Barnett

[Tre4ISU]

This talk of scheme not being right for ISU and the Big 12 was stupid last year and it's stupid right now.

[swarthmoreCY]

This talk of scheme not being right for ISU and the Big 12 was stupid last year and it's stupid right now.

Yeah, like last night, such talk has been proven wrong each of the past 3 years.

Fast-forward to 2016: "it is not the scheme, we just need to get the right guys that have the skills that fit this offense."

[Tre4ISU]

Yeah, like last night, such talk has been proven wrong each of the past 3 years.

Fast-forward to 2016: "it is not the scheme, we just need to get the right guys that have the skills that fit this offense."

Well if you aren't going to call plays to make the defense do something different, your scheme means ****. If you don't have people that can execute it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the spread.

[swarthmoreCY]

Well if you aren't going to call plays to make the defense do something different, your scheme means ****. If you don't have people that can execute it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the spread.

The classification "spread" is not defined or comprised by a singular scheme. Is our scheme the same as WVU's? We should hope not, as we do not the talent needed to run that type of offense.

Forgetting the science of taxonomy...We have seen very little in the 3 past years to suggest our scheme has anything available to make the defense do something different. If your players cannot execute your scheme to a level that gets you more than 70 yards at half-time, you have the wrong scheme.

[im4cyclones]

The complaint and logic are simple: We have a bad scheme for ISU in the Big 12, and to make matter worse, we now have an even worse play-calling (due to Mess trying to call Herman's offense). It probably seems circular to you in the sense you are looking to assign blame to one thing and have that propagate through. We have a synergy of failures.



Are you trying to make my point here? Herman's offense may work when you are equally or have superior talented relative to the competition, but it does not mitigate ISU's weaknesses in the Big 12 (or fully utilize our strengths). As I already provided, see how Rice did against Big 12 talent. The design cannot be terrible because Rice had some success with it in the C-USA? The Wing-T works well in Class-1A in Iowa- does not mean it is the best design for UT.


Again, even at face-value, it was worse than some years. Moreover, failure to look better is incriminating when those statistics do not take into account points per possession and utilization of resources. Nevermind the fact that previous futility does not make this offense any less futile.


Our scheme is flawed for several reasons imo. It does not mitigate our weakness in getting superior athletic talent- it arguably exposes it. Worse yet, the lack of depth also results the defense being able to commit to stopping our strength while not exposing themselves.
As far as other teams running the "spread" with success, I am not necessarily against a "spread" formation- the term spread is far too large of umbrella at this point. Avoiding getting into the taxonomy of football offenses, our implementation of the spread offense is very horizontal (philosophy) and not deceptive at all (formation). Furthermore, a lot of the "equalizing advantage" people blindly assign to the term "spread" was when it was more innovative. This has been significantly diminished, both due to evolvement of defensive schemes and more teams going after the spread resources.

Again, what scheme would give us an advantage against superior talent? If there was one, you would think several teams would use it. Look at our past stats. When have we employed a scheme that "works" according to your definition?

Maybe people are complaining about something that is working as well as ANYTHING has ever worked at Iowa State.

I wish you would have submitted an application to Rhoads when he was hiring an OC. You seem to know more than Rhoads, Herman, or Messingham. Your offense would have us exploding!

[cycophagus]

Jantz had a poor game - no question about that. But what is puzzling is that Tech took away both the pass and the run - that just shouldn't happen. I would attribute it more to line play than anything. The O Line was consistently getting blown up. Hard to put that all on Steele - when the O Line gets blown up - play calling and the QB get the blame. I would not have been shocked if JB got a shot in the second half after the first half performance - not because I think he is a better QB rather he executes the Zone Read better. Chalk this one up to a very Solid Performance by Tech's Defense and line play. Good news is our Defense was good enough to give us a chance, in years past this would have been a complete blow out the way the offense played

I think your analysis is spot on here. Everyone ripping the QB's performance is not taking into account that a very good Cyclone O line was getting blown up. Tech's D-line was really awesone. Time will tell, but I don't think this was any mirage. Tubberville brought in a good ol' boy from SEC land to build up this D, and may have found the perfect antidote to the sterotypical Big 12 (all O and no D) philosophy. OU, rested and smarting from the whoopin by K-State, comes to Lubbock this week, so we'll learn soon enough.

