Week 2 Recap: Indiana State

Looking at PFF grades, snap counts, notable stats, and how IU's offensive approach differed from the Ohio State game

Sep 09, 2023

Indiana took care of business against Indiana State on Friday night, 41-7, hitting the 40-point mark for the 7th time under Tom Allen. Part of what made the end result as relieving as it was is because of the six non-conference games between 2021 and 2022, Indiana played Western Kentucky closely twice, lost to Cincinnati twice, and saw a two-year series against Idaho tighten up last season. There was only one true non-con game where Indiana handled its business since 2019 – even then, a 5-7 Ball State played IU closely. The only season where Indiana sat down all three of its non-con opponents was Allen’s first season as head coach in 2017 – Virginia (34-17), Georgia Southern (52-17), Charleston Southern (27-0). Indiana State also only lost to Indiana by a combined 25 points in two of the last three meetings (2013 was the 73-point game for IU). So if you felt a bit woozy heading into this one, it’s understandable.

Overall, it was encouraging to see that some of these offensive concepts existed within the playbook and that the QBs, particularly Jackson, can execute them and the WRs are effective when used. Limiting any team to fewer than 100 total yards is also a massive W.

I also have been updating the 2023 depth chart as these first two weeks have past to get a good idea of who is fitting in where on this roster.

Top Individual PFF Grades

Notable Individual PFF Grades

Good

Offense

Jaylin Lucas – Receiving Grade – 91
Kahlil Benson – Run-Blocking Grade – 88
Brendan Sorsby – Passing Grade – 83
Cam Camper – Receiving Grade – 78
Carter Smith – Pass-Blocking Grade – 78
James Bomba – Run-Blocking Grade – 74
Matt Bedford – Run-Blocking Grade – 72

Defense

Louis Moore – Tackling Grade – 83
Marcus Burris – Pass Rush Grade – 83
Phillip Dunnam – Run Defense Grade – 79
Philip Blidi – Pass Rush Grade – 74
Louis Moore – Run Defense Grade – 71

Not Great

Offense

Matt Bedford – Pass-Blocking Grade – 45
Bradley Archer – Offensive Grade – 49
Mike Katic – Offensive Grade – 55
Josh Sales – Offensive Grade – 56

Defense

Jacob Mangum-Farrar – Tackling Grade – 50
Myles Jackson – Defensive Grade – 50
Noah Pierre - Defensive Grade – 56
Andre Carter – Defensive Grade – 62

Snap Counts

Source: Pro Football Focus

Notable Snap Counts

Indiana played 59 individual players.
Max Longman played the most of the back-up OLs, filling in for Bedford, and he posted an average run-blocking grade and below average pass-blocking grade.
Josh Sales split his snap counts between right and left tackle.
Bray Lynch got reps on the line for a second time.
Dequece Carter was the only WR to record more than 4 snaps at slot. While he recorded 100% of his snaps at slot, the next-closest WR was Donaven McCulley with 8.6%.
Indiana played 4 TEs for at least 10 snaps. None reached an average receiving grade, and only James Bomba posted an average run-blocking grade (74!).

Notable Statistics

Indiana gained 78% of available yards.
Jaylin Lucas’s usage in pass plays increased from 4% to 14% between weeks 1 and 2. He posted an elite passing-game grade Friday night and finished with 39 yards on 4 catches.
Donaven McCulley was used on 11% of IU’s offensive plays, including a team-high 21% on passing plays.
Dequece Carter has been used on 2% of Indiana’s offensive plays in the first two weeks, which is a bit surprising to me.
Both QBs played well when under pressure. Jackson (7 dropbacks) went 4-for-5 with a 76 Offensive Grade, and Sorsby (8 dropbacks) went 3-for-7 with a 92 Offensive Grade (93 passing grade).
Indiana’s offensive success rate was 56%.
Both Tayven Jackson (72.2) and Brendan Sorsby (60.0) posted better QBRs than Louisville starting QB Jack Plummer (58) this week. Jackons’ QBR this week was also higher than Plummer’s Week 1 QBR.
Omar Cooper’s 101-yard performance was the first individual 100-yard receiving game for Indiana since Cam Camper against Cincinnati on 9/24/2022. IU only had three individual 100-yard receiving performances last season and only in two games (Illinois and Cincinnati).
Omar Cooper led the team with 10 targets.
The last time Indiana allowed fewer than 100 total yards of offense was against Rutgers in 2019, and the last time Indiana recorded 558+ yards of total offense was in 2016 (both Maryland and Wake Forest).
Andre Carter and Lanell Carr – IU’s primary pass-rushers – combined for 8 tackles, 3.5 TFLs, and 2 sacks.

