I don't think there's any question ISU should stick with the spread. It's been proven year after year to be the best way to level the playing field against a more talented opponent, which will be the case no matter what offense ISU is running.
Is ISU better off going to a Pro-style offense?
- Thread starter Win5002
- Start date
This is actually true but it's only effective if your skill guys are better than the defensive skill guys you're playing.
Maybe ISU would have better luck running an offense nobody else runs in the conference. Teams know how to scheme for the spread, and if they team you play has better athletes, well you see the results.
I look at a team like Wisconsin, they just run the ball down your throat. Now we probably would need to re-design the physical appearance of our current O-Line to convert into a running team. We must have the leanest offensive line in the country.
But it would provide us with a different wrinkle.
I am not a fan of any offense that relies on the QB to run the ball. In High School you can run the option and be ok, but at the BCS level the QB will take too much punishment unless they are a rare athlete. You see maybe two or three QBs a year with the ability to run and throw and have the size to take the abuse. We don't have that QB. Sam has a good arm, and can run effectively, but should not be taking a large number of designed runs. Obviously, he did not even get to the start of the season healthy. I think in Tech's Offense Sam is all conference. I don't think Webb has a better arm.
It is really tempting to run the spread, because if you can it pays off big time like in Oregon or at Baylor right now. This is the exception. I would rather see ISU recruit large Offensive Linemen and run a pro style, run and gun offense. Get a big back to pound the ball and dominate the line of scrimmage. We started recruiting smaller more athletic OLinemen and it is not paying off.
It is really tempting to run the spread, because if you can it pays off big time like in Oregon or at Baylor right now. This is the exception. I would rather see ISU recruit large Offensive Linemen and run a pro style, run and gun offense. Get a big back to pound the ball and dominate the line of scrimmage. We started recruiting smaller more athletic OLinemen and it is not paying off.
1- Recruiting elite OL is difficult, at least recruiting them in a scheme that demands them to win the game for you will be more difficult than what ISU is doing now. Right now ISU gets the benefit of being able to recruit leaner guys that move better but may not be the NFL mold. In a pro-style scheme that isn't often the case.
2- The WR's right now athletically do good enough. The issues to me appear to be (A) routes and (B) hands as well as breakdowns that fall on the QB and OL. You don't have to have 4 Dez Bryants. This is spread to run so they only need to be good enough to force the D to play honest. Rice was able to be VERY good in 2008 and 2012-13 with this offense using bigger WR's that run good routes and aren't burners.
3- When I say dominant blocking TE's, I am not talking about spares that can't get big enough for OL work. I am talking about guys like Stanford gets that can be viable passing targets and can manhandle DE's in blocking. Those are NOT dime a dozen. The mold I am talking about is the 6'4 255-275 mold with ok speed and great hands. That isn't what I feel you are describing.
4- Fullbacks though are a dime a dozen unless you are talking about a Trey Millard type that can do it all.
I think the disconnect stems from you living in Texas. You spent much time in Iowa or anywhere north of the mason-dixon line? The one area the northern states produces as well as the southern ones are offensive linemen. It shouldn't be this hard for ISU to recruit them, at least in comparison to the skill players.
So you aren't talking about a blocking tight end, you're talking about a stud tight end. You don't have to have one of those to run a pro style offense but they sure are handy to have. I would think they'd be nice to have in a spread offense too though.
I agree the Offensive Line has been a problem going back to way before Dan McCarney came to ames.....The only solution is BETTER RECRUITING......of O Linemen.
Steve Loney had capable O lines. There's a reason the NFL called his number. I wish we still had it.
For that pro style offense to have a prayer of keeping up in the Big 12 scorefests you NEED a versatile TE. It's just the way it is. You trot a reject OL out there and see how fast you keep up.
I've been north of the mason-dixon line a fair amount. My point is that it's easier to recruit to a spread offense than it is pro-style even as a non-traditional power. Look at Northwestern for a perfect northern example. They have had strong offenses for a decade now with good QB's, average athletes at WR that run good routes, and good but not great OL.
For the pro style to work well enough to give ISU a chance in today's big 12 you need NFL-capable OL and TE's. Without it I just see a one-dimensional attack that won't keep up. The ability to use space to get positive matchups and a token run or two from the QB forcing the defense to account for him allows the spread to overcome talent gaps that pro style won't. Now will ISU's necessarily look like BU's? No. It has to be tailored to the school it's run at. However a spread offense with big TE/WR hybrids, some good WR's, a dual threat QB, and some speedy RB's can work at ISU much like it has at Mizzou, Rice, Mangino's KU, and others.
ISU's offense didn't seem to be appreciably worse under McCarney's pro style than they have been under Chizik's/CPR's spread.
Why do you think a prostyle offense is one dimensional? Why do you think it wouldn't be successful going against smaller defenses? You say the spread helps teams overcome talent gaps, which is true at certain positions. I think just simply being bigger and stronger than the other team accomplishes the same thing.
