Running Game Outlook for 2013

NCHawker

NCHawker

Well-Known Member
How do you think the hawks will fare among conference teams in 2013?

Here is a rundown

YEAR BY YEAR IOWA RUSHING STATS / RANK IN BIG TEN
YEAR
RANK
ATT
YDS
YDS/A
LONG
TD
YDS/G
2012
12
404
1476
3.7
44
15
123
2011
12
454
1790
3.9
50
18
137.7
2010
8
449
1929
4.3
75
16
148.4
2009
9
454
1485
3.3
43
13
114.2
2008
4
515
2453
4.8
75
30
188.7
2007
10
438
1515
3.5
30
11
126.3
2006
7
432
1865
4.3
44
16
143.5
2005
7
436
2096
4.8
71
19
174.7
2004
11
428
871
2
47
10
72.6
 


I don't see them being any worse than last year:D All joking aside I think they will be middle of the pack this upcoming season if not even in the top four.
 


BigD said:
I don't see them being any worse than last year:D All joking aside I think they will be middle of the pack this upcoming season if not even in the top four.
Click to expand...

Last time they were in the top four they had Greene. Do you want a do over?
 




Also shows how everyone knows what the play is. Which really makes me wonder about why they cant get the play in on time when everyone knows what they are going to do.
 


OUTofTOWNHAWK said:
Very sad results for how good the offensive line is on average. This shows how poor the passing game is.
Click to expand...

Actually it also shows how poor our running backs have been too since S. Greene left in 2008. You have Wegher/Robinson combo, but one was a true freshman and the other a redshirt freshman, so they weren't really ready, although they had tremendous potential, especially Wegher. Then you throw in Coker, and although a good back, he wasn't what you consider to be a S.Greene type of player. If Greene were runnning behind the 2010 line...he would have had 2200 yards and a Heisman Trophy. Our running back woes were well cronicled from last year...so those numbers also have alot to do with the talent or lack there of at running back.
 


Is the ranking based on total yards? If so, it could reflect, in part, the amount of time that our defense stays on the field.
 


Trying to figure rank off that is impossible. It takes into account all the teams, so where 1900 might be good for a 6th one year, the very next year it could only get you a 9th. Now if anyone want to guess yards that would be different, but I would suggest you figure the amount of backs we will be using. That is why I like the backs talking as a unit. No glory hounds, just all business of pounding the ball.
 


These numbers show how bad the offense has been. You had the best or second best running back in the country and you get 4th in the BoneG. KF always has better than average Olines so this just shows how poor the play calling/game plan is.
 


LG210 said:
Is the ranking based on total yards? If so, it could reflect, in part, the amount of time that our defense stays on the field.
Click to expand...


don't get logical. blows the negative vibe all up. some only thrive on the negative. a standout or two already have jumped in in this thread.....
 




imported_ankle23 said:
don't get logical. blows the negative vibe all up. some only thrive on the negative. a standout or two already have jumped in in this thread.....
Click to expand...



Another funny thing is you can see everything negative in clown town but not at Iowa? How do they keep handing it to Kirk then? YOu start a lot of post trying to make fun of ISU but just look silly. Iam all for making fun of ISU when we can actually beat them. Until then we as Iowa fans should keep our mouths shut.
 


2 reasons why team rushing stats are meaningless:
1) Top 5 rushing offenses in 2012 = Army #1, Air Force #2, Georgia Tech #4, New Mexico #5. All well over 5 ypc. Combined record = 19-33.

2) They include sacks as "rushing" yards, when they should more appropriately count them against the QB's passing stats.

Here's what matters when it comes to rushing:
1) Rushing 1st downs;
2) Rushing TD's;
3) Individual yards.
4) Ratio to total offense.
 


It matters when you count B1G teams to B1G teams. I dont understand why you guys want to brush this under the rug. Look at the stats. It points to bad play calling and bad passing at Iowa. Plain and simple.
 


Army, Airforce and GT all run wishbone? they should have High numbers. You also have to look at who those teams play. We are talking about B1G rankings.
 


Also Im sorry if anyone finds this negative but thats what the numbers show and I didnt start the thread. It shows Iowa at 4th in its best year. However people want to talk about OL in the draft. Kirk has great OLs almost every year. These stats show there is a flaw in the game plan.
 


imported_ankle23 said:
don't get logical. blows the negative vibe all up. some only thrive on the negative. a standout or two already have jumped in in this thread.....
Click to expand...


