Bill Bleil

[CyValley]

Not sure what the exact cause is. I'm not saying that the Oline is way out of position on every play, that isn't even close to what is happening. But there are alot of times where they are out of position by about half a second at the point of contact. That too me just falls back to hesitation with their decision making. . . .

So, it's a matter of something(s) small, in your opinion? Are our guys big enough and tough enough? That is, do we start with enough size and the right attitude, it's something else that troubles the O-line, such as technique and decision-making.

Are our O-line kids tough? Gotta have that before anything else, I'd guess. Are we good in this area?

[FarminCy]

There have been ongoing technique issues with the OL ever since Bleil came on board and they became worse this past season. The run blocking was atrocious this season. Farniok and Burris (before he got injured) both noticeably regressed this season compared to last season. The OL was, by far, the most underachieving unit on the team given their physical talent and experience.

If CPR isn't going to change the offense, then Bleil needs to be replaced because it's become obvious over the past 4 years he cannot adequately coach up the available talent. If the offense is changed to more of a North-South rushing attack, then maybe he can be retained.

This is what has been really confusing to me about the play calling. Zone blocking is built for more vertical running plays by splitting the lineman out and letting them progress through their footwork and be patient for a seam to develop. When you run vertical the timing and decision making issues of the OL aren't as dramatic as they are when you run horizontal. It has boggled my mind that ISU seemed to abandon the vertical running game as the season went.

[Tre4ISU]

Tre4ISU, FarminCy, in your estimation, why is it ISU's up-front guys are having the problems they are having? Coaching?
Not enough time in the program? Something else?

With the ton of guys coming back in 2013, and expecting some of the guards to shuffle to tackle as CPR stated last fall, do you expect better things of this group after spring ball and summer camp? Or, is it impossible to predict how much (if any) progress this group can make over the next eight months?

Thanks. I enjoy reading both of your perspectives.

I think you walk a fine line when you are trying to build the style of offensive line we are, with some "projects" for lack of the better term. Speaking generally, you are trying to make TEs OTs, OTs OGs and then a lot of the better spread centers will be undersized. David Molk won the RImington at 280 lbs and probably doesn't have a huge NFL future. The thing is, the skillset is pretty different. This year you have 6'6 guys trying to play guard and at the weight they are at, that's tough IMO. Thats from the physical side of it. I mean, a LT is a LT is a LT in pretty much any system. That guy doesn't change in skillset much but the rest can. CPR wants a mobile line, but you still need to have the strength and power piece. Like I said, fine line.

I also don't think there's a cohesiveness about the group. They should all work in tandem all the time. Tom Farniok, IMO, looked like a guy who could be a 3 time all conference player last year. This year he was not. I don't know why this is. Certainly injuries affect this.

I don't think Bleils that good of a coach. That's just what I see. The evidence is KO, HH, Bykowski, Farniok etc. KO is on the all rookie team. He was pretty good last year but he wasn't nearly what he is now. Bykowski should have an NFL career based on talent but you don't see improvement.

[Tre4ISU]

This is what has been really confusing to me about the play calling. Zone blocking is built for more vertical running plays by splitting the lineman out and letting them progress through their footwork and be patient for a seam to develop. When you run vertical the timing and decision making issues of the OL aren't as dramatic as they are when you run horizontal. It has boggled my mind that ISU seemed to abandon the vertical running game as the season went.

I think they lost faith in the interior line to be honest. The OTs weren't all that bad. They looked bad when the middle pushed there was no pocket to help them.

[Judoka]

In our offense the RB is pretty interchangable.

I disagree - if you are calling the same running play for Woody as you are for Shontrelle you are doing it wrong.

And if you are calling the same passing play for a blocking TE vs. a receiving TE you are also doing it wrong. Or calling for the RB to run behind the TE if it is a TE who catches better than he blocks.

[FarminCy]

I think you walk a fine line when you are trying to build the style of offensive line we are, with some "projects" for lack of the better term. Speaking generally, you are trying to make TEs OTs, OTs OGs and then a lot of the better spread centers will be undersized. David Molk won the RImington at 280 lbs and probably doesn't have a huge NFL future. The thing is, the skillset is pretty different. This year you have 6'6 guys trying to play guard and at the weight they are at, that's tough IMO. Thats from the physical side of it. I mean, a LT is a LT is a LT in pretty much any system. That guy doesn't change in skillset much but the rest can. CPR wants a mobile line, but you still need to have the strength and power piece. Like I said, fine line.

I also don't think there's a cohesiveness about the group. They should all work in tandem all the time. Tom Farniok, IMO, looked like a guy who could be a 3 time all conference player last year. This year he was not. I don't know why this is. Certainly injuries affect this.