[swarthmoreCY]

Again, what scheme would give us an advantage against superior talent? If there was one, you would think several teams would use it. Look at our past stats. When have we employed a scheme that "works" according to your definition?

Maybe people are complaining about something that is working as well as ANYTHING has ever worked at Iowa State.

I wish you would have submitted an application to Rhoads when he was hiring an OC. You seem to know more than Rhoads, Herman, or Messingham. Your offense would have us exploding!

If you are suggesting what we have seen on offense under Herman and now Mess is the best ISU can do, you are wrong. With the Olines we had in 2009-2011, we would have done well in a more conventional offense. I 'll say it again as you are seemingly having a lot of trouble with the concept: in terms of determining the offense's contribution to winning, your stats are fairly meaningless. Your comment of "your (my) offense would have us exploding" exemplifies your simpleton view to this discussion.

What scheme would give us more of an advantage against superior talent? Well, that question needed to be asked in 2008, but...One that would mitigate the (athletic) differential. This is not one that repeatedly causes a cluster-**** with-in 10 yards, allowing the defense to defend a majority of our play-book with the same approach, and forcing us to be reliant on our skill guys beating a crowd of opponents. We need more deception and ability to keep defense's honest. If we want to stay in the "spread" genre, the pistol formation may help over the simple shotgun. Throw away Herman's offense, and let Mess implement what he knows, or get someone else in there that can implement an offense that play's to the roster's strength of running the ball to set-up the passing game. It can be done.

[im4cyclones]

If you are suggesting what we have seen on offense under Herman and now Mess is the best ISU can do, you are wrong. With the Olines we had in 2009-2011, we would have done well in a more conventional offense. I 'll say it again as you are seemingly having a lot of trouble with the concept: in terms of determining the offense's contribution to winning, your stats are fairly meaningless. Your comment of "your (my) offense would have us exploding" exemplifies your simpleton view to this discussion.

What scheme would give us more of an advantage against superior talent? Well, that question needed to be asked in 2008, but...One that would mitigate the (athletic) differential. This is not one that repeatedly causes a cluster-**** with-in 10 yards, allowing the defense to defend a majority of our play-book with the same approach, and forcing us to be reliant on our skill guys beating a crowd of opponents. We need more deception and ability to keep defense's honest. If we want to stay in the "spread" genre, the pistol formation may help over the simple shotgun.

It's not the best that ISU can do but it is in line with what we have done in the past. Show me numbers that suggest otherwise.

How do you now our O could have done better in 2009, 2010, or 2011 in a traditional scheme? It didn't do worse than the conventional schemes that recruited them. If you have numbers to say that Rhoads offenses are inferior to previous ISU then I will stand corrected.

But I haven't seen them.

[CycloneRulzzz]

My thing too is people saying Barnett is a turnover machine, I think the clear definition of that is Steele Jantz, Barnett may turn it over but not at the rate of Steele Jantz, I mean I don't know anyone in college football that is better than Jantz in that category.

Michigan QB Denard Robinson. did you see his game against Notre Dame, 5 To's

[CyCloned]

I think the OL is the real problem, but I would have had no problem throwing in Barnett if the game was more out of control. If Brun would have caught the pass that was picked and run back to the 9 ISU would have been at midfield down by one. Dispited how bad the offense played, there was a decent chance ISU could have pulled that game out in the 4th.

On one hand JB had some great games last year, on the other hand he was really bad against WLU. I say let the coaches figure it out.

[swarthmoreCY]

It's not the best that ISU can do but it is in line with what we have done in the past. Show me numbers that suggest otherwise.

How do you now our O could have done better in 2009, 2010, or 2011 in a traditional scheme? It didn't do worse than the conventional schemes that recruited them. If you have numbers to say that Rhoads offenses are inferior to previous ISU then I will stand corrected.

But I haven't seen them.

