Slight variation on efficiency

[CAARHawk]

Webb's article on efficiency being the Hawk's buzzword could use an addition in my mind. The Hawks need to be efficient, but his understanding of efficiency, Red Zone scoring, lack of turnovers, and third down conversion, is only part of the story.

Long multi-play drives are great. They keep your defense off the field and keep the ball out of the hands of your opponent's offense. However, drives where you get to third down every series are really hard to convert into points. There are just too many opportunities for penalties, missed assignments, or a great guess by a defensive coordinator that puts you in a more difficult third and long situation.

Think of it this way. In 80 yards of field (from 20 yard line to endzone) if you are getting 4 yards a play, you will convert your third downs. However, you will need 20 efficient plays to get to the endzone. That is putting alot of pressure on your O to be perfect. However, if you have a couple of 20 yard gains in the process, you cut your number of plays in which the team needs to be efficient to 12.

Also, if you take each series to third down, you have the weight of the entire possession on that one down. That is a lot of pressure to be successful.

I think this was one of the Hawk's biggest problems last year. They had some long drives that stalled out because of a penalty or missed assignment and they got no points on the board.

Now, as a play action team you need to be able to come up with the big play via the pass and the run. We saw that in the Orange Bowl with Wegher's big run to clinch the game. When the running back is able to break through a packed box and gain a lot of yards it loosens the defense. Likewise if the other team fears the running game that will open up the pass.

So, Iowa needs to be efficient in holding onto the ball, converting third downs, and in the red zone, but they also must be able to shorten their field by converting some long plays.

 

[RADMAN]

Webb's article on efficiency being the Hawk's buzzword got it a bit wrong I think. The Hawks need to be efficient, but his understanding of efficiency, Red Zone scoring, lack of turnovers, and third down conversion, is only part of the story.

Long multi-play drives are great. They keep your defense off the field and keep the ball out of the hands of your opponent's offense. However, drives where you get to third down every series are really hard to convert into points. There are just too many opportunities for penalties, missed assignments, or a great guess by a defensive coordinator that puts you in a more difficult third and long situation.

Think of it this way. In 80 yards of field (from 20 yard line to endzone) if you are getting 4 yards a play, you will convert your third downs. However, you will need 20 efficient plays to get to the endzone. That is putting alot of pressure on your O to be perfect. However, if you have a couple of 20 yard gains in the process, you cut your number of plays in which the team needs to be efficient to 12.

Also, if you take each series to third down, you have the weight of the entire possession on that one down. That is a lot of pressure to be successful.

I think this was one of the Hawk's biggest problems last year. They had some long drives that stalled out because of a penalty or missed assignment and they got no points on the board.

Now, as a play action team you need to be able to come up with the big play via the pass and the run. We saw that in the Orange Bowl with Wegher's big run to clinch the game. When the running back is able to break through a packed box and gain a lot of yards it loosens the defense. Likewise if the other team fears the running game that will open up the pass.

So, Iowa needs to be efficient in holding onto the ball, converting third downs, and in the red zone, but they also must be able to shorten their field by converting some long plays.

Very well written. I will have to agree with you on all points. Thanks for your analysis.

 

[spudhawk]

I agree with you 100% but it is really tough to quantify that with statistics. And I didn't chart the plays well enough to say what kind of team we were on first or second down. I am trying to do that this year. It would be fair to say we scored more often last season on a drive where we had an "explosive" play. I think that we will have those types of plays this season. What was missing last season were explosive runs.

 

[spudhawk]

Caar Iowa was also the 4th least penalized team in the nation last season

 

[CAARHawk]

I agree with you 100% but it is really tough to quantify that with statistics. And I didn't chart the plays well enough to say what kind of team we were on first or second down. I am trying to do that this year. It would be fair to say we scored more often last season on a drive where we had an "explosive" play. I think that we will have those types of plays this season. What was missing last season were explosive runs.

Exactly. It was the one achilles heel of the team last year in my book. Too much pressure on Ricky to make the big play, or the team to be perfect for too long of stretches.

My hope is that Jewel is the answer there. Two big runs a game would make a massive difference. I think people forget in 2002 we had an efficient offense, but also popped off some huge gains.

 

[spudhawk]

I left out the 2002 team for two reasons. I don't think we will ever see an offense like that again and it is impossible to find stats for that team. If anyone can find them please pm me or tweet me.

Back on topic. I think that Stanzi has a chance to match Tate's 2005 season statistically and that the tailback's can combine for an Albert Young type 2005 season. That team was an incredible offense. They did have two very bad games. If this team can be more consistent and put up at least two Tds in every game it should be a very, very good season.

