#5-Duke w 21
#4-Minnesota w 22
#3-Nebraska w 25
#2-Rutgers w 29
#1-Iowa w 59!
(per Ivan Bologna)
#4-Minnesota w 22
#3-Nebraska w 25
#2-Rutgers w 29
#1-Iowa w 59!
(per Ivan Bologna)
Teams w the most consecutive games w/out 300 yd passer - Power 4
- Thread starter 4rubrat1
- Start date
4 out of the 5 are Big Ten teams ... hmm.
And Iowa is 40-18 during that stretch.
Interesting.
And Iowa is 40-18 during that stretch.
Interesting.
Not surprised. Lack of true traditional passing QB's and run first mentality. Unfortunately, this has led to our overall record.
MVP of this list is Athan... contributing to 2 of the 5 teams.... hmmmm
those that look at data in a vacuum are condemned to faulty views
3 out of the 5 teams are from the former B10 west so the schedule was favorable but besides that Iowa is an exception. It's not an avenue that's seen as a more mainstream avenue that works. New clock rules are helpful though.
This year their schedule again looks pretty favorable despite the divisions going away. Their losses? OSU and MSU from the former B10 east...one of whom has a first year HC.
Their defense has slipped a little this year too. It's not near the top of the rankings in YPP, YPG, scoring like they have been recently.
I was recently considering RU's view of "balance" in football.
A "balanced" offense usually means run/pass integration.
A good pass game opens the run and vice versa.
Option teams get around usual balance issue with more motion, blockers and deception.
They pass less frequently but when they do its for a good gain.
An option can get 4-6 yds pretty reliably so there are no quick pass hits.
Schiano has his own balance but more between offense and defense
Runs and short (safe) passes are prevalent along with clock drain - turnover avoidance is a key.
As opposed to the offense, its the defense that takes the risks - lopsided.
Defensive risks like blitzes usually dont involve losing the ball although big gains can be allowed.
So any risk taking is falling more to the defense than the offense.
Defense can procure TOs and limit scoring while offense collects "enough points to win."
A problem is easy to see - a defense that isn't good enough to carry its extra weight.
An offense is like a machine using teamwork and precision.
A defense needs more heroes - sack/TFL/INT masters along with unit run stoppers, pass coverage etc.
Its very hard to use a (safe) low octane offense with a garden variety defense.
GS will look good with Ed Reed on defense but that's unrealistic every year
RU plays lottery every year with 2006 being a year good players were around.'
Truth is (imo) that 06 team should have been better with the offense in place
The defense had to save games lacking points (UConn and others).
This stat is useless unless you show those teams rushing ranking. It’s ok not to have 300 yds passing if you are in the top 10 in rushing. It’s only bad if you can’t run or pass.
Thanks. That's interesting.
Looking at Natl. Champs Michigan last year - they averaged 213 passing yds per game (76th in NCAA)
Rushed for 170/game (43rd in NCAA)
but defense only allowed 10.4 pts/game (best in NCAA.)
I guess an elite defense and a decent running game can win it all!
They also didn’t have the top of the top recruiting rankings either. They were good but not cream of the cream. Like I’ve said the pool is widening from the top on down.
They were also +19 in TOs which was #1 in the country last year. Currently they are 119 in the country at -7.
AK was the last to have over 300 for Minnesota with 319 v Wisconsin in 2022
I block people too. Shelby, 365 turd,.... 😂
Michigans D also knew what plays their opponents were going to run.
We did it! We did it! We have a 300 yard passing game.
Just missing the 'elite' defense ... or any defense. Stunning development this year. Actually expected us to have an 'elite' defense, esp. vs. a "weaker" schedule.
Sigh. That's what I get for having 'expectations'.
D Miller is the reason for the upgrade in passing, not the QB. Wish we had him last year.
He throws the balls too?
I wish. He could’ve doubled his output last night. My biggest issue with AK is that he is getting a lot of guys hurt by setting up our guys to be tackling dummies. But hey, his completion percentage is above 50%.
Not true. We got an upgrade in some areas. If the other guy was all that, he would have gotten more passing opportunities at KY.
Not in the area that matters most. We got an upgrade at WR and pass protection, not QB.
One of the best passing attacks I have seen from RU in quite a few years. 15 passing first downs. 313 yards on 27 completed passes, 1 TD, no INTS.
Athan was protected well even though USC knew he was passing on almost every down. He did have some passes that were behind receivers, but overall, not too bad. Against USC too.
You lost your credibility there. GW is a pathetic power 4/5 thrower. Currently has a 40% completion percentage and was 3/10 yesterday against a previously 2 win Auburn team.
Sadly for him Kentucky’s starter has another year thereby relegating GW to another year of mop up duty ( excluding his few running attempts per game). Kentucky fans, not unlike Rutgers fans before them, cringe when he drops back to pass.
Last edited:
Wimsatt was given ample opportunity to improve at Rutgers. He did not. It was time to move on. That is all.
I think what you’re missing is that we need an upgrade at QB. AK brought better stats in passing but running took a big step back and our red zone efficiency is probably worst (didn’t look up the stats). We need to go to the portal and get a real QB. Getting a back up at a school that’s at the bottom tier of the B1G isn’t the answer.
I didn’t miss a thing. You foolishly said AK wasn’t an upgrade at QB. Would I also like an upgrade over AK? Of course!
Like I said, he is padding stats. We all see it. He can move the ball between the 30s. But can’t do anything in the red zone.
I’ll simply this for you. It’s actually an idiot test. Is AK an overall upgrade over GW? Yes or no??
I don’t think so. AK beat UW that we would not beat with GW. But think we beat UCLA with the power running game. Net neutral.
