2.) WTF? Herman's offense magnified talent deficiencies because of his schemes, not because better players were on the bench. Regardless of how illogical your statement was, it does not matter why Herman was forced to play inferior talent, it matters that his offense magnified that. I'm not sure how much you know about football and recruiting, but especially for a school like ISU you will always need to hide inferior talent. We aren't going to land many guys that will be better than their senior and junior counterparts at other Big 12 schools.
3.)Are you still working on that list of attributes that Herman's offense requires from players that prevents them from not excelling in an offense focused on deception and creating mismatches?
My mind is really blown by you not comprehending that ISU didn't have players for a spread offense. Its not just because he was the coach, they wouldn't fit anyones spread offense.
Our linemen were too big and not quick enough. Our WR's weren't that quick. We were a team built for power, CPR wanted an offense of speed instead.
Big slow players aren't going to produce when used in an offense based around speed and agility.
But yes I'll just go ahead and agree with you since your skull is so thick. Herman ran that offense because it didn't play to our current players strengths, not because CPR wanted us to join the new millenium. We were a great team with high expectations, and Herman set us back by changing our top notch offense.
How dare CPR and Herman make a major overhaul that would set us back temporarily and make us better in the long run.
Again, why will these spread players we recruited, who are still likely to be not as fast, quick, and as athletic as needed, not be better served in an offense that will not rely on or magnify the need to out quick/run/athlete the opponent?
It does not matter if Herman's offense was in-vogue (it was not), an offense that magnifies a lack of quickness, speed, and athleticism, is not for ISU. Better in the long-term? What support do you have for that claim? It will have to pay-off big time to be worth the futility of the first 1-? (3?,4?, 5?, 6?) years.
Interesting. Occasionally, I would see him barking, but I never really thought much about what was going on. I would think that the conflict-oriented stuff would take place in private coaches meetings, but maybe it was taking place during the game. There are enough people around on the sidelines, surely somebody could comment on what was going on during those sessions.
I will be interested to see what Messingham has to add to the offense. I'm guessing he didn't go 100% shotgun in his last stint as an OC so maybe we will see a few under center packages.
As for the spread, personally I think it does a lot for us now. Specifically in the running game. It keeps the defense from keeping everyone in the box and if we could keep them honest with more efficient passing, we could have a lot more success.
If we lined up in the poer run game, the defense would be able to bring 8 or 9 into the box. To control the line of scrimmage in that situation requires you to be bigger and stronger than your opponent. That will always be tough at ISU. If we can spread the field and go where they aren't we can move the ball. We moved the ball at times this season and any improvement at the QB position should help.
And sometimes, execution on just a few big plays beats everything. A few big plays, unless very early, wouldn't have made a different last night, but a few big offensive plays (or stopping their big offensive play) at the Pinstripe Bowl would have meant a victory for us. This is not to say that we didn't have good execution, because we did, especially on defense, but you could reasonably say that despite other issues of execution, the game's outcome was determined on a few big plays that Rutgers won.