Running the Read-Option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Land Grant

Let's say it this way: I do believe that Mess and staff have a plan. It is an oversimple and uncreative one. Opposing defenses will feed on it. So far, Mess reminds me of Brickey from years ago. Herman was not much better.

Also, I never claimed to be a coach. Just a fan who has watched a lot of football.

---

Did Mess call a great game? No. But did he give us a chance to win? Yes.
If Jantz doesn't fumble the ball in the 4th quarter and ISU scores a TD, or even a FG on that drive, then the game would still have been a one possession game with lots of time left on the clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhclone

I mentioned this in another thread. In the first 3 games this season, we've been very balanced on O, with the number of run attempts and pass attempts within 5 plays of each other. For TT, we had 38 rush attempts (a significant number form the read option) versus 20 pass attempts. I'm assuming that Mess saw what we did to Tech last year, and ground himself into that gameplan. Hopefully he can learn from that and get back to a balanced attack this week against TCU.

---

Mess got schooled last week because memorized last years exam and the prof came up with a new one 2012. You can put B down for question #5 but it really does you no good when the question changed.

Stop trying scrape by on what your friend did last yr Mess and do your own homework!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

With all of the debate about Jantz and Barnett, something that gets overlooked are the actual stats on running the read-option.

Jantz has 53 rushing attempts already...he is averaging 1.5 ypc. He averaged 2.6 on 84 carries last year. As others have mentioned, it's like we are hell bent on fitting that square peg into a round hole. In comparison, Shontrelle Johnson has 42 caries and James White has 37.

Barnett on the other hand...had 104 attempts for 437 yards for 4.2 ypc last year. All against Big 12 teams.

It seems if the staff really wants to run the read-option as much as handing it off to the backs, then Barnett should be the guy...especially if Rhoads told Mess to run the ball more this year. If Jantz is the guy, why don't we modify our offense a little and play to his strengths??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CycloneVet

OP said Jantz has 53 attempts and is running more than the rbs, 42=37=79, How is 53 more than 79 when we mostly have 1 running back out there? Im just curious?

---

Where did he say that? Not in his OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhclone

This is very true, but aimlessly spouting "Jantz sux" over and over all week is almost as annoying as watching our offense was last Saturday.

---

Never stated he sucks. he is a good kid that tries hard.

He is just not ever going to be the QB we need and change is inevitable.


That being said...If he comes out Saturday and plays gangbusters and we win? I declare the right to appoint him our saviour again. :)

I don't think anyone has just said Jantz sucks and left it at that. I think he does have a lot of talent but he just can't seem to put it all together on the field. Maybe he is making all right calls in practice?
I hope and think the staff will come out with a different plan this week. I hope they take out the zone read and have set plays that use our strengths like our rbs. Use jantz on some set pass plays and let his arm strength make some plays. I think once you take the decision making part out of jantz in the zone read he can focus on getting the ball to the rbs on a run play and focus on getting the pass made. And pleases send some guys over the middle, a quick slant maybe to take some pressure off the sides?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclone1985

Did Mess call a great game? No. But did he give us a chance to win? Yes.
If Jantz doesn't fumble the ball in the 4th quarter and ISU scores a TD, or even a FG on that drive, then the game would still have been a one possession game with lots of time left on the clock.

---

Well said. We were in the game until the middle of the 4th when Jantz made a few bad choices and squeezed the ball out (on a play that had potential to be a Jantz best).

Has anyone even mentioned the 15 plan scoring drive in the 3rd quarter? It included a fantastic run and extra effort by Jantz. And a nice corner pass to Brun for the TD.

Or how about the 3rd and 3 where we let Javon Bell cut across the field for 47 yards? That put Tech in the driver's seat for the first time all day. If we are going to go ga-ga about the defense and trash the offense, we have to address the fact that we let them take control of the game on this play.

The game fell apart on the 4th quarter drive that included 6 runs and a fumble by Jantz. And I wonder how much he got spooked by the threat of blitzes. On the third play of that drive, Tech just sent a couple of guys right at Jantz even though the ball hadn't been snapped.

Take away that drive and the sacks and Jantz ran 10 times in the game for moderate yardage and one fantastic play on 3rd and 20. Not great, but not horrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CycloneVet

OP said Jantz has 53 attempts and is running more than the rbs, 42=37=79, How is 53 more than 79 when we mostly have 1 running back out there? Im just curious?

---

The point is more that Jantz has 53 rushing attempts while we have 2 excellent RB's that are far better athletes, have far better field vision, have far better cutting skills, have far better ability to make guys miss, have far better speed, HAVE FAR BETTER BALL SECURITY, and yet neither one of them has as many carries individually as what Jantz has. That is a problem.