I don't think Bleils that good of a coach. That's just what I see. The evidence is KO, HH, Bykowski, Farniok etc. KO is on the all rookie team. He was pretty good last year but he wasn't nearly what he is now. Bykowski should have an NFL career based on talent but you don't see improvement.

That's what I have felt the second half of the season. Zone blocking schemes require that you have enough faith in the guy next to you that you let a slanting DL go or come off that double team at the second level. Just doesn't appear there is a lot of faith in each other right now. At times there was a lot of talking to each other after blown plays and that tells me that both guys thought they were right on their read and blaming each other. That is an issue that falls back on preparation by the coaching staff when in the second half of the season starting OL are bickering about who made the right read.

I don't know if that's what is actually happening but for the most part when Olineman are talking to each other after a play it is because one thinks the other screwed up and vice versa.

When the O is clicking and the OLine is playing good, outside of line calls it is very rare to say more than 10-20 words to each other the entire game while on the field. Everyone does their job so there is nothing to discuss. Obviously side lines are a different story.

[FarminCy]

I think they lost faith in the interior line to be honest. The OTs weren't all that bad. They looked bad when the middle pushed there was no pocket to help them.

Agreed. Both running and passing plays the interior line was first give up penetration on most plays. It was pretty frustrating to see DT's and LB's coming through the interior line and disrupting outside running plays they were getting through so fast. Based on how fast the interior was getting penetration at times is why I have to believe it was decision making as the number one factor.

[Tre4ISU]

Agreed. Both running and passing plays the interior line was first give up penetration on most plays. It was pretty frustrating to see DT's and LB's coming through the interior line and disrupting outside running plays they were getting through so fast. Based on how fast the interior was getting penetration at times is why I have to believe it was decision making as the number one factor.

Yeah. Let's say for arguments sake we run a similar rushing attack that Oregon does. We do, but let's say we are successful for fun. Now, Those great rushing attacks have been beaten by Stanford and Auburn recently. The other losses weren't probably on the offense. Now, what did those teams do?

Auburn: Oregon decided they were going to try and take Auburns best DL out of the game by optioning off, therefor making him wrong and not having to block him. The problem was, Fairley was just too good and could make plays on both sides of the option so it didn't work.

Stanford: Completely won in the interior. Their DTs were able to get upfield and disrupt most running plays even if they were going to the outside. If it was them it was linebackers. KSU has pretty damn good DE and Oregon had success running the football despite that.

My point is that if you take away the middle of a rushing attack like Oregons or ours or any system like it, you will disrupt the running game. It's a matter of how aggressively you have to do that. If they are sending 2 LBers up the middle, then there is obviously room to do other things. If they are doing it with just DTs, then you have huge problems because you simple will not have enough blocking to cut off the backside and the defense can flow. There lies our problem, I believe.

[isufbcurt]

Yeah. Let's say for arguments sake we run a similar rushing attack that Oregon does. We do, but let's say we are successful for fun. Now, Those great rushing attacks have been beaten by Stanford and Auburn recently. The other losses weren't probably on the offense. Now, what did those teams do?

Auburn: Oregon decided they were going to try and take Auburns best DL out of the game by optioning off, therefor making him wrong and not having to block him. The problem was, Fairley was just too good and could make plays on both sides of the option so it didn't work.

Stanford: Completely won in the interior. Their DTs were able to get upfield and disrupt most running plays even if they were going to the outside. If it was them it was linebackers. KSU has pretty damn good DE and Oregon had success running the football despite that.

My point is that if you take away the middle of a rushing attack like Oregons or ours or any system like it, you will disrupt the running game. It's a matter of how aggressively you have to do that. If they are sending 2 LBers up the middle, then there is obviously room to do other things. If they are doing it with just DTs, then you have huge problems because you simple will not have enough blocking to cut off the backside and the defense can flow. There lies our problem, I believe.

For the record and no Hell hasn't frozen over, but I completely agree with you on this.

[isufan]

Yeah. Let's say for arguments sake we run a similar rushing attack that Oregon does. We do, but let's say we are successful for fun. Now, Those great rushing attacks have been beaten by Stanford and Auburn recently. The other losses weren't probably on the offense. Now, what did those teams do?

Auburn: Oregon decided they were going to try and take Auburns best DL out of the game by optioning off, therefor making him wrong and not having to block him. The problem was, Fairley was just too good and could make plays on both sides of the option so it didn't work.

Stanford: Completely won in the interior. Their DTs were able to get upfield and disrupt most running plays even if they were going to the outside. If it was them it was linebackers. KSU has pretty damn good DE and Oregon had success running the football despite that.

