I say have it be sargent and young as the first and 2nd down backs and then have IKM be a pass catcher on 3rd down since he will be the fastest of those three. I would also say let the other young guys get chances to play and get a feel for the college game.
How should our running plan be used this season.
- Thread starter TateToHollowayAllTheWay
- Start date
The middle of the line needs to run block effectively, and if they do that any of our backs can look good.
The thing with this zone block, the hole is never designated so it changes based on how the line blocks the defenders. A lot of why it sometimes seems so damn confusing and wrong to fans.
I'm still incredibly high on Toren Young. I think he changed the Northern Illinois game completely once he got in, and it baffles me why the staff stuck with IKM all season when Young seemed to have something. The final thing I love about him is he tends to always get something, falls forward, etc.
It does not matter who we use, if we cannot stretch the field enough to, they will still put eight in the box. While TE play helps in this respect, many of their catches are 5-7 yards downfield, so the DB or LB assigned to them are playing a read. Ideally, what we need is that breakaway receiver that pulls double coverage in many cases or at least causes defenders to give extra buffer, and thus creates a mismatch on the field somewhere. This is my biggest concern for this year. We could not get the running game going last year with two fantastic TEs.
He is the toughest runner we have by far in my opinion. He has the size that Sargent does not. Sargent has better feel and vision in my opinion.
Sargent is your first and second down RB.
IKM is 3rd down RB
Young is goal line and short yardage back
Give the 2 FR plenty of reps early in year to see if either can emerge.
IKM is 3rd down RB
Young is goal line and short yardage back
Give the 2 FR plenty of reps early in year to see if either can emerge.
Just like every other successful season under Ferentz (04 not included) we have to have a balanced offense! Obviously obvious!!! We need these backs to produce, I don’t care who it is, find a hole and gain some yards!
Last edited:
Based on everything I've seen, IKM is the backup to Sargent and Young. I see a lot of people claiming IKM is a 3rd down back, but I don't know what that is based on. Young can catch screens and has had a couple of nice catches.
The thing that bugs me about IKM is how so many people think he was constantly hurt in 2018, but yet the staff kept trotting him out there? Either the staff is inept (doubtful) or he wasn't really hurt most of the year. Regardless, Young outperformed him and Sargent also outperformed him. Why Toren doesn't get rewarded for his production with more chances is what I do not understand.
I think Mekhi is the number 1 and Toren has to beat out Byrd and Goodson for #2. The two backs we got this year are more talented than IKM and Toren and will overtake them late in the season, if not immediately. That is my bold prediction.
With a quality, sr. qb and improved wr's we need to throw the ball more. This will open up the run game!
I think Sargent has earned the starting position and Young would be the backup. After those two we have take a good look at the new guys and see how healthy IKM is. The staff wants more 20+ yard runs and whoever can deliver that will get the lion shares of the carries.
I would argue that fans aren't confused, more than anything they are tired of seeing defenders blow it up over and over by scheming specifically to stop it. And the very low YPC that a supposed running team produces doesn't help either.
For me it's more based on 2017 when IKM was healthy and averaged 9.2 yards per carry, had a great game against Nebraska, and did a solid job returning kicks. I think a healthy IKM has a higher upside.
Truthfully I would just like to see steady improvement from all 3. I like Sargent quite a bit. I noticed IKM wasn't in the RB get together picture over at Coach Foster's home. Not sure if that means anything.
Why? Who do you sit after you've moved a runningback out to receiver? Smith, Simth-Marsette, Martin or Tracy?
When the defense wears down and he’s fresh, then it equals out and he’s a load to bring down.
I would use him preferentially in the second half in games where we’re creating holes, or when we’re trying to chew clock.
I can get on board with that as well. A heavy dose of Sargent in the first half and then mix in some Young to pound away as the D wears down.
Also,
Wirfs and Jackson need to be responsible for taking their man to the second level, or trapping them inside and causing extra traffic for LB to sift through
Plenty on here have called for a trap or pulling guard to negate the pursuit against out OZ. It’s about time we punish teams for cheating on our audible stretch runs.
Wirfs and Jackson need to be responsible for taking their man to the second level, or trapping them inside and causing extra traffic for LB to sift through
Plenty on here have called for a trap or pulling guard to negate the pursuit against out OZ. It’s about time we punish teams for cheating on our audible stretch runs.
