Teams have success running vs 8 man boxes all the time. It's a very overplayed narrative.
The passifier game really doesn't open much for the run vs Michigan, as they weren't overcommitting to the run much in the first place
What's the problem with the iowa run game ?
- Thread starter r_desihawk
- Start date
The passifier game really doesn't open much for the run vs Michigan, as they weren't overcommitting to the run much in the first place
perhaps to have a good running game these days against decent defenses need the threat of both passing and a qb who is a legit run threat. could be that the biggest reason we were so good rushing last year was gronowski even moreso than the OL.
Here you have it, folks.
Everyone's heard of "establishing the run" and "committing to the run". For these to be household terms, clearly they carry value. And vs ISU and Michigan, Iowa did neither.
Vs ISU, Iowa did not run consecutive traditional run plays until there were under 11 minutes to go in the game.
Give ISU some credit, as they sold out against the run and made it an unattractive option.
But from my under informed position, Iowa fell into the trap a little, as well. To abandon the run, is what ISU wants. So at some point, you have to fight force with force.
Abandoning the run also makes it hard to be the most physical team on the field, which is of high priority to KF.
I think Iowa also thought they had some advantages in the passifier game vs the ISU safeties. It turns out they did.
But it is easy to explore those options a little too frequently, and be distracted by the shiny toys, at the expense of the run game.
Happens all over the country. Teams sling the ball all over the yard. But it makes no difference on the scoreboard, as they hit on a couple big plays, But they spend most of the game not being able to run for short yardage on 3rd down and in the red zone. And picking up the penalties, sacks, and turnovers that come with high degree of difficulty plays.
Even when the big passifier hits, which it did vs ISU, it is often precluded by 3 and outs. Whereas, establishing the run can produce more frequent small gains.
Sharp sportbettors love a good running game, as it allows good teams to more consistently and predictably impose their will. This lowers "variance" of performance vs expectation. Literally, good sport bettors find success to be more predictable when having a good running game.
Just some perspective to illustrate weakness in the "Iowa must pass to beat good teams" narrative. For the record, I believe that to be overly simplistic, and only so true.
But even if true, it takes a running game to be consistent enough to beat everyone else. What good does it do to beat Michigan if you're going to lose to a NW type? Iowa isn't going to consistently roll through the "big ten west-ish" teams by throwing the ball around.
Anyway, the more frequently the ball is run, the happier the O-line and RB's are. It helps them get into a rhythm. And it activates the potential to gain a cumulative pounding benefit later in the game.
KF commented after the game about the tendency for the run game to be more effective in the 2nd half.
And Brown and Lauck (iifc) both commented about imposing will, and taking ISU's will and wearing them down with the run late in the game. Which BTW, is when Iowa started calling consecutive runs.
There's no reason to believe that this cumulative benefit wouldn't have been available earlier in the game, had the ball been run more frequently.
As for vs Michigan, consecutive runs were also few and far between.
Iowa ran the ball 3 times in a row for 9 yards on the opening drive.
Then 3 times in a row with about 12 minutes to go in the 2nd Q, with the first two runs accounting for a 1st down.
Iowa then ran it twice in a row, while backed up against their own goal line, in the 3rd Q. Then would have attempted a pass, but penalized. So ended up with a 3rd run in a row.
Iowa next ran the ball consecutively (twice) with 11 minutes left in 4th Q. On 2nd and 9, it was run, with a face mask occurring on Michigan. This gave a 1st down, where Iowa ran again. Whereas without the penalty, the Hawks probably wouldn't have run again on 3rd and long to medium.
After that, Iowa did not have consecutive run plays in the game.
Again, Michigan deserves some credit. Their D is tough, no matter how you attack it.
As for vs the run, their entire D-line is NFL players.
And from what's again, a very underinformed perspective, it seems to me that Iowa has consistently been a little too gunshy to pound it out vs the most talented teams, and gone a little too quick and often to the air.
But mostly what happened in this game was Michigan being able to bend the Iowa defense, which kept Iowa's offense off the field. So Iowa really didn't have as much opportunity to establish the run. The series when backed against their own goal in the 3rd Q, was Iowa's only possession that quarter.
So the bend but don't break D can actually kind of work against an offense in that way, when the opponent is good enough to bend the D and possess the ball.
But defense is more important. So I'm cool with the running game not being able to get lathered up from time to time. Even I know there are ways to win that don't involve great production in the run game.
That being said...RUN. THE. BALL.
Everyone's heard of "establishing the run" and "committing to the run". For these to be household terms, clearly they carry value. And vs ISU and Michigan, Iowa did neither.
Vs ISU, Iowa did not run consecutive traditional run plays until there were under 11 minutes to go in the game.
