I'm sorry you feel like two freshman QB's is a safer bet than:
2012
Gray, MarQueis SrQB
Leidner, Mitch FrQB
Nelson, Philip FrQB
Shortell, Max SoQB
Please explain where I lied.
I dd not say I disagreed with you assessment on QBs. That said, Gray wasn't exactly like having Peyton Manning on the roster (note: stats are what was on GopherSports' roster pages):
Starting QBs - Advantage Kill
Kill MarQueis Gray 0.9143 2009 QB JR Appeared in 11 games, 1,495 yds, 8 TDs, 10 INTs
Fleck Demry Croft 0.8531 2016 QB R. SO Played in 9 games, started 6, 41.5% Completion 674 yards, 4 touchdowns, 79 rushes, 311 yards .
Here's where you lied:
Of the four classes that Kill inherited from Brewster, he had 48 kids on the roster, 48.5% of the players he inherited.
Of the four classes that Fleck inherited from Kill, he had 47 kids on the roster, 56.5% of the recruited players he inherited.
You and several others like to look at Brewster's class rankings and state emphatically Kill inherited better talent.
Taking the 247 score for the remaining players shows the following in terms of talent:
Kill inherited
Sum total of player rankings Kill had on the team from Brewster's recruits year 1: 39.7553, 48 players
Sum total of player rankings Fleck had on the team from Kill/Claey's recruits year 1: 39.1187, 47 players
average rating of the recruited players on the roster (and mind you some of the ones on Kill inherited list were walk ons):
Kill: .8282
Fleck: .8323
So the had essentially the same number of players inherited, with roughly the same "talent" level, although on average, Fleck inherited better talent.
Another place you have used flawed statistical analysis repeatedly, which is the third type of lie.. Looking at only the aggregate of the defensive points per game statistics and loudly proclaiming: They are the same!
Here's a real look at the data vs. a ball washing (Data through the Indiana game this year, and is apples to apples - it compares Kill's results through 20 games to Fleck's results through 20 games):
Average Points per game:
Kill: 2011, 31.7; 2012, 23.1
Fleck: 2017, 22.8; 2018 28.9
Kill, 11 Non-Conf, 26.8; 12 non-conf, 16.8
Fleck, 17 non-conf, 8.0; 18 non-conf 9.0
Kill 11 Big Ten, 34.1; 12 Big Ten 29.5
Fleck 17 Big Ten, 27.4; 18 Big Ten 40.5
The data shows that year one under Kill, our defense was much worse than Fleck's year one. However, Kill's defense improved significantly in year 2 as measured by average points allowed by 26.97% while Fleck's teams performance was worse by 26.46% in year two. This helps to explain the relatively flat comparison when taken in aggregate and why further diving in to numbers is always a good idea.
When looking at Non-conf numbers, Kill's teams improved significantly in year 2, improving by 37.38%. Fleck's teams were worse by 13%. It's important to note that while a significant percentage decrease in performance, Fleck's delta was only 1.0 points per game. When starting off as low as they did, the percentage can be misleading.
It's in the Big Ten where the data really shows a difference in trend. Kill's teams improved by 13.55%. Fleck's teams have regressed by 46.88% giving up 13 more points per game in year 2.
So, yeah. The same.
More to come.