The Herman offense has put up some of the lowest pass inefficiency numbers in the past 12 years (farthest back NCAA stats are online). Even if going off the sometimes deceiving points and yards per game stats, they are not in the top-5 for the past 12 years...

[Tre4ISU]

The Herman offense has put up some of the lowest pass inefficiency numbers in the past 12 years (farthest back NCAA stats are online). Even if going off the sometimes deceiving points and yards per game stats, they are not in the top-5 for the past 12 years...

Herman isn't here anymore. You can let it go.

[norcalcy]

The complaint and logic are simple: We have a bad scheme for ISU in the Big 12, and to make matter worse, we now have an even worse play-calling (due to Mess trying to call Herman's offense). It probably seems circular to you in the sense you are looking to assign blame to one thing and have that propagate through. We have a synergy of failures.



Are you trying to make my point here? Herman's offense may work when you are equally or have superior talented relative to the competition, but it does not mitigate ISU's weaknesses in the Big 12 (or fully utilize our strengths). As I already provided, see how Rice did against Big 12 talent. The design cannot be terrible because Rice had some success with it in the C-USA? The Wing-T works well in Class-1A in Iowa- does not mean it is the best design for UT.


Again, even at face-value, it was worse than some years. Moreover, failure to look better is incriminating when those statistics do not take into account points per possession and utilization of resources. Nevermind the fact that previous futility does not make this offense any less futile.


Our scheme is flawed for several reasons imo. It does not mitigate our weakness in getting superior athletic talent- it arguably exposes it. Worse yet, the lack of depth also results the defense being able to commit to stopping our strength while not exposing themselves.
As far as other teams running the "spread" with success, I am not necessarily against a "spread" formation- the term spread is far too large of umbrella at this point. Avoiding getting into the taxonomy of football offenses, our implementation of the spread offense is very horizontal (philosophy) and not deceptive at all (formation). Furthermore, a lot of the "equalizing advantage" people blindly assign to the term "spread" was when it was more innovative. This has been significantly diminished, both due to evolvement of defensive schemes and more teams going after the spread resources.

If you want to see the living breathing proof you can put 2 and 3 star offensive players in a position (i.e. scheme) to win in the modern Big XII, look no further than Purple Kansas. Somebody tell me what their offense is? I couldn't tell watching them against OK. Lots of formations and looks, even some "spread" once in a while (along with I formation, QB under center etc. etc.) Bottom line, they ran a bunch of stuff that worked. They moved the ball, ate clock, gave the defense a blow and frustrated that up tempo OK system by keeping it off the field. And, they have been in the top half of Big XII offenses from time to time over the past 10 years.

[FDCy83]

If we are so committed to run the zone read play, then Barnett should be in there. Some say he looked bad during the WIU game with the #2 offense. He looked bad last year at UCONN when he had to go when SJ got hurt before half time. How did he look at MU last year when SJ got pulled? Then the next week was TT and after 1 week of practicing with the 1st team offense, he looked much better. He won 3 in a row. Then struggles began. I remember linemen playing injured last year toward the end there could have been a lot I don't know about.

It is sad that Rutgers press covered our receivers and put everyone in the box and we failed, and TT did the same thing. This should be the focus of play calling adjustments the rest of the season or we will not win again. Guys come in unblocked when 7 rush against 5. It is simple math. We have 4 receivers, 1 RB, 1 QB, that leaves 5 blockers. The defense is selling out with man to man coverage pressing the line and everyone else rushing to stop run or pass. We have to be able to hit a slant or sideline route to make the defense change. JB may not throw a better ball than SJ, but leadership and decision making are as important. Remember it was JB who through the wheel route on the money to White in the OSU game last year in overtime. He is a year older and should be more stable under pressure.

I think at TCU, SJ will start, but if the offense struggles I expect JB will get a chance. But he will need more than half a game to get his feet under him, just like last year.

[FDCy83]

I seem to remember running the option some last year as well. Perhaps running wide with the pitch option is a way of getting away from the 7 guys in a box status if our receivers can at least keep the corners/safeties busy. I have not seen an option yet this year. Not saying we can run the option every down, but a few times a game keeps defenses honest.