Not saying it fixes the issue entirely, but a QB who can run and has good instincts for when to run can help to mask some of the issues of a bad OL.
We couldn’t run the ball against them. I’m not sure 3rd down would’ve gone well. It didn’t yesterday tbh
As @Ssmiff likes to point out all the time, having a QB who is a threat to run helps the running game immensely.
Definitely prefer it. I’m just fine with Nico not taking an additional 75-100 shots on runs or passes this last year behind this OL while trying to learn college defenses. You think he held onto it last night, what do you think it woulda looked like 3 months ago. We still end up 9-4. People also need to realize we had basically 3 drives for scores yesterday. It’s not like we looked much different except qb runs and movement.
Does anyone do a breakdown of that stuff team by team? I'd be curious. I'm curious about Missouri too. Just losing that running back may change them more deeply than they realize. He single-handedly controlled games.
Looking at their bowl depth chart, they had a ton of seniors starting on both sides. Hard to say who can and/or will come back. The RB definitely will be a big loss for their identity on offense.
I think he held onto it too long, but calling it out is also nitpicking his performance. It wasn't severely detrimental, but it's a clear place where he can improve. I think you need to realize that there was no reason for us to "look different" or have more than "3 drives for scores" yesterday. We were up 14-0 with 8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter against a team that hasn't scored more than 22 points since the beginning of October (and even that required an uncharacteristic 70 yd punt return TD late in the 4th). Iowa might not have scored 14 if the game was 12 quarters long and we played 2 men down on defense. The offense didn't look different because there was no need for it to look different. And I would argue it actually looked fairly different - just didn't look like the powerhouse you'd expect from a 35-0 win. But again, it didn't need to because Iowa can't play from behind.
It’s not nitpicking to point out the obvious and again, with OL issues, rb missing 3 chips and wrs not able to get separation, a lot goes into it. We passed for 150 and ran for 230, which is pretty much what we did against most teams all year. Also need to be honest I don’t see Iowa beating anybody in the sec except Vandy this last year. They are awful. Slow. Our dbs didn’t play against slower wrs and TEs all year. No wonder they were all over them.
We'll never know if playing Nico more or all season would have been a good or better decision down the road. He could have gotten good experience, or he may have gotten hurt or developed bad habits behind a sketchy O line. I'm in the camp that it wasn't necessarily a bad decision given the situation that developed over the course of the season. There's really no pointing to any one benefit from having him played more or started with absolute certainty just like there's not going to be any one detriment we can cite had that been the decision. We are where we are, and it sure looks to be a heckuva lot better place than we were for all of the 2010s.
Very well may be top 10-15. Still very worried that Banks is going to have a couple of stinker game plans or make terrible calls in clutch situations. I just don't have faith in him in key moments. Hope I'm wrong.
We weren't gonna be top 4 this year, the goal going forward is to make the playoffs. So that's where I want to be.
Be interesting to see if a team like UT get the benefit of the doubt with schedule. Iowa woulda made the playoff this year. We wouldn’t have, yet look what happens when we played them. We could lose to OK, Ga and Bama and be out of it next year.
