All of this having been said, the good news is next Saturday we don't have to watch our run game s--t the bed against another P4 opponent.
What's the problem with the iowa run game ?
- Thread starter r_desihawk
- Start date
Let’s face it out our run game isn’t good because our C and RT are awful. Been weak spots last 2 games plus isu.
If Iowa can manage to keep him on the team. Who knows with the way NIL and transfers work now.
Against ISU, Mich and OSU, we avg just over 60 yds rushing per game and 2.5 yds avg per rush attempt.
Hard to win consistently with numbers like that.
Hard to win consistently with numbers like that.
Dude.... 21 attempts for 30 yards. That's not even 2 yards a carry average. If Iowa stuck to the run game like you wanted this game would have been a 40 point blowout.
Even with Hank sucking on the pass....it at least moved the chains enough to get some 1sr downs
The run game has been **** consistently against teams with a pulse - clowns, Michigan and now OSU. It's a bad pattern. Illinois rushed 200 yards on OSU last week
at some point that becomes a tired excuse, w eyes. You have to earn the right to run the ball multiple times in a row. we tried a sustained running game against Iowa State and that didn’t work either.
All already been answered in this thread other than the fact you've included Brown's 4 rushes for -14 yards (including sacks).
Also an attempt for Diaz.
16 RB rushes is not establishing the run, nor is it committing to the run.
Did we not hear the announcers use both of the keywords I've used in this thread to describe OSU's run game? Rhythm and lather.
Never given the necessary chance
That's literally the first time in my life I've heard that you have you have to earn consecutive runs.
No. As mentioned in post #83, Iowa did NOT run frequently vs ISU. No consecutive traditional run plays until under 11 minutes to go in the game!
Nobody outside of the academy school’s give it a good 35 or 40 carries before they give up. If teams make it that number of carries it’s generally because they’re having at least SOME early success.That's literally the first time in my life I've heard that you have you have to earn consecutive runs.
No. As mentioned in post #83, Iowa did NOT run frequently vs ISU. No consecutive traditional run plays until under 11 minutes to go in the game!
I will grant you today they were too pass happy early. I thought they should have run more on 2nd down today in particular.
You’re still ignoring the point about not running on consecutive downs.
I've never seen the run get established or committed to, from a team that's doing that
Yeah, maybe. I just think it’s hard to keep investing series into the running game when given the opportunity it’s been completely benign.
Washington’s got a stout run defense as well so I’ll be curious to see how they game plan for that one.
Never have I heard of a series that was invested in the run, that didn't use consecutive run plays
Clearly, you need to call Kirk's call in show to tell him what he and Lester (with their combined nearly half century of P4 and NFL coaching experience) are doing wrong, and explain to them all offensive woes can be fixed, and every game won, by simply running the ball more. And that even though they see these players every day and know what those players can and can't do, your "one size fits all" offensive philosophy is the only way. Tell them the forward pass is merely a "shiny toy". Use your cute little "passifier" word instead of pass.
For reference, have them peruse your posts on this site, so they can see your extensive knowledge and tireless effort to instruct us all, who are not only too stupid to understand the game of football, but bad fans to boot.
I'm sure he will be happy for your help.
Clearly you need to stop. Basically everything you've said here is mischaracterization.
Clearly you need to get your panties out of a bunch and read better.
Nowhere have I complained about the staff's approach.
As a matter of fact, I've acknowledged in this thread that there are more important things than the run game. And that sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
I'm merely answering the question about the run game.
Again, there is value in establishing the run, and in committing to the run. And I have given the numbers to show that neither have occurred in the 3 games being discussed.
Run the ball
And so your excuse for IA not running the ball better this week is they didn't try hard enough
Lol
Stop it. There is no mischaracterizing. Everyone here knows EXACTLY how you stand and what you mean.
By constantly commenting about Iowa not giving the run game a chance, and not committing to establishing the run, you are making a direct criticism of the coaching staff (including Kirk, who gives his seal of approval to the game plan), and their capability of drawing up a game plan and calling the plays they feel best takes advantage of their personnel to win the game. This also implies you know more about these things than they do.
