Barnett

**swarthmoreCY** · 09-30-2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by GoClones123

Take the tiger beat poster of Jantz tacked up on your ceiling over your bed down. Now go over to google search and type in mathmatics....click on Subtraction. Copy that formula down. Then go over to any Cyclone site that has data on current players and look up Jantz and Barnett. Take Jantz's turnovers and MINUS Barnetts total turnovers. This will be the answer.

Originally Posted by ISUAgronomist

Here you go:

Lucky duck that 8 of his 11 fumbles were picked up last year or rolled out of bounds. Luck doesn't last forever. Niether QB is holding onto the ball.

enCYCLONEpedia: The "Jantz Dance" | News | Football | Cyclone Fanatic

**Hayes30** · 09-30-2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by UNIGuy4Cy

I threw a pass before the game that went 50 yards, that's only 20 less than what Jantz passed for the whole game. He may pass better than Barnett but he is not the leader or zone read quarterback that Barnett is. Plus Jantz is not a passer and I could almost guarentee he throws for more than Jantz in that game, I mean I probably could have.

You must be a fast runner to outrun all the defensive players coming right at you cuz your line play was terrible.

**Althetuna** · 09-30-2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by GoClones123

Take the tiger beat poster of Jantz tacked up on your ceiling over your bed down. Now go over to google search and type in mathmatics....click on Subtraction. Copy that formula down. Then go over to any Cyclone site that has data on current players and look up Jantz and Barnett. Take Jantz's turnovers and MINUS Barnetts total turnovers. This will be the answer.

That made me chuckle.

**swarthmoreCY** · 09-30-2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hayes30

You must be a fast runner to outrun all the defensive players coming right at you cuz your line play was terrible.

Line play is a function of QB play and scheme. Our offense has made the line look worse than it is for the past 3+ years.

**CyDude16** · 09-30-2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Line play is a function of QB play and scheme. Our offense has made the line look worse than it is for the past 3+ years.

So when a lineman comes straight through untouched, it's the qb's fault?

Makes sense......

Barnett won't be seeing the field hardly unless we keep playing like this after 3 or 4 more games possibly. And even then, I'd bet we'd see Richardson before Barnett since Richardson has been taking reps with the 2's as well.

**im4cyclones** · 09-30-2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Line play is a function of QB play and scheme. Our offense has made the line look worse than it is for the past 3+ years.

Seems like you have faulted the scheme a lot. From your view, curious what you think the exact issue is? Or what scheme you would like to see instead?

I seem to recall that Rhoads spent a little time as a defensive coach. Now, and I am assuming here, that kind of experience might give him some insight as to what kinds of offenses are difficult to prepare for. So I might trust his judgement when it comes to the O that his team runs.

No scheme is effective if you don't have good play-calls and poorly execute the ones that are called.

**swarthmoreCY** · 09-30-2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by CyDude16

So when a lineman comes straight through untouched, it's the qb's fault?

Makes sense......

When they are coming straight through untouched because the defense can stack the box and bring pressure without regard, absolutely. That is a clear indication of futility of your scheme and units other than OL.

We need a QB that can make the defense pay for such risks. A tough spot for any QB. It takes good pocket movement, quick reads, accuracy, and touch. This does not happen by turning your back and bailing anytime a defender gets up field. QB play and scheme the past three years have marginalized better lines than this- no surprise it would continue.

**cymaniac17** · 09-30-2012, 11:54 AM

Its bueker time

**swarthmoreCY** · 09-30-2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by im4cyclones

No scheme is effective if you don't have good play-calls and poorly execute the ones that are called.

Fix: A scheme is not good if it you don't have good play-calls and poorly execute the ones that are called.

Good execution rate and play-calling is largely the metric for how good your scheme is! No play is designed to fail, but some designs are failures.

**thatguy** · 09-30-2012, 12:03 PM

the same guys that are defending the coaches for our recruiting (stars dont matter! trust Rhoads!) are the same ones that are complaining about the coaches not putting in Barnett. Just an observation.

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 09-30-2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by thatguy

the same guys that are defending the coaches for our recruiting (stars dont matter! trust Rhoads!) are the same ones that are complaining about the coaches not putting in Barnett. Just an observation.

Not understanding your arguement. The defense is loaded with 2 and 3 start talent and its one of the best in the Big 12.

**ISUonthemove** · 09-30-2012, 12:20 PM

I've seen the offense move up and down the field better with Barnett at qb, than Jantz. With fewer 3 and outs. Period.

Not saying Barnett is the answer, but it's either him or Richardson. Not Jantz.

**cymaniac17** · 09-30-2012, 12:20 PM

But for real if we make a QB change its need to Richardson not barnett. Teams know what we will do if barnett plays and they obviously know what steele does. There is no tape on richardson, teams wouldnt know how to prepare for him, at least the first couple of games. And im sick and F'n tired of ppl acting like barnett is so dam good and doesnt turn the ball over... He fumbled 11 f'n times last year in half a season... 11 times!!!!! Thats god awful. Thats a career worth of fumbles in half a season! He doesnt hold onto the ball. Steele is not the answer but neither is barnett...

**im4cyclones** · 09-30-2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Fix: A scheme is not good if it you don't have good play-calls and poorly execute the ones that are called.

Good execution rate and play-calling is largely the metric for how good your scheme is! No play is designed to fail, but some designs are failures.

If that is what you mean by scheme, then i guess we agree. I would define scheme in the larger sense of formation and philosophy.

If Herman ran the same scheme at Rice and had good offensive production, one would assume he either had good play calls or good enough execution to cover for bad ones. So the scheme was successful then, by your definition. Correct?

**fwiw** · 09-30-2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by 4Cyclones

PS. I thought the 3 headed running monster in the back field was great, but we went away from it too early, and Mess need to call some quick hitters and WR screens to alleviate all the pressure.

I hope Mess is not in over his head.

Completely agree with this ... TT didn't know what to do with the 3 back set, and it worked. Of course, we decided not to use it after that.

When this season started, Mess and CPR said they wanted to be a running team first --- if that's true then I don't understand why Jantz is out there. He's good (or can be good) at the broken play and getting out of trouble, but he's not good at the zone read and turns it over way too much. It's true you can't pin all of last night's TO's on him, but over his career I think he's responsible for most of them.

And even when he had time to throw last night, he displayed no touch or accuracy. Oye.