Hey now. How do you know their run plan is going to win national championships, and ours won't?........However the coaches see fit. Couch coaches
Yeah — wiping out both ends on running plays is obviously something they haven’t thought of. That’s why I’m here to pick up their slack
Yeah, I hate it when they run with their eyes closed
was he hurt at the very beginning of 2018?
Here are the box score lines ( https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore?gameId=401012862 ) for Iowa's RBs that game:
Young 8 carries for 84 yards, 1 TD, long of 40
IKM 16 carries for 62 yards, 1 TD, long of 10
Sargent 12 carries for 40 yards, long of 7
EDIT - this was against a MAC team and it was week 1. Toren Young more than proved he was the spark the team needed.
No..but he had two longer runs called back, Toren possibly benefited from the huskies being worn down
Maybe, I don't know. At any rate, here are the 2018 season stats for the Hawkeye RBs we've been discussing:
Young 136 attempts for 637 yards, avg 4.7, 5 TDs. 7 rec for 27 yards, avg 3.9, 1 TD
Sargent 159 attempts for 745 yards, avg 4.7, 9 TDs. 17 rec for 156 yards, avg 9.2, 1 TD
Kelly-Martin 97 attempts for 341 yards, avg 3.5, 2 TDs. 9 rec for 78 yards, avg 8.7, 0 TD
Given most of us are concerned about YPC, I'll pick 4.7 every time. Give me a dose of Sargent with Young backing him up.
Personally, I would like to see more formations with two of them in the game. Put Young in the FB spot and one of the others in the RB spot - then use a little misdirection.
There seem to be too many plays when the D knows exactly where the ball is going.
There seem to be too many plays when the D knows exactly where the ball is going.
I think there are a couple factors that are going to play into a better YPC average this year.
1) Our backs are a year stronger, quicker and faster. They should improve at seeing the best path to pick up yards.
2) Just going by memory we had a disproportionate amount of carries that gained less than 2 yards. To my eye that’s usually the OL failing to establish leverage rather than the RB failing to identify the lane.
I’m hopeful that we’ll vary our playcalls a little more because it seemed like we were getting beaten to the point of attack quite a bit.
1) Our backs are a year stronger, quicker and faster. They should improve at seeing the best path to pick up yards.
2) Just going by memory we had a disproportionate amount of carries that gained less than 2 yards. To my eye that’s usually the OL failing to establish leverage rather than the RB failing to identify the lane.
I’m hopeful that we’ll vary our playcalls a little more because it seemed like we were getting beaten to the point of attack quite a bit.
Sargent reminds me of a slightly faster Adam Robinson....has decent vision and just tough to bring down for some reason.
That’s a great comparison. I can’t think of any other Iowa back that he compares better to in fact?
I guess I'll just trust the staff that watches and evaluates these guys daily over trying to correlate/compare stats put up against a MAC team with changes to scheme, both team's personnel, and fatigue during the course of the game. What is really going on is we have three good, not great backs at this point who all can show flashes and also look extremely pedestrian.
But hey, it's the off-season.
But hey, it's the off-season.
Yes, it is the off-season - we appear to agree on this.
You're more than welcome to attempt to make a case for IKM. I fully expect to see people saying "I'll trust the staff" but then you have to have an answer for whether or not he was hurt in 2018. If he was, why did the staff give him so many opportunities given there are two other backs averaging more YPC? On the other hand, there's the very uncomfortable answer that he wasn't in fact that hurt, which isn't going to help your case. So which is it? The staff knows we have three good backs but still gave the injured guy major snaps?
Here is my case for IKM:
The staff felt he deserved carries, often times throughout the season as the #1 back that faced fresh 1st quarter defenses.
The end.
I personally, as a message board poster, do not need any more info than that to form a case. You're welcome to disagree.
I will throw in this as support.
When healthy IKM ran for more ypc than anyone. He’s the most likely to turn the corner and the most likely to house a screen pass.
Ok, I can respect that and I absolutely do disagree.
I suppose if we have this conversation in a year's time after Sargent got the starts you'll be telling everybody that Sargent is the best RB because the staff gave him the starts. And that's fine too, but you have to admit that's not taking any view on the player or what your eyes told you about the player. It is simply blind loyalty to the staff. I won't give this staff blind loyalty on offensive skill positions because I've seen many instances of them playing the wrong guy.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-