ADVERTISEMENT

Receiver recruiting: a retrospective.

The Deplorable Sleeping Dog

HR Heisman
Gold Member
May 9, 2018
7,731
11,040
113
An interesting look at Iowa's recent receiver recruiting.

2017
ISM 5.5
Smith 5.5
Cooper 5.4
Marchese 5.4 -became a D back
Nick Easley (JUCO-lead team in receptions)

2018
Tracy 5.7
Lockett 5.7
Ragaini 5.5

2019
Hutson 5.5

2020
Vines 5.6
Matthews 5.5
C Jones (Transfer)

2021
Johnson 5.8
Bruce 5.8
Brecht 5.7

2022
Jacob Bostick 5.7

2023
Motta 5.7
Buie 5.6
Howard 5.6
Anderson (Portal, FoY small conference).

Iowa lost Lockett, who doesn’t appear to have ever caught a ball in any college game, two seasons have been played since he left Iowa. Marchese never caught a ball and I think changed positions. Mathews went down to a JUCO and doesn’t look like he’s ever played D1 ball. Hutson dropped down a division, caught only 16 balls for a team (UNI) that threw 339 times.

Tracy lost his job to Jones, left for Purdue and finished out his last three seasons doing almost nothing. The transfer didn’t work out all that well. Tyrone caught 51 balls at Iowa for 765 yards and only 43 catches at Purdue for a paltry 304 yards, 7.1 per catch. That was in an offense that threw 466 times. The grass is not always greener.

Jones was a huge loss and the jury is out on Bruce and Johnson. Bruce had mechanical problems learning to be a straight up receiver and not a kind of do everything back. Johnson will probably be outstanding if he’s a little more durable than he showed at Iowa. A lot of injury problems in two seasons-unless last year he was just malingering and stealing a scholarship from Iowa.

Receiver appears to be the 10th priority on offensive recruiting because the offense is geared toward running and hitting tight ends. Obviously the Iowa offense needs a lot of linemen and some depth at QB. Add the critical importance of defensive recruiting and there are ultimately not a lot of spots open for receivers. Hence the misses hurt more than would typically be the case in a more common college offense that recruited more receivers and fewer running backs and tight ends.

These incoming freshmen should work their asses off, there is room at the top and QBs that can probably find and hit them when they're open on the field.

The other factor is the shit show at QB the last three seasons. The receiver numbers were much better with Nate at QB.​
 
An interesting look at Iowa's recent receiver recruiting.

2017
ISM 5.5
Smith 5.5
Cooper 5.4
Marchese 5.4 -became a D back
Nick Easley (JUCO-lead team in receptions)

2018
Tracy 5.7
Lockett 5.7
Ragaini 5.5

2019
Hutson 5.5

2020
Vines 5.6
Matthews 5.5
C Jones (Transfer)

2021
Johnson 5.8
Bruce 5.8
Brecht 5.7

2022
Jacob Bostick 5.7

2023
Motta 5.7
Buie 5.6
Howard 5.6
Anderson (Portal, FoY small conference).

Iowa lost Lockett, who doesn’t appear to have ever caught a ball in any college game, two seasons have been played since he left Iowa. Marchese never caught a ball and I think changed positions. Mathews went down to a JUCO and doesn’t look like he’s ever played D1 ball. Hutson dropped down a division, caught only 16 balls for a team (UNI) that threw 339 times.

Tracy lost his job to Jones, left for Purdue and finished out his last three seasons doing almost nothing. The transfer didn’t work out all that well. Tyrone caught 51 balls at Iowa for 765 yards and only 43 catches at Purdue for a paltry 304 yards, 7.1 per catch. That was in an offense that threw 466 times. The grass is not always greener.

Jones was a huge loss and the jury is out on Bruce and Johnson. Bruce had mechanical problems learning to be a straight up receiver and not a kind of do everything back. Johnson will probably be outstanding if he’s a little more durable than he showed at Iowa. A lot of injury problems in two seasons-unless last year he was just malingering and stealing a scholarship from Iowa.

Receiver appears to be the 10th priority on offensive recruiting because the offense is geared toward running and hitting tight ends. Obviously the Iowa offense needs a lot of linemen and some depth at QB. Add the critical importance of defensive recruiting and there are ultimately not a lot of spots open for receivers. Hence the misses hurt more than would typically be the case in a more common college offense that recruited more receivers and fewer running backs and tight ends.

These incoming freshmen should work their asses off, there is room at the top and QBs that can probably find and hit them when they're open on the field.

