I agree. There is no Banks, Greene, Bell or Wadley in this group. Iowa will be serviceable at RB. I do think BF is going to throw the football. However it happened Iowa has assembled a damn good stable of WRs. That includes Martin.
Toren Young
- Thread starter CP84
- Start date
Agree. Once we decided to just hand the ball off to Greene in 2008, we never lost again.
I like him too, but I think he’s more of a role guy off the bench. Imo it’s Mekhi’s job to lose.
I don't think that we truly had an idea of what Wadley could do until he was more like a JR. We saw some flashes as a SO .... but I'd argue that we've seen flashes from a number of our current RBs to date.
Thus, I'd surmise that it's FAR TOO EARLY to be lumping our current group of junior RBs as simply being "serviceable." I think that fans are doing those players a disservice by drawing such premature conclusions.
It would be like concluding that Bruggeman was simply "just another walk-on C" for the Hawks. He certainly was a "late-bloomer" for the Hawks ... but his SR campaign was outstanding!
Hope you are right. A strong running game means we compete for the B1G title
And Wadley showed flashes as a SO. He was held back by his weight, fumbles and guys ahead of him. I have seen very little from these RBs to say one will be a game changer.
BUT we saw flashes of Wadley as a soph, as you've stated. Toren has had plenty of carries and opportunities to show "flashes" but he hasn't. I would list Toren Young as just serviceable. IKM is a bit of a mystery due to injuries but he seemed to have a lack of vision in his time on the field last year. So at this point, I'd also categorize him as serviceable. Mekhi maybe slightly above the "serviceable" label - far from flashy but yards after contact was very pleasing. IMO an overall grade of serviceable is fair but I know we all hope they've got more in store for us!
Great post about young RBs. And Bruggy was one of the best and meanest centers in the Big Ten.
Maybe true, but I still think we need to ride one horse maybe 65% of the time. I don't think its an accident that Sargent had his two best games by far at the end of the year when he got more consistent carries. Good backs get a feel for the game. Give him 2 series then mix in IKM, Young, or Goodson a series than get him back out there unless one of the other guys starts to explode then reevaluate.
Ladell Betts averaged 3.6 ypc his first year rushing the ball. As a SO, he then averaged 4.3 ypc. As a junior, that number grew to 4.7 ypc. Finally, as a SR in 2001, he averaged 4.8 ypc. I don't know about others - but I wouldn't consider Ladell to be just a serviceable back.
If we look at guys like Sargent or Young ... they each averaged 4.7 ypc ... and they're capable of improving ... just as the quality of our blocking is capable of improving too. I'd figure that their rushing numbers can and should improve.
I expect that the coaches still might favor the "hot hand" approach ... but I agree that Mekhi has seemed to surge as it relates to earning earlier reps.
I don't agree with the changing-out of running backs that often - i think we should ride "one horse" AT LEAST 65% of the time. Like you said, Sargent had his two best games when he got more carries and was likely able to get a better feel for the game. I say find your best 1-2 punch, almost never playing a 3rd guy unless absolutely necessary or that 3rd RB is used in the slot or 5-wideout formation. Find and play the best 2. That's it.
I agree with both of you that it is ideal if we can have a guy who can shoulder most of the burden. I think that this is what we saw happen in 2016 ... where much of the burden fell on Daniels and Easley (much to the chagrin of Mitchell).
However, it's nice to find packages that give guys chances to shine ... because otherwise guys can lose motivation and all of a sudden you see your positional depth erode.
I'm still hoping that we can see 2 RB sets with Toren and a speedier back ... that way Toren can do the dive and/or inside-zones ... but then he could also play the role as a lead blocker. The other guy could do outside or counter runs ... or even split out wide. Such a use of personnel could keep the O multiple, all while letting more RBs see more snaps.
Totally disagree about not seeing any flashes from Young last season. Just watch the highlights.
The staff also acknowledged that they saw something there when they rewatched game film after the season.
How is Toren at blocking? Anybody know? I watched every game but didn't record any of them.
Like most big backs, Toren does well with holes that he can run at. He’s not your — put one foot in that ground and hit the cutback type back. But when the OL is rolling making creases and he’s getting to LBs and safeties then he’s really effective there.
I would say his uses should be:
1) Games where we’re averaging decent ypc
2) 3rd and short
3) Icing the game
For the most part I think Sargent and IKM are better suited for:
1) Run/Pass option downs
2) Starting the game when everybody’s fresh
3) Passing downs
4) Games where our chances to hit homeruns are limited
Good question ... I couldn't tell you about his current blocking skills. I do believe that part of the reason why IKM was ahead of him last year was because Toren's pass-pro was still a work in progress. However, there's a big difference between pass-pro for the QB and being the lead blocker on a run. Since Toren is a guy who seems to thrive on contact ... being a lead blocker seems like it would still fit with his style of play.
Given how Brian tried to get Butler and Wadley on the field at the same time ... I anticipate that we'll see a return of that sort of thing with the RBs this year. I also expect that if we use 2 back sets w/o a true FB ... I expect that we could see Tyrone Tracy lined up in the backfield a bit. However, I could see Sargent, IKM, or Goodson used in that capacity too.
In 2015 we had multiple RBs and managed 12 wins - and 2016 we had a pair of thousand yard backs. I don't think the one-size-fits-all solutions work in any line of work.
Hayden said scratch where it itches . . . I'm with Fry
One-size-fits-all is literally the most ideal situation anyone could ever ask for, in any line of work.
Not at all ... with multiple backs, if opposing teams play you light ... you could utilize Toren more as a FB. If they play with heavy personnel ... you could put an RB out wide ... and then you're more apt to draw mismatches in coverage.
To go along with all that ... you can keep opposing Ds off-rhythm by manipulating your own tendency.