Comparing Offensive Approaches in First Two Weeks

I assumed we’d learn more about the offense than the defense in this one, given Indiana State’s QB situation and previously being shut out by an underdog and given IU’s defensive performance against Ohio State. That is, in fact, what we saw. I actually learned so much about the offense that it left me asking more questions about the game plan for Ohio State – like, to name a few, “Why did Tayven Jackson only throw 5 passes in a competitive game if he was capable of these throws?” and “Why did Indiana remain committed to the ground game, particularly the triple option, when they had a far more expansive playbook they could’ve turned to?” and “Why did we see more creative offensive concepts – especially in the passing game – against Indiana State than we did against Ohio State?”.

There are obvious answers to those questions but none that are necessarily acceptable, like the ideas of maintaining Jackson’s confidence, keeping film limited for future opponents, keeping the game close by running the clock down and avoiding turnovers, feeling more confident to rep certain plays against ISU than OSU. Jackson basically asserting himself as QB1 is great, and it seems like Indiana does have two solid, developing QBs here, but if we see Jackson (or Sorsby) grow into consistent playmakers like Jackson appeared to be last night, there will be questions about that Week 1 game against an unstable Ohio State team for quite a while.

While it is difficult to quantify too much on a small sample size of two weeks, this is a data-driven newsletter. The best ways, using the data available to me, to quantifiably measure the approach of this offense in just two weeks would be to look at the QBs and Jaylin Lucas. The stats below should indicate philosophy separate from the performance of the opposing defense.

Primarily astounding to me between these two games was the usage of each QB. As I mentioned in last week’s recap, Jackson was only used – as a passer, as a rusher, or targeted in the passing game – on 14% of Indiana’s plays, while Sorsby was used on 43%. Jackson was used on 41% of offensive plays Friday. There was hardly any interest in seeing Jackson throw against Ohio State, as he attempted 5 passes and was replaced by Sorsby near the end of the third quarter for Sorsby to throw 10 straight passes. Indiana’s success rate on those fourth-quarter passing plays was 40% — a plus grade, especially against Ohio State. Indiana’s next-best passing success rate was 20% in the second quarter, thanks to Jackson’s pass to Cam Camper. If Jackson has the capability of throwing 18-for-21 for 236 yards against Indiana State, one could assume he would’ve thrown for a better success rate than the 20% and 0% in his second and third quarters against Ohio State. Jackson also attempted 4 passes deeper than 20 yards downfield against Indiana State, while against Ohio State, Sorsby – the primary passer – attempted 0, and just 6 deeper than 10 yards downfield. Lastly, Jackson and Sorsby combined to be used on 25% of Indiana rushing plays against Ohio State but 20% against Indiana State, most of those scrambles.

Another dichotomy in Indiana’s offensive approach to Ohio State was its use of Jaylin Lucas. He was targeted just once in the passing game, as a check-down behind the line of scrimmage. Against Indiana State, while he wasn’t targeted downfield (1.0 average depth of target), most of his 4 targets were designed to give him space, and he posted an elite receiving grade (91). Josh Henderson, who posted a 77 receiving grade, was also targeted 4 times against Indiana State after being targeted once against Ohio State. They combined for 94 receiving yards Friday. One could consider this a change in game plan due to the opponent if there had been more targets to go around against OSU and if targeting Henderson and Lucas in the passing game hadn’t been successful in the past. But Indiana ran the ball 28 times before passing the ball for the 7th time, leaving the RBs suffocated in the backfield.

Another note on Lucas fans have repeatedly addressed was Indiana’s use of Lucas between the tackles. On his 11 carries against OSU, he ran the ball between the tackles 6 times for 16 yards, and against Indiana State, he ran between the tackles 4 times (10 total carries) for 59 yards. This is certainly dependent on the strength of the opponent, as the OL has its limits in run-blocking, but, connected to the last point, IU didn’t adjust to give Lucas (or Henderson) space.

Lastly, most around the program understood that the WRs were a major strength of this offense, and, as we’ve learned so far, this OL has room to grow in run-blocking but is much-improved in pass-blocking. By limiting dropbacks by the QBs, the offense limited the impact of the WRs. Omar Cooper played just 4 snaps, and Camper led the team with 5 targets. Instead — I sound like a broken record, I know — Indiana ran into the teeth of the Ohio State defense and against its OL’s weakness.

Ultimately, analyzing the Ohio State game doesn’t teach us much about how the offense might look moving forward, because we have two ends of a season-long spectrum at the moment. However, it does provide some evidence of inexplicable differences in approaches to these first two games.