The OLine

I hear good things about the true freshmen Trevor Lauck (4* guard)...I wonder if he'll get some run, as he has the 4 games of participation remaining without burning the redshirt.
 
Our run blocking seems to be feast or famine.
We had 47 rushes for 118 yds. 2.5 per attempt.
One rush for 82 yds.
One time we broke threw the front 7-8 defensive stack and went to the house.
The other 47 ended up behind the chains.
Need to do whatever we can to take teams out of the 7-8 man stack in the box.
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
Our run blocking seems to be feast or famine.
We had 47 rushes for 118 yds. 2.5 per attempt.
One rush for 82 yds.
One time we broke threw the front 7-8 defensive stack and went to the house.
The other 47 ended up behind the chains.
Need to do whatever we can to take teams out of the 7-8 man stack in the box.
Click to expand...

That, xir, is the game in a nutshell. It's how averages work. I would love nothing more than if we could run for a guaranteed 2.51 yards per attempt and play with no penalties because we would be mathematically certain of scoring every time we had the ball. But the running game is a whole bunch of plays that center around the numbers negative 3 to positive 3, a few outliers that go for 8-12, and then hopefully one or two monsters that pull the average way up.
 
Kaleb Johnson
Leshon Williams
Jaciuz Patterson

All 3 dudes are hungry and the o-line is getting better...they are transitioning away from the outside zone stuff...just need my man Deac to be a more accurate passer.
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
Our run blocking seems to be feast or famine.
We had 47 rushes for 118 yds. 2.5 per attempt.
One rush for 82 yds.
One time we broke threw the front 7-8 defensive stack and went to the house.
The other 47 ended up behind the chains.
Need to do whatever we can to take teams out of the 7-8 man stack in the box.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? You're claiming 46 of 47 running plays ended up behind the chains, right? So take off the sacks that are passing game mistakes and negative fumble recoveries, which aren't relevant to your conclusion and you have 44 running plays for positive 215 yards, including whatever abortion earned Rico a loss of 5 yards. That's an average of 4.9 YPC.

The 18 lost sack yards has nothing to do with your argument about the running game. Attributing those sack losses to the running game is very misleading. Now, they obviously should be included if we're discussing the total team offensive production, but you weren't having that discussion. Then look to the play by play:

3rd & 5 at IOWA 30
(15:00 - 1st) Leshon Williams run for 8 yds to the IOWA 38 for a 1ST down

2nd & 7 at IOWA 41​

(15:00 - 1st) Kaleb Johnson run for 9 yds to the 50 yard line for a 1ST down

1st & 10 at IOWA 10​

(13:09 - 2nd) Kaleb Johnson run for 9 yds to the IOWA 19

1st & 10 at IOWA 41​

(0:52 - 3rd) Leshon Williams run for 9 yds to the 50 yard line

2nd & 1 at 50​

(0:00 - 3rd) Leshon Williams run for 10 yds to the WIS 40 for a 1ST down.

1st & 10 at IOWA 34​

(8:34 - 4th) Leshon Williams run for 8 yds to the IOWA 42

2nd & 2 at IOWA 42​

(8:34 - 4th) Leshon Williams run for 5 yds to the IOWA 47 for a 1ST down

1st & 10 at WIS 39​

(2:50 - 4th) Leshon Williams run for 15 yds to the WIS 24 for a 1ST down.

All of those plays put Iowa ahead of the chains.

Plus the 82 yard TD. So instead of having 46 actual running plays there were only 44 and instead of 46 out 47 behind the chains was more like 34 of 44 for a 4.9 YPC. Sacks should come out of the team passing total like the NFL. Considering them rushing yards distorts the actual running game that includes only plays that were attempted runs. Most running teams look very much like Iowa, particularly knowing our run game faces 6-8 guys in the box every single down. We punch and punch and occasionally break great running plays.

The preferred defense against Iowa is just crash through or around the LOS as many times as possible because it's dual use. Stuff the run or pressure the QB if Iowa throws. The line crash has been punished the last two weeks by the running game. It would be nice to present a passing threat and then those 2 and 3 yard games start becoming 4-6 yard gains with more running room providing more longer 10 yard kind of runs.

If the NFL rules were applied last week Iowa's passing game produced 19 yards. I don't know how anyone could be committed to a QB in an offense where the passing game is only a net 19 yards.
 
