This is the number that is unexcusable IMO. And while the O-line was subpar at best, a much more collective effort contributed to that number from the play of the RBs to the scheme to an obviously brand new coordinator/head coach running things.
I mentioned a couple weeks ago that we should expect growing pains in the running game in going from a power/man blocking scheme where we pulled OL often and used the FB and TE to get numbers advantages to a nearly pure zone running scheme which not only puts more pressure on the Oline, but on the RBs as well. On top of that we didn't try to change formations, shift, or motion, especially in the 1st half. So to go along with a dramatic change in scheme, we went in with a very vanilla game plan and when that blew up in our faces we essentually showed no answer. Again, keep in mind the change in scheme is pretty dramatic, not only for the Oline, but the RBs as well. We ran a couple plays where we pulled people to try to get numbers, but the stretch zone was our most frequent run and it gained us very little. Of course, Alsup running that play doens't help, he's simply not a RB equipped to play in a zone scheme, especially after 2 knee surgerys. I think Patton and Johnson could be decent backs in the scheme and we'll have to see how Clayton does. Whoever steps up must be much more decisive and show much more explosiveness in picking a seam and getting through to the 2nd level.
I'm not sure what is more disappointing, the fact that we came out and couldn't muster any running game with our base package against a 1-AA team or that we never showed the ability to adjust and take advantage of what ISU was doing to get any running game going in the 2nd half. ISU had a nice 1-AA defense, but there was no excuse for not averaging 5+ per carry and approaching 200 on the ground. IMO, any success this season (and "success" IMO will probably look like 6-6 or 7-5) will be predicated on this team establishing some sort of running game to open up the passing game. I think the lack of success in establishing any running game, plus Meier showing no ability to stretch the field (the first throw should've been thrown 10 yards over the WRs head IMO just to say "we will go vertical" to ISU) contributed to the breakdowns in our pass protection and allowed ISU to send the house often.