Give ISU some credit, as they sold out against the run and made it an unattractive option.
But from my under informed position, Iowa fell into the trap a little, as well. To abandon the run, is what ISU wants. So at some point, you have to fight force with force.
Abandoning the run also makes it hard to be the most physical team on the field, which is of high priority to KF.
I think Iowa also thought they had some advantages in the passifier game vs the ISU safeties. It turns out they did.
But it is easy to explore those options a little too frequently, and be distracted by the shiny toys, at the expense of the run game.
Happens all over the country. Teams sling the ball all over the yard. But it makes no difference on the scoreboard, as they hit on a couple big plays, But they spend most of the game not being able to run for short yardage on 3rd down and in the red zone. And picking up the penalties, sacks, and turnovers that come with high degree of difficulty plays.
Even when the big passifier hits, which it did vs ISU, it is often precluded by 3 and outs. Whereas, establishing the run can produce more frequent small gains.
Sharp sportbettors love a good running game, as it allows good teams to more consistently and predictably impose their will. This lowers "variance" of performance vs expectation. Literally, good sport bettors find success to be more predictable when having a good running game.
Just some perspective to illustrate weakness in the "Iowa must pass to beat good teams" narrative. For the record, I believe that to be overly simplistic, and only so true.
But even if true, it takes a running game to be consistent enough to beat everyone else. What good does it do to beat Michigan if you're going to lose to a NW type? Iowa isn't going to consistently roll through the "big ten west-ish" teams by throwing the ball around.
Anyway, the more frequently the ball is run, the happier the O-line and RB's are. It helps them get into a rhythm. And it activates the potential to gain a cumulative pounding benefit later in the game.
KF commented after the game about the tendency for the run game to be more effective in the 2nd half.
And Brown and Lauck (iifc) both commented about imposing will, and taking ISU's will and wearing them down with the run late in the game. Which BTW, is when Iowa started calling consecutive runs.
There's no reason to believe that this cumulative benefit wouldn't have been available earlier in the game, had the ball been run more frequently.
As for vs Michigan, consecutive runs were also few and far between.
Iowa ran the ball 3 times in a row for 9 yards on the opening drive.
Then 3 times in a row with about 12 minutes to go in the 2nd Q, with the first two runs accounting for a 1st down.
Iowa then ran it twice in a row, while backed up against their own goal line, in the 3rd Q. Then would have attempted a pass, but penalized. So ended up with a 3rd run in a row.
Iowa next ran the ball consecutively (twice) with 11 minutes left in 4th Q. On 2nd and 9, it was run, with a face mask occurring on Michigan. This gave a 1st down, where Iowa ran again. Whereas without the penalty, the Hawks probably wouldn't have run again on 3rd and long to medium.
After that, Iowa did not have consecutive run plays in the game.
Again, Michigan deserves some credit. Their D is tough, no matter how you attack it.
As for vs the run, their entire D-line is NFL players.
And from what's again, a very underinformed perspective, it seems to me that Iowa has consistently been a little too gunshy to pound it out vs the most talented teams, and gone a little too quick and often to the air.
But mostly what happened in this game was Michigan being able to bend the Iowa defense, which kept Iowa's offense off the field. So Iowa really didn't have as much opportunity to establish the run. The series when backed against their own goal in the 3rd Q, was Iowa's only possession that quarter.
So the bend but don't break D can actually kind of work against an offense in that way, when the opponent is good enough to bend the D and possess the ball.
But defense is more important. So I'm cool with the running game not being able to get lathered up from time to time. Even I know there are ways to win that don't involve great production in the run game.
That being said...RUN. THE. BALL.
Last edited:
Having that extra element to account for always helps. It's no coincidence that some of Iowa's most successful years involved a running QB, think Brad Banks and CJ Beathard. Now we can add Mark to that mix, the only difference is that Mark was an A gap guy, which is very rare according to Lester. It's just too bad his passing didn't develop sooner. We've always been better with a mobile QB, the drawback being that it makes them much more susceptible to injury. But I think that extra wrinkle has always helped cover our lack of overall talent.
Always hear need to run the ball to set up the pass. However there are times you need to throw to set up the running game. Especially isu color guy Blackledge saying first down throws there throughout the game.
last night bears did exactly that and paid off where finally getting some healthy runs in 4th qtr. with 3rd string qb eagles expecting runs on 1st and time and time again they burnt them with throws on 1st.
Last edited:
Did you know Jake Rudock had about as many rushing yards as Beathard did?
Surprisingly did not know that. Honestly, I don't remember much of the Rudock years. Anything after Stanzi and before CJ was kind of a blur to me.
