The case for passing more

[guffus]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/running-backs-are-finally-getting-paid-what-theyre-worth/

Not saying Iowa has a choice, since Iowa can't recruit skill players at WR, but...

the trend in the NFL at least is to pass more and run less. Mainly because you will gain more yards per attempt when you pass. Even though the chance for a mistake is greater when you pass, it still is better to pass more. The only reason to run more would be to kill the clock when the game is essentially over. But even with a small lead, late in 4Q, it makes more sense to pass.

I know, I know that stratergy backfired on the Atlanta Falcons in the Super Bowl, but thats just 1 exception.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/running-backs-are-finally-getting-paid-what-theyre-worth/

Not saying Iowa has a choice, since Iowa can't recruit skill players at WR, but...

the trend in the NFL at least is to pass more and run less. Mainly because you will gain more yards per attempt when you pass. Even though the chance for a mistake is greater when you pass, it still is better to pass more. The only reason to run more would be to kill the clock when the game is essentially over. But even with a small lead, late in 4Q, it makes more sense to pass.

I know, I know that stratergy backfired on the Atlanta Falcons in the Super Bowl, but thats just 1 exception.

I guess there's a couple ways of looking at it. I bet if given a do over ATL doesn't throw the ball one time in the 4th quarter and just because of the clock ticking they'd have won. Even if they went 3 and out every time which I don't think they would have. They've have gotten a 1st down or 2 doing that as well. For whatever reason they got pass happy and the sacks as well as incomplete passes are what doomed their fate. That was a coaches worst nightmare. Basically due to how far behind NE was besides turnovers that was the only way they could have came back... So as far as a 4th q strategy no I don't see passing more being something teams with the ability to run switching to.

 

[Hawknigh]

Sounds good. Except for the parts about who will throw and who will catch.

 

[CP87]

The real answer is to be able to do both. The NE Patriots have been on the forefront of the pass-first approach (helps when you have Brady), but if the matchup favors it, they have still shown the ability to run the ball 40+ times in a game and grind the opponent into the ground.

 

[thefizz]

Is this post referring to professional or college football?

 

[BVHawk95]

Just because it works in the NFL does not mean it will easily translate to the college game.

The reason NFL teams pass so much more is because stopping the run has become a staple for even average NFL defenses. To be even a contender for a Super Bowl, a team needs to have above average QB play and passing game, with perennial contenders having elite levels of both (ie, NE, GB, ATL, etc). In addition, every NFL team has the athletic prowess to run or pass, while mainly blue-blood college teams (Michigan, OSU, Bama, etc) can boast such talent.

I'd argue that a strong running game will more often than not trump a strong passing game, as the run game also opens up the play-action pass as well, and brings in the aforementioned clock control aspect.

I don't disagree that we need to pass more, but running the ball will always be our bread and butter, and really it shouldn't change unless college football or Iowa as a program goes through some drastic changes.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Not buying it. This is a tough sell in college football as the team would have to have the perfect mixture of QB and WR talent. If a school doesn't have a lot of quality depth (as many college programs) then a bunch of 3 and outs puts the defense at risk with getting tired. Also, a 3 and out deep in the O teams territory is not good.

I believe in clock management and field position, especially for college. I think pros can be different.