The other factor is the shit show at QB the last three seasons. The receiver numbers were much better with Nate at QB.​

Let me sum this up for you; we suck at recruiting WRs and making them happy and intricate in our O!!

This staff is, and I think you and I both believe, are a lot of good things, that in totality, far exceeds what they aren’t….

With that long, winded soliloquy out of the way, what they aren’t, are good at finding wide receivers AND consistent Offense period & they have only ever got lucky as far as I’m concerned!!
 
It would be nice to catch a little luck. Injuries wiped out the position last year. Off to the same start this year.

I would take a long look at Iowa if I was a decent portal receiver. Probably be an immediate starter, as I think Seth will be if he's healthy.

Well @ the end of the day, we do throw the ball some!

Somebody needs to catch them?! We’ve had good WRs before…. Although again, and don’t forget many consider me a homer, but we’ve only ever gotten lucky at wide receiver in my opinion!!!

Point being, we could find defensive backs & linebackers in an Eskimo Village, we can’t find receivers anywhere, we just get lucky!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SheepHumpingHawkeye
Well @ the end of the day, we do throw the ball some!

Somebody needs to catch them?! We’ve had good WRs before…. Although again, and don’t forget many consider me a homer, but we’ve only ever gotten lucky at wide receiver in my opinion!!!

Point being, we could find defensive backs & linebackers in an Eskimo Village, we can’t find receivers anywhere, we just get lucky!!
So why is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
Well @ the end of the day, we do throw the ball some!

Somebody needs to catch them?! We’ve had good WRs before…. Although again, and don’t forget many consider me a homer, but we’ve only ever gotten lucky at wide receiver in my opinion!!!

Point being, we could find defensive backs & linebackers in an Eskimo Village, we can’t find receivers anywhere, we just get lucky!!
Nate Stanley's senior year Iowa threw 411 times, although only 399 were from Nate. The change in passing productivity from the three Stanley years to the three Petras/Padilla years looks like two entirely different offensive schemes or schools when looking at the numbers. Like the receiving leaders/catches.

In 2019 the top 5 receivers (of all types) catches were 46, 44, 37, 36 and 24. ISM, Smith, Tracy and Ragaini were the four yardage leaders. Only Nico, at 9.5, failed to average double digits on catches. In 2022 the top 5 receivers were 58, 34, 28, 19 and 11. The top two receivers were TEs. Sam, Luke and Nico were the only receivers to average more than 10 yards per catch.

I look for a return to a more Stanley era volume and distribution, at least. Although, and here's an interesting thought, Cade's most productive season at Michigan would have been the least productive season in Nate's career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4 and cmhawks99
So why is that?
It's the least important position in the offense. Well, I guess FB so 10th.

Also, since we usually have the best TE or TEs in the conference it makes sense to feed that advantage, as we usually do. TEs thus get an unusual volume of targets and I think that gets used against Iowa.

If Anderson, Vines and Bostick could get healthy, with some last season effort by Nico, we could have a nice receiving group this season. Having a QB that can find those receivers and get them the ball will be enormous progress in the passing game. Iowa has left a lot of yards on the field from Spencer's inability to find second and third receivers, a common source of medium to deep shots and gains.

I remember one play later in the season where Vines broke wide open and Petras never took his eyes off Sam. It was maddening.
 
Like most things, it's a complex equation.

1. Iowa's mantra of not sexy, play for each other, defense first, run the ball, shorten the game, low risk, receivers must block - not enticing to the dazzling receivers in the game

2. The state doesn't produce many D1 receivers.

3. At it's best (non-worst?), Iowa's offense is pedestrian.

4. Iowa hasn't had a QB that could throw into tight windows very often.

5. Iowa's passing scheme is pretty lame.

6. The competition for game-changing WR's is fierce. PU, NW and Neb all better spots. Maybe even ISU


To be sure, it's a weak spot in the football program.
 
It's the least important position in the offense. Well, I guess FB so 10th.

Also, since we usually have the best TE or TEs in the conference it makes sense to feed that advantage, as we usually do. TEs thus get an unusual volume of targets and I think that gets used against Iowa.

If Anderson, Vines and Bostick could get healthy, with some last season effort by Nico, we could have a nice receiving group this season. Having a QB that can find those receivers and get them the ball will be enormous progress in the passing game. Iowa has left a lot of yards on the field from Spencer's inability to find second and third receivers, a common source of medium to deep shots and gains.