This is laughable. Did you watch the game?
OSU's run defense isn't as stout as Michigan's. Period.
Everyone says Iowa's not a threat to pass. And Brown not a threat to run. So what will your reasoning be when Iowa rushes the ball much better this week?
Dotzler isn't Dunker
Jones isn't Stevens
Winters isn't Jones
The line has't jelled yet, I also think they are a bit undersized.
No, We can’t always do this. These dudes, all 3-4+ year guys have been taking reps together for years on a football field. Yes, mainly as back-ups in practice in years prior but regardless..
It’s 4 games into the season. They don’t deserve any kind of “not jelling yet” excuse. They’ve been playing college football for a very long time at this point.
I saw a poster stating he’s willing to wait “a few more games” before passing judgement. Lol. Quite the long leash.
Jones - 288
Winters - 294
Pieper - 298
Average - 293.5
When we played ISU and Michigan, their D-line interior players were 310+, we could not get push on the interior. Add in teams putting 8 in the box. Their pass blocking overall has been good.
Winters - 294
Pieper - 298
Average - 293.5
When we played ISU and Michigan, their D-line interior players were 310+, we could not get push on the interior. Add in teams putting 8 in the box. Their pass blocking overall has been good.
Last edited:
Their pass blocking has been very good. I don’t think the issue is with the line in regards to the run blocking.
Winters is doing so good for his first year starting and in that Big House enviro and no real miscues. Incredible
It takes time for every o-line to gel, because they have to play in unison.
Even having 5 good players doesn't get it done at a high level if they aren't playing as one.
There needs to be cohesion. And the run game, specifically, is best aided by developing a rhythm and a lather.
There's been good cohesion in the passifier blocking.
So this suggests the run game to have not yet developed a rhythm. And that's exactly what's happened vs ISU and Michigan, as consecutive runs were rarely called in those games.
Rhythm and a lather are a running games best friend. And those can't be accomplished without ever running the ball on consecutive plays.
Easy game, folks.
A lot of this has already been covered in post #83
He's definitely been a dude. Future is bright with him. Like Jones, he'll eventually be the anchor on the Oline.
Phillips and everyone else is back. This isn't Michigan. Illinois ran well against Ohio State. Grady, their starting DL is still out.
We'll see. The running game has been anemic so far against the only 2 defenses with a pulse. The OSU run defense is much better than ISU's for sure and we saw what happened in that game. Need to see some growth from the oline and some creative play calling to be effective in this one. Otherwise it's going to be up to Air Brown.
The only thing that needs to be "created" is a push at the LOS.We'll see. The running game has been anemic so far against the only 2 defenses with a pulse. The OSU run defense is much better than ISU's for sure and we saw what happened in that game. Need to see some growth from the oline and some creative play calling to be effective in this one. Otherwise it's going to be up to Air Brown.
For that, consecutive runs are going to have to be called, unlike in the ISU and Michigan games
The running game sucked in those games. 53 rushes for 151 yards. That's 2.8 yards per rush. Thank God they have a passing game because this is a 2-2 team without it and Gameday would be in Starkville instead of Iowa City.
Last edited:
As explained in posts #83 and #101, the fact that the run game struggled vs those two opponents, is the reason it needed to be used more. And especially on consecutive downs.
I wouldn't necessarily say Iowa would be 2-2 without the passifier game. Iowa actually would have probably been in better spots for most of both ISU and Michigan games, had they not been passifying so frequently.
And is Gameday really that important to you?
first quarter mi vs mn
gophs making it look easy to both run and pass on mi. easily moved the middle of mi DL for rush TD.
even more worried now about iowa run game
gophs making it look easy to both run and pass on mi. easily moved the middle of mi DL for rush TD.
even more worried now about iowa run game
Someone let me know when Iowa attempts to establish the run.
Didn't hand it off on consecutive plays until under 5 min to go in 2nd Q
Didn't hand it off on consecutive plays until under 5 min to go in 2nd Q
We dont have the oline to establish the run vs defenses worth a crap
Last edited:
Because we have tried three times this year.
What are our total rush yards and avg per carry vs ISU, Michigan and OSU?
Latest
-
01
Hawkeye Report Football
Thoughts on Iowa football...and basketball
-
02
High School Football
Iowa RB commit Keyon Thomas runs wild in Warren Central (Ind.) win
-
03
Hawkeye Report Olympics
Iowa Soccer earns a much-needed 1-0 win over Rutgers
-
04
College Football Playoff
College Football Bowl Projections Week 6: Full list of matchups, playoff predictions
-
05
Hawkeye Report Olympics
Iowa adds Fargo champ Ryleigh Sturgill to 2027 recruiting class