MESS named OC

[cyhiphopp]

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.

Hell, not holding on a kickoff return and holding on to a dang TD pass would have won it for us.

When the offense executed, we scored enough points to win. See OSU, TTU this year. There weren't any new plays that I saw, just executed better.

[Sammy11]

Continuity is huge. You don't want players having to annually learn new schemes. With up and down QB play and the 2nd ranked SOS according to Sagarin you were able to rank 61st in offense and 39th in rushing. Pair that with improved QB play and you could have something there as better recruits hit the program.

[besserheimerphat]

A pistol would be great, it is easier to create mismatches and advantageous angles out of

In what ways? Please, anyone, discuss how the pistol or any other offense inherently makes it easier to get mismatches than last year's offense. You have beat to death the fact that you think deception and mismatches are the key to winning offense, yet you haven't provided any evidence of how your proposed offense would yeild those advantages.

Also, please explain to me how the "pistol" and "spread" are distinct offenses.

[swarthmoreCY]

Execution beats scheme every freaking time. Does Houston run a lot of misdirection and scheme? No, but they beat PSU badly didn't they. Did they have more talent? No. Did WVU run a lot mismatch stuff last night? No, and they have a little less talent. You seem to just think we can bring in a system and that's all we need. It's not. Execution is always your limiting factor. Always.

Good story. Did you see the sophisticated routes Houston was running? WVU was executing because their scheme did a great job of exposing Clemson.

Your ability to execute is largely a function of how sound your scheme is. Every team has miscues. Those are compounded when your scheme does not put you in advantageous positions. Our lack of execution is largely due to Herman's offense magnifying our talent deficiencies. Sure, if you have NFL guys at every position, just run whatever, and it is on their execution.

I realize I will need to trivialize my point for you. Which will have better execution:
-An offense going against a defense that was in the huddle and knows the play
-An offense going against a defense that is confused and must defend the entire field.

[Tre4ISU]

In what ways? Please, anyone, discuss how the pistol or any other offense inherently makes it easier to get mismatches than last year's offense. You have beat to death the fact that you think deception and mismatches are the key to winning offense, yet you haven't provided any evidence of how your proposed offense would yeild those advantages.

Also, please explain to me how the "pistol" and "spread" are distinct offenses.

The one thing a pistol can do is get the RB headed downhill faster and you have a more natural spacing for the option but the read option becomes unnatural if we were to stick with that. UCLA tried the pistol thing and it didn't work. Why? Because they didn't execute things correctly.

[Sammy11]

In what ways? Please, anyone, discuss how the pistol or any other offense inherently makes it easier to get mismatches than last year's offense. You have beat to death the fact that you think deception and mismatches are the key to winning offense, yet you haven't provided any evidence of how your proposed offense would yeild those advantages.

Also, please explain to me how the "pistol" and "spread" are distinct offenses.

Pistol and spread are formation adjustments. Your offense is what you do from those formations.

I would say 2011 ISU was a zone option team that typically used spread formations and made frequent use of the RB in the pass game.

Using the pistol formation can help angles in the run game sometimes but using it would not change ISU's current way of operating one iota.

[Tre4ISU]

Good story. Did you see the sophisticated routes Houston was running? WVU was executing because their scheme did a great job of exposing Clemson.

Your ability to execute is largely a function of how sound your scheme is. Every team has miscues. Those are compounded when your scheme does not put you in advantageous positions. Our lack of execution is largely due to Herman's offense magnifying our talent deficiencies. Sure, if you have NFL guys at every position, just run whatever, and it is on their execution.

I realize I will need to trivialize my point for you. Which will have better execution:
-An offense going against a defense that was in the huddle and knows the play
-An offense going against a defense that is confused and must defend the entire field.

Sophisticated routes like a bunch of four verts? Those ones? You mean West Virginia doing the same things they have done all year?

Nice personal attack when you don't really have a point.

[Cycsk]

Hell, not holding on a kickoff return and holding on to a dang TD pass would have won it for us.

When the offense executed, we scored enough points to win. See OSU, TTU this year. There weren't any new plays that I saw, just executed better.

Exactly. And I would add the two lobs to Reynolds in the endzone that he has caught through the season.

This is not to say that regular execution is inconsequential because I think it sets up opportunities to make big plays, but the game often goes one way on another on the big plays. We may lots of great stops on defense including several by Reeves (and others) on Coleman, but the one was a dagger. Of course, it was set up by a three-and-punt that was related to regular execution. If we had kept the ball in our hands and marched downfield to tie the game, they wouldn't have had it to throw to him at that time.

[jbhtexas]

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.