I remember one play later in the season where Vines broke wide open and Petras never took his eyes off Sam. It was maddening.
So if honestly wide receiver is the 10th most important position on the field how do we ever expect to get anyone that’s even halfway decent? We were weak in so many positions on offense last year besides running back and tight end I’m not sure how to really break it down. I do think Petra’s became so shell shocked after getting battered for 3 years he just lost his nerve. Hopefully McNamara can at least make us decent on offense. But man do we need to get more talent on that side of the ball.
 
I honestly believe that DJK/Dominique Douglas changed the way that the staff evaluates & values WR's.

They would rather have the Easley/McCarron types & not have to deal with the ego's, flash, etc that comes with that position group, that & the stubbornness to not morph the offense so that it is more WR friendly, honestly if you are a top 100 WR why do you want to come to block & get lit up on a reverse a couple times a game?

Seemed like early in the KF era they utilized the WR's a lot more & had way better playmakers like CJ Jones, Mo Brown, Hinkle, Soloman
 
I honestly believe that DJK/Dominique Douglas changed the way that the staff evaluates & values WR's.

They would rather have the Easley/McCarron types & not have to deal with the ego's, flash, etc that comes with that position group, that & the stubbornness to not morph the offense so that it is more WR friendly, honestly if you are a top 100 WR why do you want to come to block & get lit up on a reverse a couple times a game?

Seemed like early in the KF era they utilized the WR's a lot more & had way better playmakers like CJ Jones, Mo Brown, Hinkle, Soloman
LOL. Kirk ain't taking egos at any spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99
So if honestly wide receiver is the 10th most important position on the field how do we ever expect to get anyone that’s even halfway decent? We were weak in so many positions on offense last year besides running back and tight end I’m not sure how to really break it down. I do think Petra’s became so shell shocked after getting battered for 3 years he just lost his nerve. Hopefully McNamara can at least make us decent on offense. But man do we need to get more talent on that side of the ball.
I know there are many differences between NFL and NCAA, but I thought this was interesting. I assume the pay is correlated with the value the NFL places on each position. There was a huge variance on LT vs RT also. LT avg pay rivalled QB pay in 2022. NFL places a fairly high value on WR compared to other positions. Average salary by position below:

QB $6.89M

OT $4.19M

WR $3.18M

OC $3.08M

OG $2.92M

TE $2.48M

RB $2.2M

FB $2.12M
 
I know there are many differences between NFL and NCAA, but I thought this was interesting. I assume the pay is correlated with the value the NFL places on each position. There was a huge variance on LT vs RT also. LT avg pay rivalled QB pay in 2022. NFL places a fairly high value on WR compared to other positions. Average salary by position below:

QB $6.89M

OT $4.19M

WR $3.18M

OC $3.08M

OG $2.92M

TE $2.48M

RB $2.2M

FB $2.12M
That's great information. We can all go into how Iowa plays ( ball control, etc.) but the NFL has become a passing and QB league. Clearly the stars of the top teams are lead by good to great qb's. Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, even Hurts now w/the Eagles. Then you build the team around them. WR the 3rd highest paid position in the NFL and as @Deplorable said it's 10th only ahead of the FB for our team. Running backs are a dime a dozen in the league. Get a QB and build around him. Value Wide receivers and playmakers. If you are running a supposed Pro style offense (which we say we do) then get some fuKK&&& receivers and a QB that can make a play.
 
That's great information. We can all go into how Iowa plays ( ball control, etc.) but the NFL has become a passing and QB league. Clearly the stars of the top teams are lead by good to great qb's. Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, even Hurts now w/the Eagles. Then you build the team around them. WR the 3rd highest paid position in the NFL and as @Deplorable said it's 10th only ahead of the FB for our team. Running backs are a dime a dozen in the league. Get a QB and build around him. Value Wide receivers and playmakers. If you are running a supposed Pro style offense (which we say we do) then get some fuKK&&& receivers and a QB that can make a play.
Agree we need some playmakers on the outside. You could say we haven't been great at developing the top 3 NFL valued positions since BF took over. Usually had elite OT and at least an average QB prior to Brian (as OC). All three top valued positions in the NFL have not performed well recently at Iowa recently. I just don't know how this staff changes the perception that Iowa is where wide receivers go to die....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Footbol and littlez
I know there are many differences between NFL and NCAA, but I thought this was interesting. I assume the pay is correlated with the value the NFL places on each position. There was a huge variance on LT vs RT also. LT avg pay rivalled QB pay in 2022. NFL places a fairly high value on WR compared to other positions. Average salary by position below:

QB $6.89M

OT $4.19M

WR $3.18M

OC $3.08M

OG $2.92M

TE $2.48M

RB $2.2M

FB $2.12M
It should be obvious from the importance of offensive linemen, especially tackles, where Iowa's main problem lies. When the Hawkeyes had Wirfs and AJ the offense was at least adequate with Stanley. I'm afraid his numbers would not have been near that good without those two on the line.
 
