scheme

[BirdistheWord]

OK, so get that we run a "pro style offense." We are run oriented, but not sure anyone would argue that our passing game is fairly pedestrian. Over the KF years, we have caught lightning in a bottle with Banks, Tate, Stanzi and CJB when healthy. Stanley put up some nice stats.

Question: Why do we not run a dual threat QB scheme instead of a pro QB?

Rationale: We are run oriented, with play action being the passing weapon. Majority of our passes our short to mid range (probably driven by our lack of WR speed), but given we dont recruit WR's well, a pro style passing game seems like a stretch. A mobile QB could really create more big plays with arm and legs. Its not like our PRO STYLE passing game scares any defenses, so why not put someone under center with some crazy athleticism.

Just a thought. I do realize there is not a plethora of dual threat QB's for non blue blood programs.

 

[illhawkdvv]

I'm sure if a legitimate two way QB would appear on Iowa's doorstep KF would be thrilled to bring him in. These kind of QBs don't grow on trees. Especially the ones that are accurate throwers.

 

[Harbinger273]

One must understand the ethos of a the program under the direction of and old school coach and disciple of Bill Belichik in the pro ranks. When we get and athletic guy in as a qb they still run the Pro style offense. When those qb's improvise they become a dual threat, but not by design. We will not run another style of offense as long as KF is here.

Rare is the crazy athletic playmaker qb that can orchestrate an offense outside of making those crazy athletic plays. Our pro style offense leads to more consistency year in and year out than a RichRod style offense. When we do get a Pro Style qb who is highly mobile it can be a great boost. However I don't see that we get better seeking out a mobile, running qb and molding around that. People would be amazed at the stats and potent aerial attack we would have showcased this past season had we been able to run the ball better. In fact our running game was pedestrian and the passing game likely over achieved given factors such as a 1st year starting qb, average receiving corp, and OL injuries.

Improved OL play, wide receiver development and more talent in the wr recruits we get, on top of a more potent running attack will put any worries about our scheme to rest. The efficacy of our offense does not rest solely on the QB.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

Everybody wants to say we run a "pro style offense." We run the ball 60% of the time, the team that ran the ball the most in the NFL this year was Jacksonville and they were almost a dead 50/50 split. If we want to call ourselfs "prostlye" we don't need a qb that can run more we need to pass the GD ball more. Our "pro style" offense has the run pass ratio of NFL teams in the early 80s. The "patriots offense" everyone likes to compare Iowa's offense too passes it 60% of the time. Having a dual threat qb would make us closer to NAVY than it would a actual pro offense. Yes a playmaker would be nice back there when the s* hits the fan but we are not a 2018 "pro style offense". Even though it makes us feel good to say it.

 

[HwkOnHwkLuv]

I think Stanley has the potential to be great. Which means Iowa O has the same potential. Elite QBs are hard to find otherwise Michigan would have already had a B1G championship IMO.

 

[BirdistheWord]

Everybody wants to say we run a "pro style offense." We run the ball 60% of the time, the team that ran the ball the most in the NFL this year was Jacksonville and they were almost a dead 50/50 split. If we want to call ourselfs "prostlye" we don't need a qb that can run more we need to pass the GD ball more. Our "pro style" offense has the run pass ratio of NFL teams in the early 80s. The "patriots offense" everyone likes to compare Iowa's offense too passes it 60% of the time. Having a dual threat qb would make us closer to NAVY than it would a actual pro offense. Yes a playmaker would be nice back there when the s* hits the fan but we are not a 2018 "pro style offense". Even though it makes us feel good to say it.

If you look at our true competitive set, college football. Here is the percentage of pass vs run in 2017-18 for top 5 teams:

1. Alabama (Ranked #111 in passing at 37%)
2. Oklahoma (#80 at 45%)
3. Clemson (#81 at 45%)
4. Georgia (#123 at 32%)
5. Ohio State (#91 at 44%)

We were right at about same as Ohio State.

The point is for college football, its ok to run the ball, and if anything has proven to be very effective (see above).

So for Iowa, we dont typically get great WR's and run a very safe passing offense, so why not get some additional atheleticsim back there.
Sorry, but given above having a really accurate passer is wasted on our 1. propesnity to run 2. propensity to execute safe passes like screens and outs and 3. we rely on play action to take occasional shot down field. Why not trade some of the "accuracy" for someone who can make more plays?

The college game is different from the pro game and we seem to try and achieve balance but reality is our passing game is not that great.I am not expecting deshaun watson, but there has to be some options for us that would still be able to throw our plethora of "safe" passes, plus some play action bombs. I am willing to trade some accuracy for athleticsim/playmaking ability.

thanks

 

[Hawk_4shur]

"Pro-style" does not mean the same thing as an "NFL offense". Pro-style is the named given to teams that generally use TE's and FB's, where as a "spread offense" doesn't usually use either.

Please notice I used the terms "generally" and "usually".