What have we learned about the OL after 3 weeks?

It's still a small sample size, but after three weeks, what have we learned about Indiana's offensive line?

At this point last season (after Western Kentucky and before Cincinnati), it was becoming clear that Indiana would need to make some changes on the OL, as Caleb Murphy at center and Parker Hanna at right tackle were not working. Little was working, honestly. Those changes wouldn’t come until three weeks later, when Darren Hiller was let go and Rod Carey took over. 

Bob Bostad has certainly had his work cut out for him. Two of the linemen from last season’s Week 3 OL – Mike Katic and Kahlil Benson – are starting now, but the line has a new look in a short time. The strange part is that these pieces have been on the roster all along – save for an injured Bedford and undeveloped Carter Smith.

Looking back at the way that 2022 OL was constructed has me scratching my head a bit. Katic, the most productive OL on the team in the last two seasons, is where he was always meant to be, at left guard, but he was moved to center briefly after Murphy was supplanted, even with Zach Carpenter on the roster. Carpenter is now at center. Benson played guard all season in 2022, and now he’s shown promise at right tackle. Smith was certainly not ready last season, but Luke Haggard was one of the most productive linemen the program has seen since the mid-2010s OLs.  

That line finished 118th in pass-blocking and 122nd in run-blocking in 2022, and now Hiller is a defensive analyst at Auburn. 

Before diving into data on this year’s offensive line, it’s important to keep in perspective that Indiana has only played three games this season, so the sample size remains small and still opponent-dependent in a lot of ways. This is data intended to provide substantive updates on the progress of the line and will be something I am personally keeping an eye on as the weeks go by.

Tayven Jackson said Monday that he wants to reward the offensive line for being the only Big Ten line to not allow a sack yet. That’s great for Jackson, and I love that the offensive line enjoys Texas Roadhouse as much as I do. However, not allowing a sack doesn’t equal “good,” unfortunately, but it does equal “progress.” 

Indiana’s offensive line, with nearly the exact same contributors, has come a long way in just one year, as depicted in the graphic below.

As can be seen above, none of the Indiana offensive linemen have reached a Big Ten average Offensive Grade, even though there have been flashes of promising play. Consistency has been an issue for each of them and across the unit entirely. This graphic was helpful for me after analyzing blocking grades each week and seeing promising grades in either run-blocking or pass-blocking but rarely in both. Benson and Bedford are both above average in run-blocking (both on the right side of the line, notably) but have poor pass-blocking grades, while the opposite is true for Katic and Carpenter. Over time, one would hope this would level out in all cases, while still remaining stronger in respective areas of strength. 

Again, keep in mind that this is a small sample size. For example, Benson posted an average pass-blocking grade against Ohio State before being well below average against Indiana State and Louisville, giving him the pass-blocking grade he has now. For Benson again, his run-blocking has been below average except for an astounding 87 grade against Indiana State, giving him the run-blocking grade seen above. 

Pass-Blocking

Tayven Jackson wants to recognize his offensive line for not allowing a sack – again, awesome leadership from Jackson – but Jackson has played the second-most dropbacks under pressure among Big Ten QBs with 20+ dropbacks. In those dropbacks, he’s gone 12-for-19 (77.8% adjusted)) with no turnover-worthy plays. So while Jackson and the offense are getting by, the pass-blocking is still not great. But this is what we’ve come to know as the area of strength for this OL in 2023. 

However, it should be noted that Jackson is the only QB in the conference to have 0% pressure from two of his linemen. Those are Mike Katic at LG and Zach Carpenter at C. 

Katic has always been a productive pass-blocker, with two previous seasons of a pass-blocking grade above 70, and he’s only improved in that department. In 101 pass-blocking snaps, Katic has allowed just one QB pressure. PFF’s pass-blocking efficiency metric – pressures allowed relevant to snaps played – ranks Katic tied for 4th in the Big Ten in pass-blocking, while his pass-blocking grade itself has him at 18th. 

Carpenter also deserves credit. He’s never been known as a good pass-blocker, posting pass-blocking grades well below average every season, but this year, he’s at a 70 through three games and has only allowed 3 QB pressures. PFF’s pass-blocking efficiency metric ranks him 38th in the conference, and his grade is 34th. 

The right side of the line is where pass-blocking gets rough. 

As mentioned above, Benson’s pass-blocking grade has deteriorated over three games, but he held his own against two future NFL DEs, so the potential is there as he adjusts to playing outside. But he’s got to get there soon because he’s allowed 9 QB pressures on 100 pass-blocking snaps – 6 of them came against Louisville! – dropping his pass-blocking grade to 65th out of 71 qualifying Big Ten OLs. 