It should be obvious from the importance of offensive linemen, especially tackles, where Iowa's main problem lies. When the Hawkeyes had Wirfs and AJ the offense was at least adequate with Stanley. I'm afraid his numbers would not have been near that good without those two on the line.
Which again proves why the NFL values the left tackle so much.
 
Looks like the Hawks are going to be challenged at the receiver position again this season.
 
Looks like the Hawks are going to be challenged at the receiver position again this season.
As we saw last year with CHARLIE Jones, players will be looking around for better opportunities after spring practice.
Hawks need to find a top portal WR...and outbid the competition.
 
So if honestly wide receiver is the 10th most important position on the field how do we ever expect to get anyone that’s even halfway decent? We were weak in so many positions on offense last year besides running back and tight end I’m not sure how to really break it down. I do think Petra’s became so shell shocked after getting battered for 3 years he just lost his nerve. Hopefully McNamara can at least make us decent on offense. But man do we need to get more talent on that side of the ball.

We do recruit some good talent. Johnson and maybe Bruce were highly recruited and Johnson showed real talent at the position. Anyone Rivals rates as a 5.7 & 5.6 3* is someone that should be starting at most P5 teams (again, the BBs get the cream of the crop at every position) by year 3 and be positive contributors before that. Iowa has recruited quite a few of those guys-Smith and ISM provide good examples.

Obviously a WR knows that Iowa runs the ball and throws to TEs and this probably hurts recruiting higher end receivers. Copeland did a good job with his first group, Smith, ISM and Easley. Nico has been a competent starter.

I'm hoping that the Petras era was just a dark age for throwing and receivers became disgruntled. Bostick and Vines both look the part. Getting healthy is a must. Defenses know the receivers are usually a 3rd option so you think we could hit more deep balls with a much better QB we're almost certain to have on the field.

I honestly believe that DJK/Dominique Douglas changed the way that the staff evaluates & values WR's.

They would rather have the Easley/McCarron types & not have to deal with the ego's, flash, etc that comes with that position group, that & the stubbornness to not morph the offense so that it is more WR friendly, honestly if you are a top 100 WR why do you want to come to block & get lit up on a reverse a couple times a game?

Seemed like early in the KF era they utilized the WR's a lot more & had way better playmakers like CJ Jones, Mo Brown, Hinkle, Soloman

That seems fairly petty. The receivers recruits know we are TE U. Guys that are looking for maximum targets just won't be attracted to Iowa.
 
I honestly believe that DJK/Dominique Douglas changed the way that the staff evaluates & values WR's.

They would rather have the Easley/McCarron types & not have to deal with the ego's, flash, etc that comes with that position group, that & the stubbornness to not morph the offense so that it is more WR friendly, honestly if you are a top 100 WR why do you want to come to block & get lit up on a reverse a couple times a game?

Seemed like early in the KF era they utilized the WR's a lot more & had way better playmakers like CJ Jones, Mo Brown, Hinkle, Soloman
Dochterman wrote something similar to this last Fall on the athletic. Saying how he has fallen back on walk ons with success with Easley, McCarron all the way back to Matt mellow and others in the past. over looking transfers and became to reliant thinking he’d find another diamond in the rough with walk ons and that just didn’t happen. Basically saying we need to take our shot more with portal guys instead of hoping and relying on walk players like Wick and Ritter to become serviceable big 10 players.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stoopsbrother
We do recruit some good talent. Johnson and maybe Bruce were highly recruited and Johnson showed real talent at the position. Anyone Rivals rates as a 5.7 & 5.6 3* is someone that should be starting at most P5 teams (again, the BBs get the cream of the crop at every position) by year 3 and be positive contributors before that. Iowa has recruited quite a few of those guys-Smith and ISM provide good examples.

Obviously a WR knows that Iowa runs the ball and throws to TEs and this probably hurts recruiting higher end receivers. Copeland did a good job with his first group, Smith, ISM and Easley. Nico has been a competent starter.

