Old National Presents: Five Factors vs. Iowa
In a bit of a nod to the basketball analytics community, GoldandBlack.com continues a different sort of post-game feature this season: Five Factors. This week, we look at Purdue’s 20-14 loss at Iowa.
As basketball analytics folks have done for many years with their Four Factors model, we’ve identified five areas of the game we consider particularly important to Purdue this season, but perhaps not as closely paid attention to.
Each week, no matter the outcome of the game prior, we’ll break down those same five areas: Explosive plays, third- and fourth-and-short success, first-down productivity, defensive disruption and red zone offense.
Here it goes.
Today, Iowa 20, Purdue 14.
EXPLOSIVE PLAYS (20+ yards)
Purdue struggled to create big plays against the stout Iowa defense on Saturday. For the third time in four weeks, Purdue didn’t record a single run play of 20+ yards, as the Hawkeyes kept the Boilermakers’ ground game in check. Late in the first half, Hudson Card found TJ Sheffield for a 43-yard catch-and-run touchdown to get Purdue on the scoreboard. This served as the longest play of the day and stood as Purdue’s only play of 20+ yards until its final scoring drive. On the drive to cut the score to 20-14, Card began with a short pass to Devin Mockobee who took it for 24 yards. Later on that drive, he connected again with Sheffield for a 25-yard gain.
| Game | Explosive Plays | Run Game | Pass Game |
| Fresno State | 3 | 1 (20) | 2 (44, 84) |
| Virginia Tech | 6 | 3 (20, 21, 22) | 3 (26, 27, 36) |
| Syracuse | 4 | 0 | 4 (20, 21, 23, 25) |
| Wisconsin | 2 | 2 (24, 25) | 0 |
| Illinois | 3 | 0 | 3 (28, 30, 44) |
| Iowa | 3 | 0 | 3 (24, 25, 43) |
THIRD- AND FOURTH-AND-SHORT SUCCESS (three or fewer yards)
Purdue was able to convert on third and short on Saturday, moving the chains on six of eight tries. The Boilermakers used a mix of run and pass plays to convert, seeing success using both. Devin Mockobee converted four third and short situations himself, highlighting a strong game for him. The problem for Purdue? It wasn’t in enough third and short spots. Purdue faced 19 third-down situations on Saturday with an average distance to gain of nearly eight yards.
Top 10
- 1New
Mel Tucker
Officials unable to locate amid lawsuit
- 2Hot
Nitro Tuggle arrest
Police release new details
- 3
Maliq Brown injury
Duke forward's status updated
- 4
Gary Danielson
CBS icon to retire
- 5Trending
Brandon Braxton
Ex-Duke player admits murder
Get the On3 Top 10 to your inbox every morning
By clicking "Subscribe to Newsletter", I agree to On3's Privacy Notice, Terms, and use of my personal information described therein.
| Game | Third-and-Short | Fourth-and-Short | Passing/Rushing |
| Fresno State | 2-5 | 2-4 | PASS: 2-4 RUN: 2-4 |
| Virginia Tech | 2-3 | 0-1 | PASS: 2-2 RUN: 0-2 |
| Syracuse | 1-4 | 1-4 | PASS: 1-3 RUN: 1-5 |
| Wisconsin | 1-2 | 0-0 | PASS: 0-1 RUN: 1-1 |
| Illinois | 4-5 | 0-0 | PASS: 1-2 RUN: 3-3 |
| Iowa | 6-8 | 0-0 | PASS: 2-3 RUN: 4-5 |
FIRST-DOWN PRODUCTIVITY
Purdue continued in line with much of what it’s done thus far in 2023, averaging 5.4 yards per play on first downs on Saturday. The Boilermakers struggled on the ground on first down, running for less than three yards per attempt. Card saw a fair amount of success, however, moving the ball well on first down. Purdue did take three first-down sacks, certainly an area it wanted to avoid as it spent plenty of time behind the chains.
| Game | Avg First Down Gain | Rushing | Passing |
| Fresno State | 5.54 yards | 11 – 46 | 8-14, 96 yds. |
| Virginia Tech | 4.62 yards | 21 – 51 | 5-13, 85 yds. |
| Syracuse | 5.63 yards | 14 – 49 | 13-21, 148 yds. |
| Wisconsin | 5.5 yards | 13 – 80 | 9-18, 96 yds. |
| Illinois | 6.2 yards | 21 – 96 | 8-12, 107 yds. |
| Iowa | 5.4 yards | 13 – 37 | 11-17, 142 yds. |
DEFENSIVE DISRUPTION
Based on the numbers we track, Saturday came in as Purdue’s least disruptive performance of the year on defense. Purdue only created five tackles for loss, one of which was a sack of Deacon Hill. Purdue’s lone pass breakup marked a season-low, though Dillon Thieneman’s interception in the first half provided a big opportunity for Purdue’s offense. However, the lack of disruption does come with the caveat that Iowa’s offense runs a style that doesn’t expose itself to much disruption.
| Game | TFLs (yards) | Sacks (yards) | Forced fumbles | Pass breakups | Interceptions | TOTAL |
| Fresno State | 4 (16 yards) | 2 (12 yards) | 0 | 3 | 1 | 10 |
| Virginia Tech | 9 (54 yards) | 3 (33 yards) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 17 |
| Syracuse | 7 (23 yards) | 4 (18 yards) | 0 | 5 | 1 | 17 |
| Wisconsin | 6 (8 yards) | 1 (1 yard) | 0 | 4 | 1 | 12 |
| Illinois | 7 (32 yards) | 5 (29 yards) | 1 | 3 | 0 | 16 |
| Iowa | 5 (16 yards) | 1 (10 yards) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
RED ZONE OFFENSE
Purdue only reached the red zone twice, scoring once late in the fourth quarter and missing a field goal in the first half. The story of the game, though, came in the chances Purdue missed to reach the red zone. Purdue crossed the 50-yard line several times and came up empty, failing to reach the red zone on a few opportunities in the first half that could have significantly altered the game’s trajectory. Saturday’s pair of trips to the red zone tied the Virginia Tech game as the fewest red zone trips by a Purdue offense thus far in 2023.
| Game | Red Zone Trips | Scores | TD | FG |
| Fresno State | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Virginia Tech | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Syracuse | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Illinois | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Iowa | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
More: Ten observations: Purdue-Iowa | Points After: Analysis from Purdue’s loss at Iowa
