as much as Arnaud he would have had better numbers. Which is a fact. Arnaud is a systems quarterback, and there's nothing wrong with that. He fits into what Iowa St. tries to do. But that's all he is. He would not fit in to a pro style attack, and he likely will not make it to the next level.
Fact. AA threw for more yards. Fact. He threw for more TDs. Fact. He completed a higher % of his passes. Fact. He ran for more yards. Fact. He ran for more TDs. You do not know for a fact that Stanzi would have had better numbers than AA if he played as much as he did.
No, I don't, but that is what the stats say. You can say "But Stanzi didn't throw the ball as much as Arnaud, he didn't run for as many yards."
Continue to shelter yourself from the realization that Stanzi did not have a much worse year than Cyclone fans think he did, and that if he would have thrown the ball and ran it as many times as Arnaud he would have been more successful.
Arnaud is not a system QB. IMO he is a better pro style QB than a spread QB. AA isn't that fast
So? What's your point? If Culbertson made two more field goals we would have gone to back to back Big 12 championship games.
That's a completely illogical conclusion you're making. Just because Stanzi completed a certain percentage of his passes, or made so many tds per interceptions does not mean in any way that he would continue to do so at the same ratio if he threw more passes.
More passes means more exposure. Since Iowa was primarily a running team last year, Stanzi threw less. That meant opponents spent more time worrying about Greene and less time worrying about Stanzi, focusing their efforts on stopping the run, not stopping the pass. On the other hand, Iowa State was primarily a passing team last year. Opponents prepared for Arnaud and expected to see him throw the ball a lot in each game. These factors likely played into each QB's stats.
It doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't keep that ratio either. For all we know, if Stanzi were to throw as much per game as Arnaud, he might even get better after more game time passing experience. I doubt it, but that is possible.
In the end, the only facts we know are how many yards, touchdowns, intercpetions, etc. that Stanzi and Arnaud were actually able to accumulate over the season. And based on the actual facts, i.e. the recorded events that took place on the football field last year, Arnaud performed better than Stanzi.
And I would have been more successful with the ladies if I had tried more. Actually, I would have been more successful if they drank more. Bad analogy, sorry.
I respect your opinion, but I don't see how you can say Arnaud was better because he passed for more yards. Of course he passed for more yards, he threw the ball 130+ times more than Stanzi did. You have to be able to compare the two, factoring in that huge difference. Now, using ratios might not be the way to do it, but there has to be someway to. Maybe passing efficiency? I don't know. But to say Arnaud was better becasue he passed for more yards is ludicrous.
i was at the ndsu game and arnaud didn't bother checking off receivers. and stanzi hasn't done that either. they look for their primary, wait until there is an inch hole, and throw the ball even though a wide open guy is on the other side of the field. both quarterbacks are not quality quarterbacks, but at least arnaud can run the ball when the time comes. stanzi cannot. he stands and stands and then tries to run out the way of tacklers and hopes that he can gain a yard or two. do that 10, 20 times a game and you'll end up with 100-200 yards rushing at the end of the year. at least arnaud knows when there is good yardage to be gained by running the ball.
I can see your point more when you say it like that. And I think you're right that it doesn't necessarily make Arnaud inherently a better player just because he accumulated more stats.
It's hard to compare them because they play in totally different systems. I will still say Arnaud is better because he's already been there and done it. He was able to accumulate those stats, given the opportunity. For whatever reason, I just can't see Stanzi as being able to produce those numbers if he were put in Arnaud's shoes. Stanzi hasn't really been the driving force of the Hawkeye offense. He could do just fine, and maybe he'll be asked to do more this year and have a breakout season, who knows.
So, basically, I can see your point. I still think Arnaud is better, but I see your point.
It's hard to compare them because they play in totally different systems. I will still say Arnaud is better because he's already been there and done it. He was able to accumulate those stats, given the opportunity. For whatever reason, I just can't see Stanzi as being able to produce those numbers if he were put in Arnaud's shoes. Stanzi hasn't really been the driving force of the Hawkeye offense. He could do just fine, and maybe he'll be asked to do more this year and have a breakout season, who knows.
So, basically, I can see your point. I still think Arnaud is better, but I see your point.
Good point. It would have been fun to see how good AA looked with SG running the ball beside him.
Want to know the only stat that really matters fellas? Stanzi: 9-4 Arnaud: 2-10. I'd say that's a pretty fair stat considering you want to compare a spread offense QB's stats straight up vs. a pro style QB. Some understand that it's a pretty bogus comparison, however others are still hanging their hat on that for whatever reason.