 

[CAARHawk]

I'm telling you, if Jewel comes back and pops off a couple of big gains the pollsters will notice and it will scare the heck out of Iowa's future opponents. They appreciate ARob's efficiency and his toughness, but they don't fear the Iowa running game the way it is necessary for the play action to really click.

If Jewel ends up being close to the back I expect, I think Iowa's scoring average goes up to about 30 points a game.

 

[spudhawk]

Denard Robinson almost made me wet my pants, though honestly. If he can actually pass that game got tough.

Hampton could be the key to the offense but I should have made my paragraph about Stanzi more clear. I still believe, especially with this offensive line that Iowa will be a pass to set up the run team like last season. If Stanzi can hit his check downs and still stretch defenses occasionally instead of trying for the homerun on third down like he did so often last season then I think he passes for above 60%. I think Iowa converts more third downs. I think they score more points.

If he completes more passes on first down he can take more shots on second down etc. I just didn't like the feast or famine of the passing game last season.

 

[CAARHawk]

Or of the entire offense.

 

[hawkfan340]

Denard Robinson almost made me wet my pants, though honestly. If he can actually pass that game got tough.

Let's not get too excited. Forcier was like the second coming of Red Grange crossed with Tom Brady for couple games last year as well. Then Sparty beat him up, then AC happened, and then it all fell apart. We'll see about the other speedy midget.

 

[tm3308]

Let's not get too excited. Forcier was like the second coming of Red Grange crossed with Tom Brady for couple games last year as well. Then Sparty beat him up, then AC happened, and then it all fell apart. We'll see about the other speedy midget.

The biggest difference is that Robinson is far more physically gifted than Forcier. Vincent Smith is a guy at RB that should be worth keeping an eye on, as well. The defense will get their first real test this week, but the offense could be much more potent than last year.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

CAARHawk -

I think that there is a bit more overlap between the two views of efficiency than you might guess on first pass.

Frankly, one of my favorite measures of offensive efficiency is yardage per point and it seems to encapsulate many of the attributes that BOTH you and spud value. By this measure, the lower the yardage per point the more efficient the O.

Yardage per point accounts is simultaneously correlated to the following factors:

- Turnover margin. Any yardage you gain prior to a turnover is wasted because it doesn't lead to points.

- Third down efficiency. Obviously, poor third down efficiency leads to stalled drives and doesn't produce points. Again, any yardage gained in stalled drives that don't produce points is wasted ... and hence inefficient.

- Big play ability. Be it long runs or long completions ... big plays can immediately place the O in scoring position if it doesn't already produce the TD. The great thing about Iowa's O is that a balanced O can produces big plays in BOTH the running game and passing game. Furthermore, play action is a great way to get yardage in big chunks (i.e. it is efficient in the sense that I've been speaking of).

- Red-zone efficiency. Obviously, if you have the ball in scoring position, you better get points.

- Consistency in FG and PAT kicking. Self-explanatory.

- Factors that produce field position advantages. Obviously, if an O sees a short field all the time and can consistently score points, it will naturally have a low yardage per point scored. This obviously isn't completely related to the O. Great D, great punting, and excellent special teams all around are all integral to this. However, all the same, the O still needs to be able to score on the short field.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I left out the 2002 team for two reasons. I don't think we will ever see an offense like that again and it is impossible to find stats for that team. If anyone can find them please pm me or tweet me.

Back on topic. I think that Stanzi has a chance to match Tate's 2005 season statistically and that the tailback's can combine for an Albert Young type 2005 season. That team was an incredible offense. They did have two very bad games. If this team can be more consistent and put up at least two Tds in every game it should be a very, very good season.

By my measure of efficiency, the '05 O wasn't all that efficient. There was A LOT of wasted yardage.

However, another part of that is that Chandler and Solomon weren't always terribly consistent. I was pretty surprised at the number of drops we had that year. Furthermore, our experienced depth at WR was poor.

That's the thing that I like about the 2010 O, the quality depth of the WRs should help the group to be much more consistent ... even if, heaven forbid, one of our key gets gets injured (like Hinkel did in the '05 season).

 

[Jeebus]

Big plays are fun to watch on sportscenter but I have to say that the checkdowns I saw last Saturday were the most encouraging thing I've seen in a while!

My biggest criticism of the offense last year (and other years) was that there were too many shots taken downfield (low percentage) when the defense and thus the team would have benefited from a sustained drive. In my opinion, the recipe for success this year is the high percentage checkdown leading to long scoring drives which then give way to long kickoffs and a fresh defense!