I'm hoping that the Petras era was just a dark age for throwing and receivers became disgruntled. Bostick and Vines both look the part. Getting healthy is a must. Defenses know the receivers are usually a 3rd option so you think we could hit more deep balls with a much better QB we're almost certain to have on the field.



That seems fairly petty. The receivers recruits know we are TE U. Guys that are looking for maximum targets just won't be attracted to Iowa.
What wide receiver wants to go to a place where they know they’re not getting the ball? Of course you’re then only going to get guys that are developmental guys or just guys that aren’t that good. It doesn’t have to be a one or the other.
 
There's no way to sugarcoat it, this staff has done a really, really shitty job recruiting WRs. Both in numbers and talent.

Anyone with half a brain would have known Brecht wasn't long term.

CadeM either was lied to about the position group or didn't care.
 
Nate Stanley's senior year Iowa threw 411 times, although only 399 were from Nate. The change in passing productivity from the three Stanley years to the three Petras/Padilla years looks like two entirely different offensive schemes or schools when looking at the numbers. Like the receiving leaders/catches.

In 2019 the top 5 receivers (of all types) catches were 46, 44, 37, 36 and 24. ISM, Smith, Tracy and Ragaini were the four yardage leaders. Only Nico, at 9.5, failed to average double digits on catches. In 2022 the top 5 receivers were 58, 34, 28, 19 and 11. The top two receivers were TEs. Sam, Luke and Nico were the only receivers to average more than 10 yards per catch.

I look for a return to a more Stanley era volume and distribution, at least. Although, and here's an interesting thought, Cade's most productive season at Michigan would have been the least productive season in Nate's career.
A lot of people think Jim Harbaugh is some razzle dazzle throw the ball all over the place but he runs the ball a lot. Two years ago at Mich Cade had a very good running game which would limit passing attempts and yards.

If Nico can stay healthy and Vines improves along with one or two other receivers playing well I think the passing game will be ok. Mich didnt have the receivers OSU did the past few years when the buckeyes just passed all over the place. I am more hoping that Cade can get the completion percentage up to 65+% which was his avg in 2021 at 64+%
 
That's great information. We can all go into how Iowa plays ( ball control, etc.)

If you are running a supposed Pro style offense (which we say we do) then get some fuKK&&& receivers and a QB that can make a play.

Well our pro style offense is old 1960's and 1970's Green Bay, Steelers, etc type where even when those teams had great qbs and WRs but they ran the ball first with hornung, taylor, Franco, etc and set up the pass.

They ran more draws and screens in passing situations. By the time Bradshaw and Swann were about done playing the passing got a little bigger part of the game.

You dont see many draws on third and 8 anymore in the pros but you do see the wide receivers getting jet sweeps and reverses more and more. Some teams still use a decent number of screens but many go to TEnds and WRs
 
Receiver appears to be the 10th priority on offensive recruiting because the offense is geared toward running and hitting tight ends. Obviously the Iowa offense needs a lot of linemen and some depth at QB. Add the critical importance of defensive recruiting and there are ultimately not a lot of spots open for receivers. Hence the misses hurt more than would typically be the case in a more common college offense that recruited more receivers and fewer running backs and tight ends.​
There was a time when we didn't recruit enough RBs ... and then when depth issues hit that position ... it certainly hurt our O. I think that we all remember that period ... I think we need not name that hateful, RB-hating deity.

Given our deliberate pace of play ... when things are even clicking, we're likely looking at a max of high 60s to low 70s snaps per game. That just doesn't amount to a ton of targets for WRs ... at least if you work upon the premise of "distributing the wealth."

Furthermore, Kirk seems to have stuck to the philosophy that our best-bet for player retention involves us focussing most of our recruiting capital in the midwest. Thus, compared to much of our competition ... we arguably recruit within a prescribed radius the most. I think that this is premised upon the fact that Kirk believes that midwestern recruits are under-recruited (and he feels like his staff knows how to identify the "diamonds") AND that primarily recruiting the midwest is the most sustainable thing to do.

An obvious caveat of the aforementioned recruiting strategy is that the midwest is not necessarily loaded with high caliber WR-recruits (at least compared to other regions). Those who are more highly touted are often in geographies that tend to filter to other programs ... for instance, top Chicago talent tend to go to Notre Dame. We haven't had much luck recruiting top St. Louis talent since we had Eric Johnson as an assistant coach.

Anyhow, the point being that recruiting WRs to Iowa is definitely a tough sell ... and our preferred recruiting territory doesn't make things any easier for us.