Also, Northwestern is a terrible example and actually an example of why it might be wise for ISU to go back to prostyle. Northwestern isn't trying to recruit against Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan etc. for the same types of players. They are running a different offense from the people they are trying to beat
Totally agree. Northwestern is a great example of why ISU should go pro style. I don't think for a second Northwestern would be as successful in the Big 12, because the teams there have defenses built to stop the spread, and they would be facing teams comfortable with playing a higher scoring game.
The point is that as one of the lower tier teams in the league, your best bet is to do something different from everyone else. For Northwestern that is recruiting for and running the spread in the B1G. For Iowa State, it would be to recruit for and run a power running attack in the spread offense speed obsessed world of the B12.
If your TE's and FB's aren't multi-dimensional you will be one dimensional as the defense will only have to account for 3 players in the passing game on a consistent basis. Schools like Stanford, Alabama, Wisconsin, and the best Iowa offenses have had players like Fleener, Moeaki, Chandler, Peek, and other multi-dimensional guys. You need them or else you are limited and I wonder how effectively they'd be able to get them.
As for being bigger, do you think ISU is going to recruit NFL caliber OL well enough to push around UT and OU with sheer power? Furthermore do you think they are going to be able to pound it if the offense stalls or will they need a more wide open attack to come from behind better when facing BU, Tech, OSU, WVU, etc? The situation in this league gets away from you MUCH quicker than in the B1G if your D happens to not match up some saturday.
My point is that even up north it's easier to find decent WR's ,athletic QB's, and leaner OL than the jack of all trades OL and TE's you need to be highly productive in a pro-style offense. The north may develop them more, but there is a LOT of competition for NFL level OL that are needed to run that kind of system with the dominance desired. TE's who are jack of all trades also have a ton of competition. Tons of HS WR's, QB's, and RB's are turned into effective spread receivers annually. Much lower difficulty in recruiting to get those guys.
Two responses here:
1- Not all spread offenses are alike, much like the old BYU offense may have used 2 backs and a TE and was NOTHING like what Nebraska ran or what Michigan ran. There is room to be contrarian from similar alignments.
2- Being contrarian can help but in the end they'd face less competition for the QB and WR position and replace it with MORE at the all-important OL and TE spots with less margin for error. Right now if a kid looks quick but strong enough to develop into a serviceable spread OL they can take that kid who may be under the radar. If they were pro style they'd be competing with KU, KSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, OU, and OSU for them.
Right now if a TE prospect is undersized as a blocker (Collin Franklin) ISU can split him out and use him effectively. A guy like Jarvis West doesn't have to go against their best corner with that CB possibly having frequent help. Also a guy at WR won't have a CB getting as much help due to safeties potentially rolling to the box to deal with the +1 in the running game that the threat of a QB run gives you. I feel like the personnel needed for ISU to run spread-to-run effectively is easier to draw in than a pro set.
I mentioned Wisconsin before, they run a pro set and they laid what 60+ on the Huskers. A pro set can be explosive as well. And yes they have a very good O-Line.. But most of them are Wisconsin and upper midwest kids. I think an O-Line relish the chance to play for a running team, and hit people, and that in itself may help recruiting.
The pro set gives you the best defense against the likes of an Oregon or Baylor. You can control the clock.
Defense's don't stop an offense like yours, you only hope to slow them down. For an ISU, our defense is not talented enough to shut it down. Maybe a Florida State, Michigan State, or Bama can, but not ISU.
Your only options are to match you score for score, (that ain't happening) or try to control the ball and clock get the game to the 4th quarter.
We needed to run the ball on Saturday and limit Baylor's touches to have a remote shot.
Needed to take away the fuel that runs that high octane offense. Cannot give them that many plays on offense.
Iowa State is the northern most school in a predominately southern conference. To me I think we need to be different, we cannot be like the other 8 or 9. Being unique makes us harder to play.
Now if we are going to stick with the spread, we need to find a coach who is one the best at running that offense, given that we may not have the talent as those we play. And I don't think the guy that currently runs it would be considered a master craftsman of the spread offense.
That said I hope Baylor runs the table and get a title shot. Unfortunately I don't see FSU losing another game. Oregon has UCLA and Stanford left.Ohio State not going to lose in the Big 10, the biggest threat was Wisconsin and they are done with them.
Heck Mizzou has been looking good, and is in the drivers seat for an SEC title game.
Big 12 is not very good this year, and that will hurt Baylor long term for a title game but not the momentum the program is building.
Last edited:
If we lose another game like we did against Baylor I vote we forfeit the rest of the season, fire Messingham, and refund our season ticket holders. 71-7 isn't all to blame on scheme. I like to believe that our players are much better than losing by 64 freaking points. I blame the coaching staff more than anything. Seriously, when did they develop the game plan? With crayons and construction paper on the plane ride down to Texas? Seriously, I think a middle school coach could of called plays better than that joke of a coaching staff. Fire everyone on offense I dont care. But do something that lets me know you are not content with this flaming piece of garbage you want me to come out and support and spend tons of money on.
