Recipe for an Iowa loss, fewer than 30 rushing attempts

I

IH8IAST8

Well-Known Member
THis sums up the season for me. Our failure to commit to the running game like we have in seasons past resulted in failing to reach the potential this team could have reached (especially at the end of the season). & I am not asking KF or KOK to do something they have never done. Furthermore, in the last 3 games, teams were no longer loading up the box than say Az did. We had a great line this year, when you take into consideration the low expectations coming in. We also had great backs, both of which showed that they could individually take the load.

Rushing attempts per game:

Wins:
EI: 39
ISU: 50
Ball State: 44
PSU: 36
UM: 36
MSU: 42
IU: 29

Losses:
Az: 26
UW: 30
NW: 28
OSU: 25
 
Last edited:
I think that also comes down to the decision to go long on first down. I hate that pass. If it works, great. If not, then it is a drive killer. I say if you are going to go long on first down, throw long on second and third as well.

Don't throw a bomb on first down and then go conservative on second. KOK has done this repeatedly this season. It kills drives at key points in the game. I understand it is going for the jugular, which is good. But if you are going for the jugular, be committed. Don't just take your shot and then pack it in.

But better yet, get 7 yards on first down and then take the shot down field.
 
CAARHawk said:
I think that also comes down to the decision to go long on first down. I hate that pass. If it works, great. If not, then it is a drive killer. I say if you are going to go long on first down, throw long on second and third as well.

Don't throw a bomb on first down and then go conservative on second. KOK has done this repeatedly this season. It kills drives at key points in the game. I understand it is going for the jugular, which is good. But if you are going for the jugular, be committed. Don't just take your shot and then pack it in.
Click to expand...

I agree. 4th quarter of the OSU game we tried that and Stanzi got sacked. Going for broke on 1st down totally changed momentum.

Stanzi was a heckofa QB, and I personally think what made him fun was that he was a winner. BUT I think the coaches trusted him too much & got away from what our bread and butter is on offense. Run then pass. Until we get Joe Montana back there, I don't think this approach should ever change
 
So, here's a question:

Did the staff's stubbornness in not playing Coker play a part in the playcalling to this extent? Meaning, did KOK call more pass plays in order to somewhat limit the amount of times ARob was getting hit?

For example, as an OC if I've only got 1 running back because for some unknown reason the head coach won't play a 2nd capable running back, do I lean a little heavier towards the short, quick throws in a spot where maybe I'd run the ball a little more? Do I try to keep ARob from taking an extra hit on a running play to keep him "fresher", instead choosing another play that might give him a break?


Maybe I'm looking too deeply into it...
 
correlation isn't necessarily causation.
we run more cause we're up by a lot. we're not up by a lot because we run more.
and I say this as someone who believes Stanzi is our most overrated player of my lifetime. the answer to our woes wasn't necessarily having him throw less.
 
I don't know that it's due to a lack of commitment to the run game, but it's certainly no coincience that our 4 losses happen to be our 4 lowest games in terms of YPC on the season. (AZ 1.1, Wisk 3.9, NW 3.6, OSU 3.2).
 
Your post had me go back and look at last year's numbers. The only 2 times Iowa ran less than 30 times? Northwestern and OSU.
 
Some stats I find interesting, which I looked up on ESPN.com's college football stats, which go back through 2004. Here is where we ranked nationally in each year offensively, in yards per game:

Year Rush Pass
2010 75th 37th
2009 99th 46th
2008 26th 36th
2007 93rd 85th
2006 51st 27th
2005 34th 30th
2004 116th 29th

Are we really going away from our so-called "strength" if we do not run the ball repeatedly? Obviously in 2004 we didn't even HAVE running backs due to injuries and had to pass almost every down out of necessity, and in 2008, we had Shonn Greene. But practically every year, our passing offense ranks higher nationally than our rushing offense.

Yes, we haven't had great contuinity with our personnel at the RB position the last couple of years for various reasons.. But regardless of the reason for WHY we are struggling, is simply running the ball more the answer?

I might even play devil's advocate and take that one step further: Is it actually a misnomer that Kirk Ferentz's teams crank out great offensive lines and the running game is our bread & butter? The stats (at least going by national ranking) seam to indicate otherwise.

We run the ball quite a bit, but apparently often without great success.
 
There's a difference between YPG & Attempts...YPG tells you nothing about a teams tendencies. A big play team is going to inflate that stat.

My point about attempts was trying to find a constructive way to say that we didn't run the ball enough the last 3-4 weeks. I think if we had stuck with Coker in the 2nd half, the way we did the 1st half, we would have beat OSU.
 
IH8IAST8 said:
There's a difference between YPG & Attempts...YPG tells you nothing about a teams tendencies. A big play team is going to inflate that stat.