The whole issue concerning WRs likely is a big reason why we place such emphasis on TE-play. Besides, strategically, our use of TEs is one of our best "weapons" as it relates to being able to dictate things to opposing Ds. Our TE-personnel allows us to go "jumbo" without changing personnel ... which thereby impacts Ds to have to "guess" more based upon down and distance.

Thus, given our "normal" personnel ... we're a team that usually prefers to use twin TEs. If we use 22 personnel ... then that means we only have 1 WR. If we go with 21 personnel, then we have 2 WRs. When we go 4 or 5 wide (which is a rarity), it is often the result of having a TE and RB lined up wide.

Anyhow, given our abysmal QB play over the past few years, that has lead to what feels like higher than usual attrition at the WR position.

I can only infer that demonstrating better competence at the WR spot is arguably our best bet as it relates to resuscitating our WR recruiting situation. Like many, I thought that Copeland was initially getting things turned around for us at WR ... at least prior to the Petras QB-era.
 
Ghost makes a lot of sense. A WR in last year's locker room had to see the QBs play. Those young receivers that left were tight with Labas. There was younger vs older and offense vs defense dissension in the locker room. I am looking forward to a return to the WR growth that came with Copeland. Let's not forget that Nick Easley and especially Charlie Jones became outstanding receivers under Copeland as well.

I too truly hope this is a Petras/Padilla thing. Like I said above, the difference between the passing offenses with Nate and Petras/Padilla looks like completely different staffs not almost entirely the same staff.
 
There was a time when we didn't recruit enough RBs ... and then when depth issues hit that position ... it certainly hurt our O. I think that we all remember that period ... I think we need not name that hateful, RB-hating deity.

Given our deliberate pace of play ... when things are even clicking, we're likely looking at a max of high 60s to low 70s snaps per game. That just doesn't amount to a ton of targets for WRs ... at least if you work upon the premise of "distributing the wealth."

Furthermore, Kirk seems to have stuck to the philosophy that our best-bet for player retention involves us focussing most of our recruiting capital in the midwest. Thus, compared to much of our competition ... we arguably recruit within a prescribed radius the most. I think that this is premised upon the fact that Kirk believes that midwestern recruits are under-recruited (and he feels like his staff knows how to identify the "diamonds") AND that primarily recruiting the midwest is the most sustainable thing to do.

An obvious caveat of the aforementioned recruiting strategy is that the midwest is not necessarily loaded with high caliber WR-recruits (at least compared to other regions). Those who are more highly touted are often in geographies that tend to filter to other programs ... for instance, top Chicago talent tend to go to Notre Dame. We haven't had much luck recruiting top St. Louis talent since we had Eric Johnson as an assistant coach.

Anyhow, the point being that recruiting WRs to Iowa is definitely a tough sell ... and our preferred recruiting territory doesn't make things any easier for us.

The whole issue concerning WRs likely is a big reason why we place such emphasis on TE-play. Besides, strategically, our use of TEs is one of our best "weapons" as it relates to being able to dictate things to opposing Ds. Our TE-personnel allows us to go "jumbo" without changing personnel ... which thereby impacts Ds to have to "guess" more based upon down and distance.

Thus, given our "normal" personnel ... we're a team that usually prefers to use twin TEs. If we use 22 personnel ... then that means we only have 1 WR. If we go with 21 personnel, then we have 2 WRs. When we go 4 or 5 wide (which is a rarity), it is often the result of having a TE and RB lined up wide.

Anyhow, given our abysmal QB play over the past few years, that has lead to what feels like higher than usual attrition at the WR position.

I can only infer that demonstrating better competence at the WR spot is arguably our best bet as it relates to resuscitating our WR recruiting situation. Like many, I thought that Copeland was initially getting things turned around for us at WR ... at least prior to the Petras QB-era.
If you run 65 plays and ideally we call ourselves a team that likes to be balanced, that’s about 32 runs vs 32 passes. Yep, our tight ends have been studs and we devote a lot to them. Say that’s 10 targets. 4-5 to the backs. That leaves you 18 for wide receivers. That’s plenty to go around honestly. We don’t have a dominant run game. We’re middle of the pack at best in the conference. So it’s not like we’re out there just kicking ass in the run game so the receivers never see the ball. We have to find a way to utilize our receivers. It’s where the game is today.
 
