Assuming your comments are the usual snarky sarcasm, here's my take.
I did not see the UCLA game nor did I get to see a replay so I don't have anything to offer there --- all I have to go on is what I read here and that definitely does not qualify as the truth!!!
Your comment about the Iowa game is more truth than sarcasm. I predicted that loss (in the HM contest) based on the lack of starters playing and depth on the offensive line, so yes I do attribute our dismal output in that game largely on that issue. The fact that our rushing production in that game was not reflective of the average we had been achieving give that assumption some credibility if you view it through objective rather than a subjective lens.
In the Minnesota game, my take is that it would be a reach to attribute that loss to the rushing production in that game. 270+ yards with a 5 yard average and Ameer with 165 on 19 carries is not a bad day in my book. When we allow 34 points by the opponent that won't be enough but that has to be blamed more on the lack of stopping Minnesota than on the lack of a rushing game. I also believe that the bottom line comes down to Bo being out-coached in that the Minnesota's offense did some things that our defense was not prepared for and that comes down to coaching. ( I know the criticism of Bo fits your agenda, but that is honestly the way I see it.)
I also know that anything that I say will be attributed to excuse making and lack of reality or whatever other snarky witticisms you and yours come up with. That is MY TAKE. Yours is that Bo is a stinking rotten head football coach and has ruined the program from top to bottom. I get it!!
You and yours have said it ten thousand times in ten thousand ways --- I get it. You (and your fellow critics) aren't interested in anything I have to offer so why do you even respond to posts like mine?