Repeatedly bleating “run the ball”, referring to the pass as a “shiny toy” and a “passifier”, and calling receivers the least important position in football (why don’t you tell Diaz he’s the least important player on the team), make it quite clear what your feelings are.
Deny it all you want. Your posts are quite clear. We can ALL read.
I am done with you. You are dismissed.
Last edited:
1.9 ypc is pretty pathetic, given that IL did better at The Shoe. So basically we were able to fall forward at the line of scrimmage. We will have major issues going forward if we have to rely on Brown/our pass game, especially given that our Defense is not as stout as in previous seasons…
What more do you need to see? Any P 4 defense they have gone against has overpowered the O line. The only way they are going to run with any success is to spread the defense out and make them cover the entire field. Lester tried to do that yesterday but the stage was too big for his QB. "Pounding" the ball is going to lead to 10 punts per game just like it did under your nephew.
And the reason they won that game was the long pass vs Diaz. If they had played Biff ball, they would have lost that game.That's literally the first time in my life I've heard that you have you have to earn consecutive runs.
No. As mentioned in post #83, Iowa did NOT run frequently vs ISU. No consecutive traditional run plays until under 11 minutes to go in the game!
He doesnt need NIL since his fam has NFL money, right?
I wish...he looks like the best TD threat in that room, hope they involve him enough for the rest of the year that he staysThe run game looks more like the BF calling the plays than what we’ve seen from Lester the last year to two. Iowa also has MG who helped keep drives alive with called runs or scrambles.
We’re back to no real motion, up the gut with the 1-2 jet sweeps thrown in as the trickery
We’re back to no real motion, up the gut with the 1-2 jet sweeps thrown in as the trickery
Let me put this to you another way. I don't appreciate your mischaracterization.
When someone tells you that you've mischaracterized them, and provides sound supportive reasoning for it, perhaps you should back off.
So tell me exactly where it is that I stand. Because the stuff you are attributing to me are things I have never said.
NOWHERE have I said the staff is doing something wrong.
NOWHERE have I said every game can be won by simply running the ball. And NOWHERE have I ever said running the ball is the only way.
NOWHERE have I said the forward pass is merely a shiny toy.
AGAIN, I have only offered a solution to getting better production out of the run game.
And AGAIN, IN THIS VERY THREAD, I have called my perspective under informed. Have acknowledged that there are more ways to win than with the run game. And have made it clear that I'm ok whatever gets wins. So you're making yourself look pretty silly.
The use of "passifier" is nothing other than a commentary on fans.
And my main point about the passifier game, over the years, is that its level of production has in no way been a justification for the negativity that fans have levied upon the program. And that the passifier game isn't nearly as important (especially at Iowa) as people believe it to be.
As for the repetitive posting of "run the ball", it's meant to mimic the simplicity, stubbornness, and resolve, that is often part of great running games
I wouldn't say the long pass was the reason Iowa won.
In fact, as case could be made that Iowa would have been in a much better position for most of that game had they not used the passifier so frequently.
And for the record, BF passified much more often than TL has so far at Iowa
I never said Iowa didn't run on consecutive plays. But that it's only happened rarely.
Post #83 provides much more detail about the consecutive runs used vs ISU and Michigan. The type of runs used, and at what point in the game.
And posts #116 and #132 provide some detail about consecutive runs in the OSU game.
I'm not talking about end arounds, qb scrambles, and sacks. I'm talking about traditional runs that can pound on the defense. Which means your numbers don't accurately characterize.
Read the cited posts and try telling me that the run game was either established or committed to in any of those 3 games
MG’s even greater contribution was keeping the backside defenders from crashing down by just being a threat to go out the back door. We miss that.
Last edited:
Let's be honest. This O Line is awful. How are they this bad with 2 NFL guys?
The way we are built, offense will be bad unless we can really run the ball
The way we are built, offense will be bad unless we can really run the ball
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