If you run 65 plays and ideally we call ourselves a team that likes to be balanced, that’s about 32 runs vs 32 passes. Yep, our tight ends have been studs and we devote a lot to them. Say that’s 10 targets. 4-5 to the backs. That leaves you 18 for wide receivers. That’s plenty to go around honestly. We don’t have a dominant run game. We’re middle of the pack at best in the conference. So it’s not like we’re out there just kicking ass in the run game so the receivers never see the ball. We have to find a way to utilize our receivers. It’s where the game is today.
Iowa's percentage has traditionally been more like 55% run, 45% pass ... however, that's still a pretty high pass-percentage. Minnesota has featured even more of a run-heavy bias ... more like 65% run. Wisconsin, under the prior staff, was more run-heavy too (compared to us).

45% of 65 plays = roughly 29 pass-plays

Now figure that there are probably AT LEAST around 4 plays a game where the QB is forced to scramble and either gets tackled for a loss or a small gain. Accounting for this ...

29 pass-plays - 4 pressures (forcing the QB to run) = 25 pass-plays resulting in a pass

In an ideal situation, an Iowa QB completes AT LEAST 62%. The last time we had a QB even sniff that territory was Beathard back in 2015 ... and then, he was at 61.6%.

If such an idealized situation occurs ...

62% of 25 pass plays = roughly 16 completions

Thus, the current reality is that Iowa's pass game is going to be looking at an average of (maybe) 16 completions per game. Obviously a number of those balls are going to the TEs ... and there's always the possibility that check-downs could go to the RB.

If you're a WR hoping to get nearly 10 receptions a game ... that's gonna be a tall-order to get at Iowa.

Mind you ... if we ever get a QB again who is like Drew Tate ... then that situation could definitely change. Drew proved to be so prolific and efficient ... that Iowa completed upped to the play-percentage to be more pass-heavy.
 
Iowa's percentage has traditionally been more like 55% run, 45% pass ... however, that's still a pretty high pass-percentage. Minnesota has featured even more of a run-heavy bias ... more like 65% run. Wisconsin, under the prior staff, was more run-heavy too (compared to us).

45% of 65 plays = roughly 29 pass-plays

Now figure that there are probably AT LEAST around 4 plays a game where the QB is forced to scramble and either gets tackled for a loss or a small gain. Accounting for this ...

29 pass-plays - 4 pressures (forcing the QB to run) = 25 pass-plays resulting in a pass

In an ideal situation, an Iowa QB completes AT LEAST 62%. The last time we had a QB even sniff that territory was Beathard back in 2015 ... and then, he was at 61.6%.

If such an idealized situation occurs ...

62% of 25 pass plays = roughly 16 completions

Thus, the current reality is that Iowa's pass game is going to be looking at an average of (maybe) 16 completions per game. Obviously a number of those balls are going to the TEs ... and there's always the possibility that check-downs could go to the RB.

If you're a WR hoping to get nearly 10 receptions a game ... that's gonna be a tall-order to get at Iowa.

Mind you ... if we ever get a QB again who is like Drew Tate ... then that situation could definitely change. Drew proved to be so prolific and efficient ... that Iowa completed upped to the play-percentage to be more pass-heavy.
I get all that. But again, we say we want to be balanced. Figure out how to use the short passing game more effective like most NFL teams do now. There’s not a lot of long passes in the NFL anymore. These are excuses why we can’t get receivers. If we can’t then let’s change some things. Because nobody decent is coming as a WR.
 
Iowa's percentage has traditionally been more like 55% run, 45% pass ... however, that's still a pretty high pass-percentage. Minnesota has featured even more of a run-heavy bias ... more like 65% run. Wisconsin, under the prior staff, was more run-heavy too (compared to us).

45% of 65 plays = roughly 29 pass-plays

Now figure that there are probably AT LEAST around 4 plays a game where the QB is forced to scramble and either gets tackled for a loss or a small gain. Accounting for this ...

29 pass-plays - 4 pressures (forcing the QB to run) = 25 pass-plays resulting in a pass

In an ideal situation, an Iowa QB completes AT LEAST 62%. The last time we had a QB even sniff that territory was Beathard back in 2015 ... and then, he was at 61.6%.

If such an idealized situation occurs ...

62% of 25 pass plays = roughly 16 completions

Thus, the current reality is that Iowa's pass game is going to be looking at an average of (maybe) 16 completions per game. Obviously a number of those balls are going to the TEs ... and there's always the possibility that check-downs could go to the RB.

If you're a WR hoping to get nearly 10 receptions a game ... that's gonna be a tall-order to get at Iowa.