My point about attempts was trying to find a constructive way to say that we didn't run the ball enough the last 3-4 weeks. I think if we had stuck with Coker in the 2nd half, the way we did the 1st half, we would have beat OSU.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and I agree against OSU that we did seem to go away from the running game when we had success with it early.. I would have liked to have seen them stick with it a little more than it did.

That said, my point is that over the past several years, it looks like we do have trouble running the ball at times. In 2004, for example, running the ball more probably would not have been a good idea.. I guess it just depends on what's working and what your teams strengths are. Sratch where it itches, as Hayden used to say.
 
The running game is VERY important for our passing game. We typically have a better pass offense than rush offense in terms of YPG, but our passing offense is at least 60% predicated on play-action, which is worthless without a good running game. When we do a straight drop back, we don't pass that well. When we run a play-action boot, we have A LOT of success.
 
IH8IAST8 said:
THis sums up the season for me. Our failure to commit to the running game like we have in seasons past resulted in failing to reach the potential this team could have reached (especially at the end of the season). & I am not asking KF or KOK to do something they have never done. Furthermore, in the last 3 games, teams were no longer loading up the box than say Az did. We had a great line this year, when you take into consideration the low expectations coming in. We also had great backs, both of which showed that they could individually take the load.

Rushing attempts per game:

Wins:
EI: 39
ISU: 50
Ball State: 44
PSU: 36
UM: 36
MSU: 42
IU: 29

Losses:
Az: 26
UW: 30
NW: 28
OSU: 25
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this means absolutely nothing and is one of the most over-rated stats in all of football. When they throw up a stat that says, "X team wins X% of the time when they run the ball at least X times per game" it always makes me laugh. Teams that win usually do have larger rushing attempts because they are trying to eat clock at the end of the game when they have the lead. That stat says nothing about what got the team the lead at all. Iowa is famous for that......just look as recently as the MSU game. We get up 30-0 by beautifully mixing up the run with the pass, then run, run, run in the 2nd half in order to keep the clock moving.

As one poster already stated.....don't confuse correlation with causality.
 
IH8IAST8 said:
THis sums up the season for me. Our failure to commit to the running game like we have in seasons past resulted in failing to reach the potential this team could have reached (especially at the end of the season). & I am not asking KF or KOK to do something they have never done. Furthermore, in the last 3 games, teams were no longer loading up the box than say Az did. We had a great line this year, when you take into consideration the low expectations coming in. We also had great backs, both of which showed that they could individually take the load.

Rushing attempts per game:

Wins:
EI: 39
ISU: 50
Ball State: 44
PSU: 36
UM: 36
MSU: 42
IU: 29

Losses:
Az: 26
UW: 30
NW: 28
OSU: 25
Click to expand...

Kinda agree with your point, but disagree with how you get there. Big difference between correlation and causation.
 
True Dat folks. I would characterize our offensive philosophy as balanced attack run when we feel like we can dominate or run the clock out and pass when we can play action the sucker. I don't know that rush attempts have anything to do with anything other than it shows balance. We had to pass more at AZ because we had to get back in the game quickly...and it was working.
 
seepig said:
True Dat folks. I would characterize our offensive philosophy as balanced attack run when we feel like we can dominate or run the clock out and pass when we can play action the sucker. I don't know that rush attempts have anything to do with anything other than it shows balance. We had to pass more at AZ because we had to get back in the game quickly...and it was working.
Click to expand...

We had to pass more at AZ because they threw the whole kitchen sink at stopping the run.
 
1977Hawkeye said:
Some stats I find interesting, which I looked up on ESPN.com's college football stats, which go back through 2004. Here is where we ranked nationally in each year offensively, in yards per game:

Year Rush Pass
2010 75th 37th
2009 99th 46th
2008 26th 36th
2007 93rd 85th
2006 51st 27th
2005 34th 30th
2004 116th 29th

Are we really going away from our so-called "strength" if we do not run the ball repeatedly? Obviously in 2004 we didn't even HAVE running backs due to injuries and had to pass almost every down out of necessity, and in 2008, we had Shonn Greene. But practically every year, our passing offense ranks higher nationally than our rushing offense.

Yes, we haven't had great contuinity with our personnel at the RB position the last couple of years for various reasons.. But regardless of the reason for WHY we are struggling, is simply running the ball more the answer?

I might even play devil's advocate and take that one step further: Is it actually a misnomer that Kirk Ferentz's teams crank out great offensive lines and the running game is our bread & butter? The stats (at least going by national ranking) seam to indicate otherwise.

We run the ball quite a bit, but apparently often without great success.
Click to expand...


Would agree everyone talks about Iowa running the ball yet we are never top of Big Ten much less nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top