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Big plays are fun to watch on sportscenter but I have to say that the checkdowns I saw last Saturday were the most encouraging thing I've seen in a while!

My biggest criticism of the offense last year (and other years) was that there were too many shots taken downfield (low percentage) when the defense and thus the team would have benefited from a sustained drive. In my opinion, the recipe for success this year is the high percentage checkdown leading to long scoring drives which then give way to long kickoffs and a fresh defense!

Another aspect of higher percentage short-yardage plays is that its better to get some yardage rather than no yardage. 3rd and 1 or 2 is a whole lot easier to convert than 3rd and 9.

 

[silvanthalas]

We also had some questionable play calling at times last year that seemed to kill drives, as well.

In the end, Iowa under Ferentz is about execution. In the game of perfection, we simply try and outlast the other team, force them to make the mistake first, and then capitalize on it. And yes, it can put as much pressure on our own team as the opponent.

 

[spudhawk]

By my measure of efficiency, the '05 O wasn't all that efficient. There was A LOT of wasted yardage.

However, another part of that is that Chandler and Solomon weren't always terribly consistent. I was pretty surprised at the number of drops we had that year. Furthermore, our experienced depth at WR was poor.

That's the thing that I like about the 2010 O, the quality depth of the WRs should help the group to be much more consistent ... even if, heaven forbid, one of our key gets gets injured (like Hinkel did in the '05 season).

the 2005 team had four weapons in the passing game- Hinkel (when healthy), Solomon, Chandler, and Albert Young. Also Herb Grigsby at the time seemed to be a promising option. That receiving corps was plagued by drops however. I think that Tate could have completed in the neighborhood of 70% of his passes without all of the drops that season and 4 of his 7 interceptions were first touched by receivers. That 2005 team had two dreadful games however the ISU game and the Ohio State game where combined for one red zone appearance.

 

[CAARHawk]

the 2005 team had four weapons in the passing game- Hinkel (when healthy), Solomon, Chandler, and Albert Young. Also Herb Grigsby at the time seemed to be a promising option. That receiving corps was plagued by drops however.

Isn't that true? Don't know if I have seen more flat out drops at crucial times than that season. Solomon was involved in a lot of those. Pretty sure his agent got him glasses after the season, when he was trying to get into the draft.

Also, Homer you are correct that by being balanced Iowa's offense has the potential of creating big plays on the ground and in the air. However, last year there were not enough created on the ground. I really think that is the key to this year. If Iowa doesn't get those plays, they won't reach greatness.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

Isn't that true? Don't know if I have seen more flat out drops at crucial times than that season. Solomon was involved in a lot of those. Pretty sure his agent got him glasses after the season, when he was trying to get into the draft.

Also, Homer you are correct that by being balanced Iowa's offense has the potential of creating big plays on the ground and in the air. However, last year there were not enough created on the ground. I really think that is the key to this year. If Iowa doesn't get those plays, they won't reach greatness.

ABSOLUTELY! However, I think that you have to ask WHY that was the case last year. A big part of it had to do with rustiness and lack of personnel continuity on the OL. And, by that, I'm referring to how that played a role when the team was even transitioning from camp to the season. Injuries totally held back A LOT of progress that the OL could have made. And, there's also the obvious ... we were stuck featuring a RS FR and a TR FR at RB. Even when the OL was playing well ... they didn't always get "rewarded" for it by having the RB rattle off huge runs. Early in the season, I was tearing out my hair because of missed opportunities (by the RBs). Despite the issues on the OL, there still were plenty of holes and cutback lanes.

Fortunately, apart from the injury to Gettis (which was pretty late), the OL seems to have been more "intact" entering the season. You could add Koeppel if you wanted to ... however, he was technically cleared to play Saturday, but the coaches opted to err on the safe side. Furthermore, the RBs are a world more experienced now than they were last season. And, they're a HUNGRY group too. ARob can continue to play the "respect" card because nobody gives him a fighting chance ... and yet all he does is move the chains. And Jewel is chomping at the bit to contribute after being out a year.

I'm excited about the potential that Iowa has with the running game. I completely agree with you about the impact that Hampton might have on the running game. However, I would add that the running game will be FAR BETTER once James Ferentz gets a bit more battle tested and our OG-play from MacMillan/Gettis improves and "equilibrates." Thus, once things get worked out more on our interior OL ... Adam Robinson's yard per carry is going to go up quite a bit too. And, as a result, you're going to see Adam rattle off more big runs too. I distinctly remember folks early on in 2008 saying that Greene wasn't very fast and was more of a physical, pounding RB. Then, the next thing you know, he starts rattling off really long TD runs.