Mind you ... if we ever get a QB again who is like Drew Tate ... then that situation could definitely change. Drew proved to be so prolific and efficient ... that Iowa completed upped to the play-percentage to be more pass-heavy.
and having no running game helped Drew's soph numbers...his best individual season. I would like to see that number of throws over 30. Need to more aggressively pursue points. But we have to get the WRs more touches for more yards or WRs aren't looking at Iowa. Although next season we have two TEs that can essentially run deeper routes and kind of replace receivers in some sense.
 
and having no running game helped Drew's soph numbers...his best individual season. I would like to see that number of throws over 30. Need to more aggressively pursue points. But we have to get the WRs more touches for more yards or WRs aren't looking at Iowa. Although next season we have two TEs that can essentially run deeper routes and kind of replace receivers in some sense.
TEs usually own advantages over the guys who cover them ... however, good DBs can at least force QBs to throw into tight windows. Therein lies the advantage of WRs ... particularly ones who can get open ... then often help "loosen up" opposing Ds in coverage.

TEs don't have the speed to blow the top of the D ... and since they're slower, longer-developing TE routes put more pressure on the OL in pass-pro.

That's part of the reason why offensive ball is so complementary ... Iowa's O benefits the most when we can force the opposing D to defend more of the field. Thus, while we don't need to go deep often ... it still needs to be a threat. Similarly, you need the threat of the run to put more pressure on LBs ... so their drops aren't too deep. If they can get away with somewhat deeper drops ... then that takes away some of the stuff over the middle and can tighten the windows along the seams. If our TEs are forever stuck with 8 or 9 yard gains ... that favors the opposing D. They force a 3rd and long ... then, all of a sudden, it becomes that much harder for us to convert.

Anyhow, last season, Sam LaPorta was getting used A LOT like a WR ... the guy did a great job of being really versatile for us. I expect some of the same entering '23 as well. However, ideally, the WRs can pose more of a threat ... that way it opens up more opportunities for our RBs and TEs. When that happens ... then it opens up more opportunities for the WRs for longer stuff ... posts and double-moves.
 
and having no running game helped Drew's soph numbers...his best individual season. I would like to see that number of throws over 30. Need to more aggressively pursue points. But we have to get the WRs more touches for more yards or WRs aren't looking at Iowa. Although next season we have two TEs that can essentially run deeper routes and kind of replace receivers in some sense.
Also, interestingly, Drew's numbers were pretty comparable in 2005 too (as a JR). We ran the ball more and better that year too. Kirk always thinks pretty positively about that season. The Michigan, Northwestern, and Florida games were all really close games. That '05 squad was saltier than Iowa fans remember.
 
I get all that. But again, we say we want to be balanced. Figure out how to use the short passing game more effective like most NFL teams do now. There’s not a lot of long passes in the NFL anymore. These are excuses why we can’t get receivers. If we can’t then let’s change some things. Because nobody decent is coming as a WR.
But we do get decent receivers at Iowa, which is frustrating. Smith, ISM, Ragaini, Easley and Jones were good and Jones was outstanding. Our recruiting profile in the last four classes has featured four stars and highest grade 3 star recruits, with good offers. Now they're either gone, injured or not yet arrived.

Everything about the passing game improved every year of the Stanley years. I don't know if I'd go so far as an epiphany but certainly some new insight when I compared the throwing game in the Stanley vs Petras/Padilla years.

I don't know if this moment stands out to you but there was a play, late in the season and in a win, Petras was locked onto a covered Sam, Diante burst wide open behind the double and Petras never moved his head to even look for a better option. It would have been an easy completion, for most QBs and even Petras in their fourth year of college football-with a 50-60 yard quick six payoff. Any of our starting QBs of the past 40 years would have easily made that play. I think Joe Labas would have seen that play, or even a true freshman in Carson May. Instead, incompletion and a punt. Just the epitome of the Petras/Padilla era.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez
While Marsette dropped a few balls and was a little erratic his speed kept the defense honest and he got better every year. You guys are right about having at least the potential to stretch the field. We desperately need that option.
 
It would be nice to catch a little luck. Injuries wiped out the position last year. Off to the same start this year.

I would take a long look at Iowa if I was a decent portal receiver. Probably be an immediate starter, as I think Seth will be if he's healthy.
If you take a long at Iowa as a WR, then you would most likely choose to go elsewhere. What has Iowa done over the past 20yrs to attract WR's?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT