For a state title, would you rather
- Thread starter LukeFeddersen
- Start date
If the choice is one or the other, then running. However, both elements of the game will likely figure into state champion level of performance, along with defense and special teams.
Of course, there are teams (Keokuk, SC Heelan and WDMD) who had outstanding passing performances in the championship game and the performances contributed mightily to their victories.
Of course, there are teams (Keokuk, SC Heelan and WDMD) who had outstanding passing performances in the championship game and the performances contributed mightily to their victories.
You're not an Iowa football fan if you don't like a good running game. 
But really the correct answer is a good offensive line. Teams like Saint Ansgar and AP that won titles with run heavy offenses didn't do so simply running around or away from everyone. Teams knew what was coming, and would load the box, and that's where you find out who executes better in the trenches.
But really the correct answer is a good offensive line. Teams like Saint Ansgar and AP that won titles with run heavy offenses didn't do so simply running around or away from everyone. Teams knew what was coming, and would load the box, and that's where you find out who executes better in the trenches.
Any more, being one-dimensional just doesn't work. FDSE had a damn good team last year, but you aren't going to beat a team like Regina without a more balanced offense (and it's particularly unfortunate in FDSE's case, since they do have an excellent receiver at their disposal). It's also part of the reason Madrid is always playing bridesmaid.
It does depend a little one which classes you're talking about, though. Class A and 8-man is typically more ground-based, while the larger classes are usually more balanced.
It does depend a little one which classes you're talking about, though. Class A and 8-man is typically more ground-based, while the larger classes are usually more balanced.
If Regina said screw it, we are going to pass every single play or run every single play (they'd just have to pick either or), would they still be the favorite to win the title? Yes it is a crazy hypothetical but I'll still take them. Their balance is what makes them even more dangerous.
Sure, the very best teams could probably do it. The problem is that in just about every class, there's at least one elite team that does play balanced offensively. Even West Lyon and Don Bosco could throw the ball very effectively last year, and all of the championship teams in 1A-4A were extremely balanced. You could maybe take away the ground or passing game from them, but never both.
If Regina ran an offense like Madrid's, they would still be very successful (hell, Madrid's been plenty successful, they just don't have any rings to show for it). But I'd bet they wouldn't have 56 straight wins or 4-straight titles (they'd probably still have gotten a couple, though).
If Regina ran an offense like Madrid's, they would still be very successful (hell, Madrid's been plenty successful, they just don't have any rings to show for it). But I'd bet they wouldn't have 56 straight wins or 4-straight titles (they'd probably still have gotten a couple, though).
It takes an elite QB to pass your way to a title. That is more rare than being able to out muscle other teams and run your way to a title.
I enjoy the balance though, since it's more representative of what higher level football actually demands.
But, as a spectator I would certainly enjoy watching a skilled passing team over a team that runs the ball almost exclusively.
I enjoy the balance though, since it's more representative of what higher level football actually demands.
But, as a spectator I would certainly enjoy watching a skilled passing team over a team that runs the ball almost exclusively.
Ahh, well, it's been a while since I've had anything to say on here but I'll have to say that I would absolutely prefer a running game.
One of the most satisfying teams I've ever got to watch is Illini West (formerly Carthage) Illinois. They ran a Wing T for years and years that was just surgically executed. The kids were taught it from day one and by the time they were in high school, it had become second nature. I never got to see Sigourney play in the dominating years of the Spinback but I'm guessing it's similar from things I've heard.
The playbook wasn't big at all - I'd imagine some times I saw them play they may have ran 6-8 plays all game, but they ran it so well and the talent was prepared for it. It was basically a case of "Here's what we're going to do - stop us."
A good running game that can consistently move the ball accomplishes several things. Mainly, you get an added edge in being able to dictate the tempo of the game. Additionally, you gain the possibility of mentally wearing down your opponent - if they know what's coming and still can't stop it, it will be devastating to their confidence.
I can see the arguments for both a good passing game and a good mixed game, and they're all good. But given the choice between all three, I'm going running all day. It's not sexy when it works, but it can be brutally effective when done well.
One of the most satisfying teams I've ever got to watch is Illini West (formerly Carthage) Illinois. They ran a Wing T for years and years that was just surgically executed. The kids were taught it from day one and by the time they were in high school, it had become second nature. I never got to see Sigourney play in the dominating years of the Spinback but I'm guessing it's similar from things I've heard.
The playbook wasn't big at all - I'd imagine some times I saw them play they may have ran 6-8 plays all game, but they ran it so well and the talent was prepared for it. It was basically a case of "Here's what we're going to do - stop us."
A good running game that can consistently move the ball accomplishes several things. Mainly, you get an added edge in being able to dictate the tempo of the game. Additionally, you gain the possibility of mentally wearing down your opponent - if they know what's coming and still can't stop it, it will be devastating to their confidence.
I can see the arguments for both a good passing game and a good mixed game, and they're all good. But given the choice between all three, I'm going running all day. It's not sexy when it works, but it can be brutally effective when done well.
I honestly don't mind seeing different types of offenses. What I look for is can they make it work?
And I still go back to what I said earlier...I prefer a top-notch O-line, because then it doesn't matter much what you do.
I would agree with both DT#61 and Muck here. Having that dominating O-line is almost imperative. But I would rather it be a great running O-line. Being an alumnus of Marshalltown and seeing a few of their games the last decade or so, that pass happy attack is fun to watch. But it's only fun when you have quarterbacks like Peschong and Gimbel. Even then, when Marshalltown would have a short yardage situation, that typical shotgun/spread doesn't work very good. When you run ut of it and it's a surprise, it can be effective. But when you have to break from your norm to line-up short yardage or have to pass 3-and-goal from the 3, I don't like it. An elite rushing offense works from any spot on the field, provided the score is close or you're ahead. And ahead is even better because of ball and tempo control.
Think I'd lean towards the elite running game if I had too.
Think I'd lean towards the elite running game if I had too.
Passing game easily...
North Fayette, Madrid, South Winn are just a few examples of teams that have had unstoppable running games and failed to win the title.
Keokuk with Vandenberg and Hurt torched Bishop Heelan.
St. Albert's with Jake Waters crushed South Winn.
North Tama(Spread Offense) slung there way past Madrid a few years ago
LaPorte City(Scheel) got past Decorah a few years ago
IC High with Derby chucked to a title and lost another one close to a Dowling team with a ton more talent.
In all honesty the best option is a more balanced attack with a slight advantage to the passing game. Regina and Solon are two great examples of teams that have dominated for 4-5 years because of being balanced and having multiple weapons. James Morris was an anomaly in all of that.
The ability to pass allows teams to be able to be effective running the ball as well.
Every once in a while you get teams that have passing they lack severely elsewhere. SEP, Marshalltown, and Urbandale have had those issues. M-Town(Ever?) and Urby(Last year) had absolutely no defense. SEP last year flat out couldn't figure out Ankeny after dismantling Dowling.
North Fayette, Madrid, South Winn are just a few examples of teams that have had unstoppable running games and failed to win the title.
Keokuk with Vandenberg and Hurt torched Bishop Heelan.
St. Albert's with Jake Waters crushed South Winn.
North Tama(Spread Offense) slung there way past Madrid a few years ago
LaPorte City(Scheel) got past Decorah a few years ago
IC High with Derby chucked to a title and lost another one close to a Dowling team with a ton more talent.
In all honesty the best option is a more balanced attack with a slight advantage to the passing game. Regina and Solon are two great examples of teams that have dominated for 4-5 years because of being balanced and having multiple weapons. James Morris was an anomaly in all of that.
The ability to pass allows teams to be able to be effective running the ball as well.
Every once in a while you get teams that have passing they lack severely elsewhere. SEP, Marshalltown, and Urbandale have had those issues. M-Town(Ever?) and Urby(Last year) had absolutely no defense. SEP last year flat out couldn't figure out Ankeny after dismantling Dowling.
Was this your argument for teams with a balanced offensive attack, or were you secretly advocating for the run game?
A team built primarily on passing can simply have an off-nite (similar to a basketball player who's primary strength is 3-pt shooting)....the weather can effect it, the qb may just be off, his receivers may just not catch it, etc. But a dominant running game probably isn't as subject to having an off-nite. You can either run it against a particular opponent or you can't. That being said, balance is always harder to defend.
Originally posted by DarkThunder#61:
Was this your argument for teams with a balanced offensive attack, or were you secretly advocating for the run game?
Passing threat sets up the running game. In the case of most of these the Elite QB's were also solid athletes. Also, most teams don't pass unless they need to do so, because outside of Marshalltown and North Tama I don't know anyone off hand that runs a spread offense every year.
6 picks thrown isn't exactly a good passing game for Heelan is it...
I was there. James Hurt burned the CB repeatedly and Vandy let it fly. The funniest part for me was the long haired red head kid with braided hair and a beanie. He was decked out in sleeves, cheek strips, and other gear. He never played and you would have thought he was the best player on the team with the way he acted.
St. Albert's smoked South Winn because they had more play makers. Waters was basically leading a run option offense, but when they passed he was on target for big plays. Most high school teams in Iowa don't run spread offenses, so you will find rushing numbers are higher. That doesn't mean a running game is better to have. I could run 1000 times for 3000 yards 30 TD's and pass 100-150 for 1500 yards 15 TD's and 5 picks. Efficiency wise the passing game would be better.
The fact that Madrid had more yards and turnovers means nothing. Madrid likely ran the ball 40-50 times thus lots of fumble chances and likely had a lot of 4th and short downs. North Tama threw incomplete passes which likely meant drives with 4th and 10 or 4th and long. North Tama had a good passing game that didn't turn the ball over.
LaPorte City Union had Hadachek as the QB in the early season and they lost 2 games. Burnside was one of the best running backs in the state and thus LPC was running dominate. When Scheel took over the passing and rushing improved. Yes, his ability to maneuver with his feet allowed for more running holes and more time for WR's to get open, but his ability as a passer ultimately stretched the defense.
IC High was another team that was a running geared offense and always has been. They had Ellis Jordan who was one of the best running backs in the state and AJ Derby who was very good as a runner also. They ran the ball primarily, but Derby was a good passer and that just like Scheel stretched the defense.
If you look at Dowling this year with Boyle. Most people know that Boyle is a very good QB, but anyone who follows football closely knows that he is a very good athlete as well and thus he rushed for 1200+ yards I believe last season. However, if you go into the game against Dowling focused on just stopping the rushing ability they will destroy you through the air. That is where the true strength of the offense is. If you try stopping the passing game they will run it at you, but knowing that you have the ability to pass the ball if necessary is a much better attribute than only being able to run the ball.
Jesse Ertz from Mepo is another example, but he didn't win a State Title due to injury. Threw for 2600 yards and 45 TD's at 67% and rushed for 1000 yards and 14 TD's at 11 YPC. His passing abilties and athletic abilities allowed him to set up the running game for himself and others.
I will say that having a good WR and a not so good QB isn't much help. South Winn has had that for 3 years. Rommes is an unstoppable WR, but the QB's have been average at best. They still run a rush happy offense, but the play making ability of Rommes at WR didn't help them much when Tanner Hageman was the RB work horse because teams knew all they needed to do was pressure the QB to ruin the passing game.
Thus my parting comments. As I said before I would prefer a balanced attack with a better passing ability. I would take an Elite QB over an Elite RB or WR any day. The threat of passing in high school football is an unmeasurable advantage.
As nearly everyone states..balanced would be the way to go. Since we must pick I would definitely pick a dominant run game over a dominant passing game.
Most of the reasons have already been listed by others but here are a few more to chew on.
1. Increased 2 waying. 2 waying has become a bigger part of the game and is now often the norm up through 3A instead of the exception. Winning the TOP battle is crucial if you heavily 2 way and the easiest way to do this is with a dominant running game.
2. Red Zone and a condensed field. I've seen way too many times that pass dominant teams struggle to score in the condensed field of the red zone. If you don't have the receivers that have the height and/or leaping ability to work the corners of the end zone it is just too easy for the defenders to sit back and move up to make the play. Although there are instances of run dominant teams struggling to hang on to the ball at the most important times (Madrid) my gut would be that you are more prone to turn the ball over in the red zone passing than running. Hesitation on the part of the QB to not make a mistake in the red zone can move you backwards with a sack or a holding call whereas you probably aren't as likely to lose as much ground with a stuffed running play. You might even find it easier to pull the defense offside when they are expecting a run and really need the jump to obtain penetration than you would be if they are expecting a pass.
Definitely the run.
This post was edited on 8/24 10:39 PM by ghost80
Most of the reasons have already been listed by others but here are a few more to chew on.
1. Increased 2 waying. 2 waying has become a bigger part of the game and is now often the norm up through 3A instead of the exception. Winning the TOP battle is crucial if you heavily 2 way and the easiest way to do this is with a dominant running game.
2. Red Zone and a condensed field. I've seen way too many times that pass dominant teams struggle to score in the condensed field of the red zone. If you don't have the receivers that have the height and/or leaping ability to work the corners of the end zone it is just too easy for the defenders to sit back and move up to make the play. Although there are instances of run dominant teams struggling to hang on to the ball at the most important times (Madrid) my gut would be that you are more prone to turn the ball over in the red zone passing than running. Hesitation on the part of the QB to not make a mistake in the red zone can move you backwards with a sack or a holding call whereas you probably aren't as likely to lose as much ground with a stuffed running play. You might even find it easier to pull the defense offside when they are expecting a run and really need the jump to obtain penetration than you would be if they are expecting a pass.
Definitely the run.
This post was edited on 8/24 10:39 PM by ghost80
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
The “WE’RE NUMBER ONE” lounge is temporarily closed for remodeling…..
- Latest: HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA
-