My point is that if you take away the middle of a rushing attack like Oregons or ours or any system like it, you will disrupt the running game. It's a matter of how aggressively you have to do that. If they are sending 2 LBers up the middle, then there is obviously room to do other things. If they are doing it with just DTs, then you have huge problems because you simple will not have enough blocking to cut off the backside and the defense can flow. There lies our problem, I believe.

I endorse this message.

To my educated, but not expert, opinion- a lot of our running problems seemed to be up the middle. It seems like we had trouble at times both with DTs blowing up the play or with the defense bringing extra linebackers and us not being able to make them pay.

Another year of experience for Farniok and Tuftee, plus a healthy Dika, should help I hope.

[Tre4ISU]

For the record and no Hell hasn't frozen over, but I completely agree with you on this.

WAHOOOOOOOO. I win!

[CycloneVet]

I agree with Tre as well. You blow up the middle you blow our rushing attack (and Oregons for that matter) up. I hate opinions that say we should start over. We shouldnt. we have been recruiting a type of linemen for 4 years now, scrapping everything would set us back. I dont know if Bleil is the problem but I would also like to see him coach a line that is very physical at 4 out of 5 positions then make a judgement. It would have been nice if Scott Haughton would have stayed eligible because him/Hick/KO would have been a very formidable group. This class as well as last years hopefully will go a long way into creating a good O-Line.

I think having a guy like SR who stays in the pocket and doesnt spin out of and then into sacks (Steele Jantz) consistently will help these guys. I bet it is hard when you have a qb who looks like he is randomly moving around. I think SR will make more strides in the offseason with the competition he will receive from the other qbs. Also SR will go a long ways to making teams pay for blitzing by throwing it to a better core of receivers next year. I love Quenton Bundrage. Horne/Lenz/Young were ok receivers but nothing that you'd have to gameplan around. Im hoping Bundrage/West and company make the receiving core a threat, and Lazard begins to make it big time the second he steps on campus. Having bigger more athletic receivers will also help the run game by stretching the field as well as with their downfield blocking. Having 2 pass catching TE's that can spread out wide or stay tight will be helpful as well by creating matchup problems with the LB's.

I worry about our LB's and the D-Line because they are unproven, I believe the talent is there but I need to see it perform. Next season will give us more of a glimpse of the future because a lot of seasoned veterans are gonna be gone.

[Cyclophile1]

In order to make the spread work well, you need your OL to be smart and mobile. They don't need to be behemoth road graders, but if they're mobile as well as strong it's a huge plus (clearly). They need to be able to see where they need to be and then get there while moving the opposition. My armchair analysis of OL is that we had one interior guy who very much lacks mobility but is pretty stout. There were many plays where I watched on the DVR a 3tech guy opposite him, just run right past him with a simple swim move or spin stunt and our guy almost never even touched him. Multiple times in multiple games. When healthy, the guy was able to do some decent things in the more hat-on-hat power stuff, but couldn't do any pulling or the counter option sweep that we like to do bringing Jarvis/Horne in motion. Just not great at quite a bit of our spread package.

In my view, we also had one tackle who doesn't have great feet and struggles on the reach blocks and basically any OZR where he is leading the playside stretch. This one tackle also had some problems in pass protection because of mobility. That's an issue. It limits what you can do effectively. Strong points were overall size and strength so he was able to do some decent work on IZR and power stuff. We also had injuries throughout the year which hurt us, because the backups clearly weren't ready and/or were ineffective.

Overall, I think we're still a unit in transition to a degree. We need better mobility overall to make the spread work really well - that is clear to me. We had some legacy guys in there who are clearly more suited to power/pro-set packages and we got pretty beat up throughout the year. However, I want better fundamentals too. What I don't like is seeing all the blown assignments, failures to pickup a walk-up blitz or flooded zone - GAME AFTER GAME. It's like some horrid football version of Groundhog Day where we have to keep re-living our inability to account for guys in the box and pick-up the extra man.

The OC is doing us any favors with the play calls in this, as I was puzzled a number of times at what we were doing in response to what was working and not working against the opponents, but that's a whole different can or worms that shouldn't go into as this is too long already.

Cheers

[BigJ4CY]

One of the biggest things that I think killed out offensive line play was their inability to sustain blocks and also to pick up the secondary assignments. Biggest reason our O-line was watching our RBs and QBs get tackled was because they weren't sustaining blocks. And I also saw at times that we couldn't even stop a basic bull rush by the D-line. That is technique and conditioning there. NOt firing off the line with shoulder pads low and getting stood up at the point of attack. The good thing is that all of the problems can be fixed with coaching and development. We just need to get better at it apparently.

[Aclone]

Another year of experience for Farniok and Tuftee, plus a healthy Dika, should help I hope.

May as well toss in Tuftee being completely healthy as well. This is the second straight season he's had nagging injuries. Playing on one leg was a big dropoff--and worse when his reserve came in.