Still waiting for how this logically shows good things? So thrive on man......show me the way. Or did you just want to point fingers at me with nothing to back it up?
 


OUTofTOWNHAWK said:
Still waiting for how this logically shows good things? So thrive on man......show me the way. Or did you just want to point fingers at me with nothing to back it up?
Click to expand...

It shows that even when an Iowa RB has a good individual year, the team #'s aren't great because of conservative play calling and not running up the score on bad teams. Probably also says something about 3rd down efficiency and play calling. Get 6-8 yards by running on first and second down then throw an incomplete 0 yd out on 3rd down. Punt, repeat. Got me on the good part of it.
 


I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how KF tends to ride his horse until it can't run anymore. In 2010 we never saw Coker or Rogers once the B1G season was under way. No Coker until ARob had his bell rung.

So we see a single, dependable, all purpose back with lots of yards then the next guy has 1/10th the yardage. Typical 90/10 distribution. I think total yardage goes up if the distribution goes more like 70/30 or a 60/40 split, probably in the +15 percent range. Add a third so we have a 50 / 30 / 20 split or something similar and we may get an additional +5 percent or so. The natural distribution starts to work against you when add a fourth or more elements taking more away from the top performers tha566n you gain.

This is why Iowa is middle of the pack. You are trading +20% total team yardage for +15% for a single individual. The teams that are ahead of Iowa in total yards will have something like two running backs and a QB sharing carries. Iowa's top back may have more individual yards than these team's top running back. There are few, if any, other rushing yards for Iowa. In fact, there essentially wouldn't be any other rushing yards if it wasn't for injuries to the primary Iowa ball carrier.

The reason is that individual runners will have certain strengths that can be exploited against certain weaknesses of opposing teams. For example if the opponent isn't good covering the outside run, Iowa will run stretch plays against them. The all purpose Iowa running back is going to get three digit yardage because the line is making it happen. If Iowa has an outside specialist so to speak, a guy that can turn the corner a little sooner than the all purpose back then he might have even more yards running the exact, same, plays.

Against another team that has LBs who are not great tacklers a runner who is slippery is going to gouge them for a couple more yards per carry between the tackles.

You can run combos like a powerhouse straight ahead runner earlier in the game and as the defense tires swith to the outside guy down the stretch.

This is with the same plays called, just w/ different players on the field.

We have what looks to be four RBs and at least one QB that should be able to run behind what is shaping up to be a typical Iowa line. I hope we don't go throgh them in serial fashion.
 


bitmap said:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how KF tends to ride his horse until it can't run anymore. In 2010 we never saw Coker or Rogers once the B1G season was under way. No Coker until ARob had his bell rung.

So we see a single, dependable, all purpose back with lots of yards then the next guy has 1/10th the yardage. Typical 90/10 distribution. I think total yardage goes up if the distribution goes more like 70/30 or a 60/40 split, probably in the +15 percent range. Add a third so we have a 50 / 30 / 20 split or something similar and we may get an additional +5 percent or so. The natural distribution starts to work against you when add a fourth or more elements taking more away from the top performers tha566n you gain.

This is why Iowa is middle of the pack. You are trading +20% total team yardage for +15% for a single individual. The teams that are ahead of Iowa in total yards will have something like two running backs and a QB sharing carries. Iowa's top back may have more individual yards than these team's top running back. There are few, if any, other rushing yards for Iowa. In fact, there essentially wouldn't be any other rushing yards if it wasn't for injuries to the primary Iowa ball carrier.

The reason is that individual runners will have certain strengths that can be exploited against certain weaknesses of opposing teams. For example if the opponent isn't good covering the outside run, Iowa will run stretch plays against them. The all purpose Iowa running back is going to get three digit yardage because the line is making it happen. If Iowa has an outside specialist so to speak, a guy that can turn the corner a little sooner than the all purpose back then he might have even more yards running the exact, same, plays.

Against another team that has LBs who are not great tacklers a runner who is slippery is going to gouge them for a couple more yards per carry between the tackles.

You can run combos like a powerhouse straight ahead runner earlier in the game and as the defense tires swith to the outside guy down the stretch.

This is with the same plays called, just w/ different players on the field.

We have what looks to be four RBs and at least one QB that should be able to run behind what is shaping up to be a typical Iowa line. I hope we don't go throgh them in serial fashion.
Click to expand...


See this is what they call negative because they dont want to hear it.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top