The version of the spread that ISU has been running for the past three years doesn't keep defenses from cheating up or putting more players in the box. In fact, if anything, it encourages defenses to cheat up (which is pretty much what Rutgers did).

ISU's "spread" doesn't spread the field vertically. Pretty much all the routes are run within 15 yds of the line of scrimmage. ISU rarely runs deep routes. Defenses know this, and they congest the area where the routes are run, which makes it difficult to complete passes and establish the run.

Until ISU spreads the field vertically, the spread offense will struggle. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The defense will not respect the deep routes if the QB/WR combination doesn't provide a credible threat of completing the pass, but the QB/WR combo won't get the experience to make the completion until they run are given the opportunity to throw/catch the deep passes.

Somehow, ISU has to develop a credible (doesn't have to be outsanding) deep threat, or the spread will always struggle.

[swarthmoreCY]

When the offense executed, we scored enough points to win. See OSU, TTU this year. There weren't any new plays that I saw, just executed better.

Your rate of execution largely determines how good of scheme you have for the players you have.

In what ways? Please, anyone, discuss how the pistol or any other offense inherently makes it easier to get mismatches than last year's offense. You have beat to death the fact that you think deception and mismatches are the key to winning offense, yet you haven't provided any evidence of how your proposed offense would yeild those advantages.

Also, please explain to me how the "pistol" and "spread" are distinct offenses.

The taxonomy of "spread" vs "non-spread" is not defined, so if you want to deem it a spread I have no objections. Largely the same principles. I have said that some implementation/versions of the spread due create mismatches and deception- the Pistol being one of them.
Holgerson uses it as the formation that doesn’t give away which direction the runner is going, but otherwise it’s not that different from traditional sets. Nevada, by contrast, uses it to run a lot of read or option schemes, meshing them with downhill run schemes. Mike Leach, who just hired a Pistol guy as OC, has commented the Pistol will have staying power as it “changes the angles.

[Ficklone02]

The version of the spread that ISU has been running for the past three years doesn't keep defenses from cheating up or putting more players in the box. In fact, if anything, it encourages defenses to cheat up (which is pretty much what Rutgers did).

ISU's "spread" doesn't spread the field vertically. Pretty much all the routes are run within 15 yds of the line of scrimmage. ISU rarely runs deep routes. Defenses know this, and they congest the area where the routes are run, which makes it difficult to complete passes and establish the run.

Until ISU spreads the field vertically, the spread offense will struggle. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The defense will not respect the deep routes if the QB/WR combination doesn't provide a credible threat of completing the pass, but the QB/WR combo won't get the experience to make the completion until they run are given the opportunity to throw/catch the deep passes.

Somehow, ISU has to develop a credible (doesn't have to be outsanding) deep threat, or the spread will always struggle.

I definitely agree with this. We don't even necessarily need to throw the ball deep alot, but we do need to use the space out there to spread out the defenses.

[JUKEBOX]

Here's a comparison between WVU's and Clemson's recruiting classes.
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2012 West Virginia Commitments
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2012 Clemson Commitments

Here's ISU:
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2012 Iowa St. Commitments

[swarthmoreCY]

The version of the spread that ISU has been running for the past three years doesn't keep defenses from cheating up or putting more players in the box. In fact, if anything, it encourages defenses to cheat up (which is pretty much what Rutgers did).

ISU's "spread" doesn't spread the field vertically. Pretty much all the routes are run within 15 yds of the line of scrimmage. ISU rarely runs deep routes. Defenses know this, and they congest the area where the routes are run, which makes it difficult to complete passes and establish the run.

Until ISU spreads the field vertically, the spread offense will struggle. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The defense will not respect the deep routes if the QB/WR combination doesn't provide a credible threat of completing the pass, but the QB/WR combo won't get the experience to make the completion until they run are given the opportunity to throw/catch the deep passes.

Somehow, ISU has to develop a credible (doesn't have to be outsanding) deep threat, or the spread will always struggle.

QFT. I think I stole this from you, but Herman's offense needlessly compresses the field. It may seem counterintuitive to implement more vertical routes when you have inaccurate QB's and lack speed at WR, but as long as the defense sent defenders with them, it would help the offense.

[Tre4ISU]

I just want an example of an undertalented BCS team, not running out of a shotgun spread who is achieving above normal offensive success.

[JUKEBOX]

I just want an example of an undertalented BCS team, not running out of a shotgun spread who is achieving above normal offensive success.

Stanford is talented now for sure, but at the beginning they were achieving some success without a majorly talented team. (Besides Luck of course which might ruin my whole argument).

Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2008 Stanford Commitments