Last edited:
okeefe4prez said:
That, xir, is the game in a nutshell. It's how averages work. I would love nothing more than if we could run for a guaranteed 2.51 yards per attempt and play with no penalties because we would be mathematically certain of scoring every time we had the ball. But the running game is a whole bunch of plays that center around the numbers negative 3 to positive 3, a few outliers that go for 8-12, and then hopefully one or two monsters that pull the average way up.
Click to expand...
Would love to see a coach with the guts to go for it on fourth and 2.51 every time :)
 
NorthKCHawk said:
Run blitzes are incredibly risky against a team that is trap/pulling. Yes, you will get a lot of stuffs, but you will also blitz pass the runner a few times a game and then there is usually one guy to beat.
Click to expand...
Yep. I was going to point out the same. Its a complete guessing game and will come down to the OC calling the right plays
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
Our run blocking seems to be feast or famine.
We had 47 rushes for 118 yds. 2.5 per attempt.
One rush for 82 yds.
One time we broke threw the front 7-8 defensive stack and went to the house.
The other 47 ended up behind the chains.
Need to do whatever we can to take teams out of the 7-8 man stack in the box.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what u are expecting. I saw quite a few 5-8 yrs gaines that just killed the will of Wisky defense. Do u understand how it typically works? Teams aren't going to get 8-11 yds every run play. That just doesn't happen.
 
Ok, I'm gonna go out on a limb, here.
In Iowa's first 5 games the OLine sucked by any standard. OL Nick DeJong started all those games. The last two games he hasn't played a down, and Iowa's OL looked substantially better.
Also, is it a coincidence that Iowa's OL is looking better since they stopped changing OLine players every other possession? The Wisconsin game was the first game this season where they didn't sub for the starting 5 OLinemen, and it was by far the best OLine performance of the season.
It's NOT a coincidence. You can't expect the OLine to have cohesion when you're changing parts every 4 or 5 plays. Egads, play the current 5 the entire game -- it's not like they're getting 70-100 plays/game!
 
SCHawkeye2 said:
I’m simply presenting facts.
We rushed 47 times for 118 yds.
Click to expand...
You are presenting misleading facts, defamation by implication if you will. You know, and I know, that you were talking about the play on running downs. But you included sack yardage, which has no relevance to the running game.

That's like a case I had a few years ago. Among other heinous things this dangerous and diabolical woman did was make a totally false police report that caused my client's arrest, overnight incarceration, and about $10,000 in criminal defense fees. The County Attorney ultimately realized what was going on and just dropped the case. In the interim, Dr. Spooky (her local nickname) sent an email to everyone in a DM area school district email list, so about 2000 people with my client's mug shot and details of her arrest.

Well, the arrest was for harassment claiming my client sat behind Dr. Spooky at a 4 Mile Rec center youth basketball game. Since she was a doctor-and she played that card to the max-the local police morons made the arrest with no investigation.

In the civil defamation case, we interviewed everyone that was known to be at 4 Mile and every single one of them said they never saw Dr. Spooky on that date or time. Following a discovery request Dr. Spooky destroyed her smart phone so we couldn't get the geodata off it. The geodata would have corroborated the 15-20 witnesses we called from 4 Mile and shown Dr. Spooky was not even at 4 Mile Rec Center on the date and time alleged.

The detail I gave above is the defamation by implication claim. Every single word in that mass email to the school email list was literally true. BUT, and that's a big but, Dr. Spooky forgot to include that the arrest was prompted by her own numerous lies to area law enforcement, and to one cop on one day, and that her victim never did anything to her. So, withholding that information changed the context of the truthful statements to a defamatory statement.

Some 14 days of trial produced a $ 1.14 million dollar judgment. That's what you are doing, albeit without the psycho motivation and level of dishonesty. You were explicitly describing, in detail, the running game performance. You counted up the running plays including the sack yardage to diminish the huge improvement the running game showed against Bucky. You also said every Iowa run but the TD ended behind the chains. It took just a quick look to find at least 9 other running plays that put Iowa ahead of the chains.

The offense isn't good but you don't need to make up or distort facts to make seem worse. When you start making things up or presenting misleading arguments to diminish Iowa is kind of the threshold of not really being an Iowa fan anymore.
 
Why not develop a 5 to 7 yard play fake passing game? Just enough to keep the stacked defenses honest. Just run crosses behind the LB's. Maybe even get some separation?
 
scojo3 said:
I hear good things about the true freshmen Trevor Lauck (4* guard)...I wonder if he'll get some run, as he has the 4 games of participation remaining without burning the redshirt.
Click to expand...
Given how little rotation we have seen, and given that most of the changes have been due to injury and not trying new guys out, I get the feeling that the brain trust is looking to find 5 veterans and stick with them down the stretch. There are a lot of experienced OL in front of Trevor. Not saying they are better, but I feel as though KF has the guys on the field he wants.
 