Imagine if Fred Hoiberg employed the strategy this upcoming season of allowing Percy Gibson to shoot more 3-pointers then Tyrus McGee? Would that make any sense at all? Would it be fair to question that strategy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

The point is more that Jantz has 53 rushing attempts while we have 2 excellent RB's that are far better athletes, have far better field vision, have far better cutting skills, have far better ability to make guys miss, have far better speed, HAVE FAR BETTER BALL SECURITY, and yet neither one of them has as many carries individually as what Jantz has. That is a problem.

Imagine if Fred Hoiberg employed the strategy this upcoming season of allowing Percy Gibson to shoot more 3-pointers then Tyrus McGee? Would that make any sense at all? Would it be fair to question that strategy?

---

Stop using common sense...it will just confuse everyone ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclone1985

I had the option to audible in high school! I sure hope a D1 QB can handle making an audible.

---

Our qbs can't audible. The only thing they can do is adjust the o-line the rest comes from the sidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

The point is more that Jantz has 53 rushing attempts while we have 2 excellent RB's that are far better athletes, have far better field vision, have far better cutting skills, have far better ability to make guys miss, have far better speed, HAVE FAR BETTER BALL SECURITY, and yet neither one of them has as many carries individually as what Jantz has. That is a problem.

Imagine if Fred Hoiberg employed the strategy this upcoming season of allowing Percy Gibson to shoot more 3-pointers then Tyrus McGee? Would that make any sense at all? Would it be fair to question that strategy?

---

The RB's are switched out often to keep them fresh, while Jantz plays almost the whole game. It's fair to say that on called zone reads, Jantz gets 100% of the plays while SJ and JW each get 50%. Plus sacks get counted against runs in the official stats. It makes sense that Jantz would have more carries than either of the backs, but not both combined, as was earlier pointed out. The efficiency (ypc) is still a problem, but again sacks count against the yardage stat for Jantz so it's not so easy as quoting a number from the "official" stat sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by besserheimerphat

The RB's are switched out often to keep them fresh, while Jantz plays almost the whole game. It's fair to say that on called zone reads, Jantz gets 100% of the plays while SJ and JW each get 50%. Plus sacks get counted against runs in the official stats. It makes sense that Jantz would have more carries than either of the backs, but not both combined, as was earlier pointed out. The efficiency (ypc) is still a problem, but again sacks count against the yardage stat for Jantz so it's not so easy as quoting a number from the "official" stat sheet.

---

It wasn't even that imbalanced or problematic until the drive in the 4th Quarter where Jantz kept it too often and fumbled on the last scramble. Many of us are letting that drive color how we looked at performance during the whole game.

** Sorry, replied to the wrong post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cycsk

It wasn't even that imbalanced or problematic until the drive in the 4th Quarter where Jantz kept it too often and fumbled on the last scramble. Many of us are letting that drive color how we looked at performance during the whole game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by besserheimerphat

The RB's are switched out often to keep them fresh, while Jantz plays almost the whole game. It's fair to say that on called zone reads, Jantz gets 100% of the plays while SJ and JW each get 50%. Plus sacks get counted against runs in the official stats. It makes sense that Jantz would have more carries than either of the backs, but not both combined, as was earlier pointed out. The efficiency (ypc) is still a problem, but again sacks count against the yardage stat for Jantz so it's not so easy as quoting a number from the "official" stat sheet.

---

Excellent point. So not only are the RB's more efficient when they carry the ball, more explosive athletes, and protect the football far better then Jantz, but they are fresher when in the game. It shocks me that the coaches haven't told Jantz.... "Unless you have an opening where you can take it to the house give the ball to the damn RB's."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

Excellent point. So not only are the RB's more efficient when they carry the ball, more explosive athletes, and protect the football far better then Jantz, but they are fresher when in the game. It shocks me that the coaches haven't told Jantz.... "Unless you have an opening where you can take it to the house give the ball to the damn RB's."

---

But you can't do that on the option. You can't just predetermine where the ball is going. For crying out loud the play has been around 10 years, why does no one understand that. The play shouldn't be called with Jantz in because he can't make the read. DEs slow play him and have been coached that if you hover on the end and don't commit either way, he will take longer to make a decision and the play is screwed anyway. I will guarantee they have coached that. He is indecisive in both the running game and the passing game and it has killed us for the most part.

Beyond the statistical evidence, CPR said in an earlier interview when discussing the QB competition and comparing the QB this week that SJ has trouble making the correct reads on the read option plays. I think the head-scratcher for many is, if this is the case, why does ISU run read option plays for a QB that has trouble making reads? Or, why does ISU not play the QB that is best at making reads if read-option plays have to be run?