Is it time to move on from Manning??

[cyclonehomer]

Manning should be gone. But he won't be so I have to hope they completely revamp the gameplan and get with the times. Unless you churn out NFL O-linemen "establishing the run" is just bleeding points over and over again. It's something real football guys love but has been shown repeatedly in basically every study that passing the ball more often, especially on first down, is way more efficient. Running the ball well doesn't even affect play action!

Yesterday's game was a test for Manning, for me. Clemson has shut down running games exceptionally well this year and without Breece, the ball should have been put in your senior QBs hands from the first possession you have. If you can get good looks in the running game because the defense has to play off, you take them then. But having what felt like the same game plan as we saw with Breece and against much worse defenses is really bad, IMO.

 

[cyclonehomer]

Having the 2nd best offense and also being held back considerably by coaching are not mutually exclusive.

It could absolutely be argued that ISU had the best skill position players in the conference. They overcame suboptimal decision making by their OC to still produce. Their lives definitely could have been made easier and I think that's the general point. Yeah, Manning is better than Brian Ferentz. No, that doesn't mean he should have endless job security like people are saying.

 

[CascadeClone]

Manning calls a pretty conservative and bland game, but I am not so certain that isn't what CMC wants. I really hope to see an offense next year that stretches the field. I think the long pass to X was the only attempt over 30 yards.

Winner. CMC wants to win games controlling the ball on both sides. The defense has succeeded at that. And when ISU can run the ball successfully (ie ISU O-Line > opponent D-Line) it works and they score a ton of points.

When the O-Line gets beat, and they can't run consistently... well, there really isn't a Plan B, so usually BP tried to will the team to victory; sometimes it worked, but often it ended up in turnovers and tears.

 

[CascadeClone]

its just so stupid to me how stubborn he is. Everyone and their dog knew we weren’t going to be able to run the ball with our line and Clemson’s talent. Yet, here we are with the slow developing runs out of the shotgun

"Who's this gal you're talking about? Miss Direction? Never heard of her..."

 

[cyclonehomer]

"Who's this gal you're talking about? Miss Direction? Never heard of her..."

"Counter? Counter? I hardly even know her!"

 

[GMackey32]

One play under center for Purdy and it was a trick play. So any smart defense would know something was up because we didn't set up the trick play. It's dumb **** like that play call is why people want him gone.

 

[CloneGuy8]

I think at minimum he needs more involvement with coaching the line. The current line coach has been a disappointment

 

[Inthesystem]

All roads lead to Campbell. They play the game the way they do because that’s the way he wants it.

 

[Daserop]

All roads lead to Campbell. They play the game the way they do because that’s the way he wants it.

True. However, the individuals tasked to implement Campbell's strategy/desire can be bad at doing that.

 

[Peter]

Clemson doubled Kolar all game and Purdy couldn't find any other options with X out. Their pass defense is really good. I don't see why people are saying we should have passed more when we basically abandoned the run after the first quarter.

 

[WhoISthis]

Manning should be gone. But he won't be so I have to hope they completely revamp the gameplan and get with the times. Unless you churn out NFL O-linemen "establishing the run" is just bleeding points over and over again. It's something real football guys love but has been shown repeatedly in basically every study that passing the ball more often, especially on first down, is way more efficient. Running the ball well doesn't even affect play action!

Yesterday's game was a test for Manning, for me. Clemson has shut down running games exceptionally well this year and without Breece, the ball should have been put in your senior QBs hands from the first possession you have. If you can get good looks in the running game because the defense has to play off, you take them then. But having what felt like the same game plan as we saw with Breece and against much worse defenses is really bad, IMO.

Maybe they just thought that little of Purdy?

That is probably too optimistic. We know they confuse being easy to defend with ball control. Manning is a guy trying to follow a recipe CMC found on Google the night before, not a chef.

Nothing is better for ball control than creating space and stressing the defense. That doesn’t mean taking undue risk. Clemson made our defense work much harder despite having an erratic and inconsistent QB.

 

[MJ271]

Manning should be gone. But he won't be so I have to hope they completely revamp the gameplan and get with the times. Unless you churn out NFL O-linemen "establishing the run" is just bleeding points over and over again. It's something real football guys love but has been shown repeatedly in basically every study that passing the ball more often, especially on first down, is way more efficient. Running the ball well doesn't even affect play action!

Yesterday's game was a test for Manning, for me. Clemson has shut down running games exceptionally well this year and without Breece, the ball should have been put in your senior QBs hands from the first possession you have. If you can get good looks in the running game because the defense has to play off, you take them then. But having what felt like the same game plan as we saw with Breece and against much worse defenses is really bad, IMO.

I think there's a good argument that Manning should be gone, but I'm not sure yesterday backs that up, specifically in reference to the bolded part. Yesterday Purdy had 39 passing attempts, which was his 3rd most of the season (behind Texas Tech and Oklahoma). The team had 21 rushing attempts, which was tied with the TCU game for the fewest of the season. 5 of those were Purdy runs, all of which were scrambles and not designed runs, I believe. Granted, some of the passing might simply be due to trying to come back in the third and fourth quarters, so I'd be interested in seeing only first half numbers. But still, the data doesn't back the point up that it was the same game plan as every other game this season.

Frankly, I don't think the playcalling yesterday was too bad. I think there were a lot more quick hitters to overcome the line play than people are giving him credit for. In a few situations, those plays weren't executed (a couple with missed timing to Allen, one screen to Noel, and the swing pass to Silas, just to name a few that I remember).

Overall, I would still like to see an offense that's more aggressive downfield, but it's hard for me to separate what he and Campbell want from the personnel limitations.

 

[CyGuy5]

Bump

 

[Urbandale2013]

Bump

This is a Campbell issue not a Manning issue.

 

[jsb]

This is a Campbell issue not a Manning issue.

Fire Campbell!

 

[mynameisjonas]

What a joke!

 

[Lineup]

**** Manning

 

[CloneAlta]

Seriously another damn near shut out by Heacock and the defensive side of the ball given up by a turd of an offensive showing and play calling at times... hell I know I received a suspension here for calling out Prohm a few years ago like this but it is more then time for this.. the offensive issues against UNI and then Iowa today as well as other big games have always been questionable at best.

Am I going overboard wheI say that the INT in the end zone was set up by Manning’s play calling? Surely the QB has discretion to not throw into coverage like that, right? But continuing to throw to X as if we have no other receivers seems to me to be a recipe for INTs.

 

[CyGuy5]

It’s time. It’s been time.

This team is capped at mediocrity if we continue to employ him

 

[GetAwesome]

Lol, whose mans is this bumping this thread? Come get yo mans.