Latest Iowa Stats
- Thread starter longtimer
- Start date
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
I don't think we will ever see an effective passing game under Ferentz ever again. It is what it is.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
More important to a program like Iowa is can the QB deliver in the clutch when the game is on? Iowa was down 11 in the 2nd half last weekend. The last 5 years or more, that was an insurmountable lead that Iowa wouldn't be able to overcome with the incompetent QB play they've had. At least with MG, we have hope that he might throw the team on his shoulders and make a play.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Gronowski is so good with his feet that we don't need an elite passing game; just get the tight ends involved.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure we will see a forward pass on Saturday. Fleck likes to play Kirk ball too. Both teams are going to try to run, stop the run, and have zero turnovers.
I think we are looking at 9-6 or 12-9. If Iowa plays like they did against Penn State, they'll lose. They have to play clean - no turnovers and no missed field goals.
I think we are looking at 9-6 or 12-9. If Iowa plays like they did against Penn State, they'll lose. They have to play clean - no turnovers and no missed field goals.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
Idk if our TEs have good enough hands. Could probably say the same about the WRs. But the TEs this year seem to be better at blocking than catching.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Strawman. Nobody suggests we need an "elite" passing game. Just an average one.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Honestly I'm not sure we even need an "average passing game". I would guess nothing about our passing game is even remotely close to average from a numbers perspective. That said it gives our offense another dimension other then simply a traditional running game we've come accustomed to. So while I don't think from a numbers standpoint we're even near being an average passing team we're still finding ways to move the chains when needed to take the pressure off our RBs. With our offensive philosophies I don't think you can measure the importance of our passing game simply in terms of numbers, which you are not doing, but most on the outside looking simply at stats are doing.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Just for yucks I looked it up. 134 teams in FBS. #67 is Stanford with an average of 229 yards/game. (Yes, I know that's the "median" not the "mean" but it's what was available). Close enough
So "average" would be 229 yard/game
Last edited:
How many other teams over the last say 20 years of modern football has had a ranking of 120 or lower in passing offense finished with a wining record? Yet we don't seem to have a problem doing that. It's what's keeping us from being in the top group no doubt. Hell Iowa didn't even receive votes for the top 25 this week. But still unless something goes off the rails this group is going to have a winning record despite being totally inept and ineffective in the passing game.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but we don't even need to be average. We just simply need a QB/offense that can find a way to get first downs and mix things up. I'd love to have a "respectable" or "average" passing attack, I really would, but we have to accept the fact its not going to happen under KF and doesn't need to. We simply need the ability to move the chains and switch things up every now and then.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Yes and No, especially on the "doesn't need to". There's a reason we haven't been able to beat any really good teams for years. A great D and special teams can only take you so far. 8 wins/yr, Yes. Big wins, you need a little more.
We did it with Stanley, Beathard and others before. Why not now?