Teddy said:
You are presenting misleading facts, defamation by implication if you will. You know, and I know, that you were talking about the play on running downs. But you included sack yardage, which has no relevance to the running game.

That's like a case I had a few years ago. Among other heinous things this dangerous and diabolical woman did was make a totally false police report that caused my client's arrest, overnight incarceration, and about $10,000 in criminal defense fees. The County Attorney ultimately realized what was going on and just dropped the case. In the interim, Dr. Spooky (her local nickname) sent an email to everyone in a DM area school district email list, so about 2000 people with my client's mug shot and details of her arrest.

Well, the arrest was for harassment claiming my client sat behind Dr. Spooky at a 4 Mile Rec center youth basketball game. Since she was a doctor-and she played that card to the max-the local police morons made the arrest with no investigation.

In the civil defamation case, we interviewed everyone that was known to be at 4 Mile and every single one of them said they never saw Dr. Spooky on that date or time. Following a discovery request Dr. Spooky destroyed her smart phone so we couldn't get the geodata off it. The geodata would have corroborated the 15-20 witnesses we called from 4 Mile and shown Dr. Spooky was not even at 4 Mile Rec Center on the date and time alleged.

The detail I gave above is the defamation by implication claim. Every single word in that mass email to the school email list was literally true. BUT, and that's a big but, Dr. Spooky forgot to include that the arrest was prompted by her own numerous lies to area law enforcement, and to one cop on one day, and that her victim never did anything to her. So, withholding that information changed the context of the truthful statements to a defamatory statement.

Some 14 days of trial produced a $ 1.14 million dollar judgment. That's what you are doing, albeit without the psycho motivation and level of dishonesty. You were explicitly describing, in detail, the running game performance. You counted up the running plays including the sack yardage to diminish the huge improvement the running game showed against Bucky. You also said every Iowa run but the TD ended behind the chains. It took just a quick look to find at least 9 other running plays that put Iowa ahead of the chains.

The offense isn't good but you don't need to make up or distort facts to make seem worse. When you start making things up or presenting misleading arguments to diminish Iowa is kind of the threshold of not really being an Iowa fan anymore.
Click to expand...
Holy random side story, Batman!!!!
 
Teddy said:
You are presenting misleading facts, defamation by implication if you will. You know, and I know, that you were talking about the play on running downs. But you included sack yardage, which has no relevance to the running game.

That's like a case I had a few years ago. Among other heinous things this dangerous and diabolical woman did was make a totally false police report that caused my client's arrest, overnight incarceration, and about $10,000 in criminal defense fees. The County Attorney ultimately realized what was going on and just dropped the case. In the interim, Dr. Spooky (her local nickname) sent an email to everyone in a DM area school district email list, so about 2000 people with my client's mug shot and details of her arrest.

Well, the arrest was for harassment claiming my client sat behind Dr. Spooky at a 4 Mile Rec center youth basketball game. Since she was a doctor-and she played that card to the max-the local police morons made the arrest with no investigation.

In the civil defamation case, we interviewed everyone that was known to be at 4 Mile and every single one of them said they never saw Dr. Spooky on that date or time. Following a discovery request Dr. Spooky destroyed her smart phone so we couldn't get the geodata off it. The geodata would have corroborated the 15-20 witnesses we called from 4 Mile and shown Dr. Spooky was not even at 4 Mile Rec Center on the date and time alleged.

The detail I gave above is the defamation by implication claim. Every single word in that mass email to the school email list was literally true. BUT, and that's a big but, Dr. Spooky forgot to include that the arrest was prompted by her own numerous lies to area law enforcement, and to one cop on one day, and that her victim never did anything to her. So, withholding that information changed the context of the truthful statements to a defamatory statement.

Some 14 days of trial produced a $ 1.14 million dollar judgment. That's what you are doing, albeit without the psycho motivation and level of dishonesty. You were explicitly describing, in detail, the running game performance. You counted up the running plays including the sack yardage to diminish the huge improvement the running game showed against Bucky. You also said every Iowa run but the TD ended behind the chains. It took just a quick look to find at least 9 other running plays that put Iowa ahead of the chains.

The offense isn't good but you don't need to make up or distort facts to make seem worse. When you start making things up or presenting misleading arguments to diminish Iowa is kind of the threshold of not really being an Iowa fan anymore.
Click to expand...
While your story is compelling, I believe you are missing my point.
My post was about the feast or famine of our OL when blocking 7- 8 defenders.
One home run and a lot of plays for very few yds.