Bedford’s grade is baffling and perhaps goes a bit deeper than what data can show. Brendan Sorsby faced the second-most pressure from the RG spot in the Big Ten (25% of pressures came from there) when he was playing in weeks 1 and 2. That number has come down to 19% for Jackson, thanks in part to Max Longman’s great pass-blocking performance against Louisville. Of the 41 qualifying Big Ten OLs to play fewer than 100 pass-blocking snaps so far, only 6 have allowed more than 5 QB pressures, and Bedford is one of them. His worst pass-blocking performance of the year was against Louisville, when he allowed 3 QB pressures – second-most on the team in nearly half the snaps. This could be credited to him not being 100% health-wise – and that’s likely a contributing factor – however, pass-blocking was always a weakness for Bedford. He posted dismal pass-blocking grades in 2019 and 2020 (40 and 27, respectively) before earning an average pass-blocking grade in 2021. Only time will tell if this is simply a continuation of what we’ve seen before. What is a bit encouraging for Bedford’s pass-blocking is his performance in true pass sets – passing plays that aren’t screens, play-action, less than 2 seconds to throw, or fewer than 4 pass rushers. He’s allowed just 3 pressures in these situations. What’s concerning, though, is that 2 came against Louisville. I’ll be interested to see where Bedford goes from here. 

Smith is a redshirt freshman at left tackle. This was never going to be perfect. He’s done okay to this point, but his PFF pass-blocking efficiency in true pass sets ranks 59th out of 68 qualifying Big Ten OLs. Just something to keep an eye on. 

Run-Blocking

Overall, the run-blocking has a better average PFF grade than pass-blocking, but it becomes obvious – when watching the games and seeing advanced metrics like Indiana’s 2.9 line yards per rush (92nd nationally) and 3.36 yards per rush (113th nationally) – that something isn’t working within Indiana’s run schemes. 

Benson grades as the 7th-best Big Ten OL in run-blocking, and Bedford grades 26th. Indiana didn’t place a lineman inside the top-60 in 2022, and its best run-blocker was Josh Sales, who now backs up the tackles. Benson was 74th last season! Now, including Carter Smith (49th) Indiana has 3 inside the top-50. That’s certainly something to build on.

Indiana averages 4.67 yards per carry when running to gaps 4 and 6 (Bedford and Benson’s outside shoulders), but they’ve only run the ball in that direction 15 times, opting instead to go to the 2 gap (inside Bedford’s left shoulder) or to the edge. This is fairly common practice; however, 5 attempts to the 4 Gap between their two strongest run-blocking OLs seems low. See the chart below for more information.

Note: The positions would go as follows: LT Carter Smith between Gaps 3 and 5, LG Mike Katic between Gaps 3 and 1, C Zach Carpenter between Gaps 1 and 2, RG Matt Bedford between Gaps 2 and 4, and RT Kahlil Benson between Gaps 4 and 6. There are two gaps on the outside shoulders of the tackles to represent TE positioning and/or the boundary.

Interestingly, Indiana averages 4.9 yards per carry when running between the tackles. When running outside of the tackles (from each tackle’s outside shoulders to the boundary regardless of TE), Indiana averages just 2.9 yards per carry. In addition to this, Indiana has run between the tackles 38 times and outside of the tackles 53 times. Accounting for any outliers that could be skewing this data, the longest run around the outside of the tackles’ shoulders (Gaps 5-7) is 14 yards. Three of the four gaps between the tackles have runs of 20+ yards. At some point, it’s a pattern.

The above data could suggest many things, including:

• Indiana might not have the blocking or speed (of the blockers) to get around the corner on outside rushes.

• The option game typically requires outside rushing, and this could be why Indiana has run to the outside more often. This idea raises other questions about the option game.

• The outside rushing game could be stretching the defense horizontally and opening up room inside, but that seems less likely, given the ineffectiveness of rushing outside the tackles. 

• Rushing plays are too slow-developing and cause clogged lanes on outside rushes.

• Indiana could be trying to get Jaylin Lucas the ball more but don’t want to run him inside (as often as they did against Ohio State).

• Indiana’s game against Indiana State could be such an outlier that it throws off three entire games of data. Indiana’s 3.8 yards per carry between the tackles – half a yard higher than IU’s overall yards per carry and well above the 2.1 yards per carry on outside rushes that game – would suggest otherwise. 

I know very little about the complexities of blocking and rushing schemes, I will admit, but the above data would suggest Indiana could try running between the tackles more often, taking from the outside rushing game rather than passing plays, which are 15% more successful than rushing plays. The Louisville game in particular seems off, as finding success through the air typically opens space to run between the tackles, but the inside-to-outside ratio ended at 6-to-17. 

What we can’t ignore is the information that suggests Indiana struggles to do what is required to run between the tackles. The lines-per-yard figure (2.9) mentioned above and the average run-blocking grade (61.1) are prime examples. In three games, the line has graded significantly better than last year, but it’s also graded lower than two seasons when Indiana couldn’t crack the top-110 in rushing offense in 2021 and 2020. 

Regardless, it seems that the best approach to the running game is throwing first.

---