IMO, 80% of the evaluation of a RB can be made by watching him for 15 carries and then answering the question "can he make the first guy miss?"
Using that criteria, non of our guys escape the "serviceable" category but that's ok. They will be improved and would be good enough to be a functional part of "a good running system". The primary problem isn't RBs or OL, it's lack of "a good running system". (scheme)
Last year we were 12th in the B10 in avg yards gained on 3rd and 3 or less.
That's actually better than some other recent years when we were probably 3rd worst in the country instead of just the conference. Why? Lack of misdirection, zone blocking giving away point of attack, formation so tight that there are no RB options (even Gayle Sayers needed SOME gap).
So maybe we do better in longer yardage situations? Well, only if we consider finishing 11th in the conference as doing better, That's where we finished last year in avg yards gained on 1st down running plays.
This offense has some serious systemic deficiencies and a discussion about coaching improvement would be more relevant.
That strategy of changing out backs really never paid off for the NE Patriots? Grinding guys into the dirt like the Rams did with Gurley, and 'Boys with zeke, and Steelers with their guy = injured guys when the games start counting?
Interesting stats in this post. Can you point me to where you found them? Thanks. Would love to compare to some other years.
I think telling someone to go root for another team just because he pointed out solid stats to go with his argument is pretty dumb and a big problem these forums see. I don’t see a problem with AMAYS saying Toren’s YPC isn’t anything special and several other running backs have better YPC. That doesn’t mean Toren isn’t a good running back which AMAYS never seemed to imply. Should Toren be the guy to get the most carries or will he be the best back on the team? Time will tell and that’s up to the coaches. One thing that is certain is Iowa’s offense goes as the running game goes. Toren could help the receiving game because teams will more than likely pack the box knowing he isn’t going to be a home run threat. With that the WR’s will have more opportunities. At the same time, our running game with Toren in relies on his ability to make the right read and make people miss to get good yards since the defense won’t be concerned about him running past everyone. I agree that we do need a running back that can keep the defense honest in terms of breaking a long run. I believe Toren is a solid piece to the puzzle and if the coaches utilize the 3 backs returning in the right way I think it will be hard to stop.
I'd say it worked out for the Rams and Cowboys just fine - Gurley and Elliott were still very productive 15 and 16 games into the season. And Pittsburgh's guy? Bell. The guy that had a very good 2017 and then only sat out 2018 because he refused to sign the franchise tag? They've all done juuuuust fine for their teams.
I think we lost to Illinois after we realized how good Greene was.
I said it because he cherry-picked a running back's specs from a poor team to meet his needs.
The 4.7 ypc average is a good average. I didn't say he was all-world. But it isn't as bad as some are painting it.
Now consider this: the running backs we were originally speaking of - Iowa's of course - are a number of years younger, have taken much less of a beating, and only play in 12 games. Comparing 4th and 5th year NFL running backs to college running backs is apples to oranges.
I agree. 4.7 YPC is definitely not bad and really isn’t anything to complain about. I just think it’s kind of ridiculous to say go root for the gophers then lol I get it you’re definitely joking (I’d assume) but it kind of adds to the narrative that when somebody points out negatives or weaknesses about the team or player that poster is jumped on to find another team to cheer for then. I guess I’m probably just overblowing things wishing everyone could disagree more respectfully instead of being sarcastic dicks. Not trying to specifically point you out as like I said I’m sure you were kidding.
How many long runs did Daniel's have negated because of bogus holding calls?!! He broke some big ones that never made the books!
I wouldn't disagree that there have been some schematic issues, but I would chalk up those issues to the following ...
- Hawk fans love Fry's scratch where it itches philosophy. but they seem to fail to recognize how tremendously pragmatic Brian schematically apears to be. In '17 he had much of the O revolve around Wadley. In '18, the O largely centered around our tremendous TEs. The problem with this is that it impacts how you consistently and seamlessly integrate the passing and rushing games together.
- We're in Iowa's 3rd year of Brian's O ... and I think the O is still a work-in-progress. After how historically bad our passing game was in '16 ... the first order of business for Brian was to fix the passing game ... but he had to do it (in '17) with a first year starter at QB and a shockingly weak WR room. In '18, we saw some improvements in the rushing game, despite featuring a significantly less experienced RB room. In year 3, I expect even more ground to be made up ... both literally and figuratively.
- Iowa's inside zone game has struggled some schematically because so much of our passing game has been between the hashes to our TEs or our guy in the slot. To open up the interior, we need to better attack the edges of the D ... and that includes testing the CBs on the edges who are in man-coverage.
- The outside zone has needed better run blocking by the OTs, better recognition by the RBs to find the cutback lanes, and a stronger vertical passing game to help keep safeties back and keep CBs backs turned.
- Part of the solution to better integrate the passing and running games involve slightly changing up how games are called ... and Brian's learning that the more he calls games
- Also, part of the schematic side of the solution can involve slight tweaks to the route trees to adjust what parts of the field the D will defend ... all based on the personnel packages you show the D.
Say what you will ... but 2 years ago, Iowa's O was continuously stymied by Wisconsin's vaunted D despite often benefiting from decent field position (due to turnovers and special teams play). Last year, against Mississippi State's comparably vaunted D ... Iowa's red-zone O saw success nearly every time we got deep into MSU territory. That's something that few other teams managed to do against that D!
Iowa was really bad last season when losing by 15 points or more..
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/national/team/offense/situational28/category01/sort01.html
I'm feeling better about this prediction after watching scrimmage.
Toren runs hard and punishes defenders. We'll still use a committee and I like Mekhi a lot too but I could see Toren really coming on strong.
Toren runs hard and punishes defenders. We'll still use a committee and I like Mekhi a lot too but I could see Toren really coming on strong.
Similar threads