The 47-118 yds stat was presented to support that statement. Your expansive case that QB sacks negatively impact the rushing stat, while true, actually supports my post of feast or famine with our OL. The sacks are part of the feast or famine of our OL. Regardless of whether they are a separate category or not, they are snaps resulting in negative yardage due to our OL inability to block 7-8 defenders overwhelming our 5 OL.
 
Grady said:
Ok, I'm gonna go out on a limb, here.
In Iowa's first 5 games the OLine sucked by any standard. OL Nick DeJong started all those games. The last two games he hasn't played a down, and Iowa's OL looked substantially better.
Also, is it a coincidence that Iowa's OL is looking better since they stopped changing OLine players every other possession? The Wisconsin game was the first game this season where they didn't sub for the starting 5 OLinemen, and it was by far the best OLine performance of the season.
It's NOT a coincidence. You can't expect the OLine to have cohesion when you're changing parts every 4 or 5 plays. Egads, play the current 5 the entire game -- it's not like they're getting 70-100 plays/game!
Click to expand...

I think more to the fact and progression if they changed their blocking philosophy a bit with more gap runs with trapping and pulling. RB's are getting their noses downfield harder. That is catching D's off guard a bit at this time but we'll see if they catch up with scheming.
 
Teddy said:
You are presenting misleading facts, defamation by implication if you will. You know, and I know, that you were talking about the play on running downs. But you included sack yardage, which has no relevance to the running game.

That's like a case I had a few years ago. Among other heinous things this dangerous and diabolical woman did was make a totally false police report that caused my client's arrest, overnight incarceration, and about $10,000 in criminal defense fees. The County Attorney ultimately realized what was going on and just dropped the case. In the interim, Dr. Spooky (her local nickname) sent an email to everyone in a DM area school district email list, so about 2000 people with my client's mug shot and details of her arrest.

Well, the arrest was for harassment claiming my client sat behind Dr. Spooky at a 4 Mile Rec center youth basketball game. Since she was a doctor-and she played that card to the max-the local police morons made the arrest with no investigation.

In the civil defamation case, we interviewed everyone that was known to be at 4 Mile and every single one of them said they never saw Dr. Spooky on that date or time. Following a discovery request Dr. Spooky destroyed her smart phone so we couldn't get the geodata off it. The geodata would have corroborated the 15-20 witnesses we called from 4 Mile and shown Dr. Spooky was not even at 4 Mile Rec Center on the date and time alleged.

The detail I gave above is the defamation by implication claim. Every single word in that mass email to the school email list was literally true. BUT, and that's a big but, Dr. Spooky forgot to include that the arrest was prompted by her own numerous lies to area law enforcement, and to one cop on one day, and that her victim never did anything to her. So, withholding that information changed the context of the truthful statements to a defamatory statement.

Some 14 days of trial produced a $ 1.14 million dollar judgment. That's what you are doing, albeit without the psycho motivation and level of dishonesty. You were explicitly describing, in detail, the running game performance. You counted up the running plays including the sack yardage to diminish the huge improvement the running game showed against Bucky. You also said every Iowa run but the TD ended behind the chains. It took just a quick look to find at least 9 other running plays that put Iowa ahead of the chains.

The offense isn't good but you don't need to make up or distort facts to make seem worse. When you start making things up or presenting misleading arguments to diminish Iowa is kind of the threshold of not really being an Iowa fan anymore.
Click to expand...
..........or being credible.


Take that SC! Lol.
 
Teddy said:
1st & 10 at IOWA 34
(8:34 - 4th) Leshon Williams run for 8 yds to the IOWA 42

2nd & 2 at IOWA 42​

(8:34 - 4th) Leshon Williams run for 5 yds to the IOWA 47 for a 1ST down

1st & 10 at WIS 39​

(2:50 - 4th) Leshon Williams run for 15 yds to the WIS 24 for a 1ST down.
Click to expand...

These three (or more in the 4th quarter) were so beautiful. I mean.....so satisfying. I'm pretty sure I felt a tingle or two when these happened.
The box was stacked. And the O-line wasn't taking no for an answer. And Williams did what I think all our backs are capable of. And most importantly, it wasn't 3 and outs and took away probably 2 chances for Wisconsin to tie it or go ahead.

Had they been able to do this (as they SHOULD HAVE BEEN able to do) in most of the previous games, I'm not sure we'd be talking so direly about the offense. Sure, we might still have some QB/receiver problems, but at least they would have put more than 100 yards on rushing on the board in the first few games. And, it's no secret that having a running game dramastically changes your passing game for the better.

Like I said yesterday, if I'm gonna bitch about Brian not changing it up when repeatedly running it up the gut isn't working....I have to praise him when he doesn't change it up when it is repeatedly working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top