running game

[Cyrocks]

Well to be fair, Woody's not coaching anymore because he decided to grind a kid's face out with his fist :wink:

And that punch started the decline of ISU football...Woody gets fired, Ohio State picks up the hottest coach in the nation at that time, Earle Bruce...ISU hires Donnie Duncan instead of John Cooper and the rest, as they say, is history.

But back to the topic. I don't think it matters what kind of offensive ISU decides to run. The main thing is to recruit the players necessary to fit that particular offense. Rhoads and staff may be a little handcuffed by the current players ISU has, but not much. All are young, gifted athletes and eager to learn. I think they've bought into Herman's system from the get-go, which is a major step in rebuilding a program.

Can't wait until the season starts.

 

[Steve]

I think that's a cliche stance. Easier said than done.

I haven't done a statistical analysis of it, but generally it seems like the the grind it out teams end up being forced into playing a faster, higher scoring alternative when they beat the Spread teams. Show me some data that supports Spread teams being beat by having their offensive output throttled in a low-scoring match-up and I might alter my opinion. But when we beat Florida in 2007 it wasn't by grinding it out on offense in a low-scoring affair and throttling their offensive scoring. Most games I think of off hand follow roughly that model.

It still comes down to defense and being able to get some stops against the spread team. If you don't and they get up more than a couple of scores, you are forced to speed up your own offense in an attempt to play catchup.

 

[egami]

It still comes down to defense and being able to get some stops against the spread team. If you don't and they get up more than a couple of scores, you are forced to speed up your own offense in an attempt to play catchup.

Well, you're kind of making my point...it's not just as simple as having a grind it out offense. It takes defense into the equation and special teams play for that matter.

At the end of the day...any successful college defense is predicated pretty much on what they can do when backed up in the red zone. Against the Spread passing attack you need pass-rushing. Against the Spread Option run attack you need discipline in the secondary and speed to pursue.

My sub-point was that, by and large, the successful power running offenses aren't typically grinding out clock and relying on defense against the explosive Spread passing teams. USC, Ohio State, Penn State, LSU and other Pro style teams are implementing Spread aspects into their schemes to compete. They have to because the rules of the game and the talent are lopsided toward offense in D1. You have to score to win. We aren't going to see a national title team winning games by grinding out the clock and relying on sub-21 scores.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I think that's a cliche stance. Easier said than done.

I haven't done a statistical analysis of it, but generally it seems like the the grind it out teams end up being forced into playing a faster, higher scoring alternative when they beat the Spread teams. Show me some data that supports Spread teams being beat by having their offensive output throttled in a low-scoring match-up and I might alter my opinion. But when we beat Florida in 2007 it wasn't by grinding it out on offense in a low-scoring affair and throttling their offensive scoring. Most games I think of off hand follow roughly that model.

egami -

I think that the real key there is that teams that CAN grind out the clock have a marked advantage if they ALSO score TDs. Of course, that style of O doesn't do much good against spread Os if they don't have the sort of D that force spread Os off their rhythm.

I frankly don't think that there's a set rule here because the key still ends up being how the D ends up faring against the spread. The key benefit of having a grinding O is that it helps keep the D fresh ... however, the off-shoot of that is that the D then has to exploit being fresh by forcing the spread O to earn every yard. If not ... then the efforts of the O are in vain ... because a spread O can "steal" the momentum of the game if they can score quickly.

 

[Cyrocks]

egami -

I think that the real key there is that teams that CAN grind out the clock have a marked advantage if they ALSO score TDs. Of course, that style of O doesn't do much good against spread Os if they don't have the sort of D that force spread Os off their rhythm.

I frankly don't think that there's a set rule here because the key still ends up being how the D ends up faring against the spread. The key benefit of having a grinding O is that it helps keep the D fresh ... however, the off-shoot of that is that the D then has to exploit being fresh by forcing the spread O to earn every yard. If not ... then the efforts of the O are in vain ... because a spread O can "steal" the momentum of the game if they can score quickly.

I agree with this. Shoot, under the Barney Cotton offense ISU could grind it out -- BETWEEN THE 20s. His offenses couldn't score a touchdown in the red zone. It always seems his offenses played for field goals after getting a 10+ point lead, AND ISU kept missing field goals

 

[egami]

egami -

I think that the real key there is that teams that CAN grind out the clock have a marked advantage if they ALSO score TDs. Of course, that style of O doesn't do much good against spread Os if they don't have the sort of D that force spread Os off their rhythm.

I never said they CAN NOT have an advantage. I think you're missing the point.

I frankly don't think that there's a set rule here because the key still ends up being how the D ends up faring against the spread.

I never said there was a set rule here...all I said was that in general you don't see these types of offenses dictating the speed of the game to the Spread offenses. Feel free to prove that theory wrong.

The key benefit of having a grinding O is that it helps keep the D fresh ... however, the off-shoot of that is that the D then has to exploit being fresh by forcing the spread O to earn every yard. If not ... then the efforts of the O are in vain ... because a spread O can "steal" the momentum of the game if they can score quickly.

Having followed a team that has had this offense I am well aware of how they work. Again, I fail to see your point, because I pretty only said that it was "cliche" to think it was that simple and the followed it up by saying some of the exact points you're regurgitating back to me.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

I never said there was a set rule here...all I said was that in general you don't see these types of offenses dictating the speed of the game to the Spread offenses. Feel free to prove that theory wrong.

Having followed a team that has had this offense I am well aware of how they work. Again, I fail to see your point, because I pretty only said that it was "cliche" to think it was that simple and the followed it up by saying some of the exact points you're regurgitating back to me.

egami-

I mostly agree you ... hence the regurgitation. However, I think that spread Os often can get thrown off rhythm by Ds that construct good game-plans.

For instance, just look at how Michigan owned Minnesota. Of course, part of that domination was due to Decker being injured ... but Michigan's D totally threw the Minny O off tempo. Similarly, for the great majority of the Mizzou vs Northwestern game, I'd say that the Northwestern D was actually dictating the tempo to the Mizzou O.

While I completely agree that the D's of Michigan and Northwestern were the true catalysts regarding dictating tempo ... however, just look at the time of possession for Michigan and Northwestern in those games. Their Os also managed to systematically move the ball and own the clock ... obviously not in a "grinding fashion" ... however, they did so in much the same spirit.

Also, if you look at the Ole Miss vs Florida game. The ability of Ole Miss to hold serve on O and play strong D were the very factors that they needed in order to stay in that game ... and what eventually led to them winning it.

 

[egami]

egami-

I mostly agree you ... hence the regurgitation.

Okay, it didn't quite read that way and seemed like you hadn't read what I posted.

However, I think that spread Os often can get thrown off rhythm by Ds that construct good game-plans.

I completely agree. This is the exception, not the rule though. D1 football is predicated on offense. Most of the time when a team struggles on offense it's not because they're facing a great defense...it's usually because they aren't clicking for whatever reason.

For instance, just look at how Michigan owned Minnesota. Of course, part of that domination was due to Decker being injured ... but Michigan's D totally threw the Minny O off tempo. Similarly, for the great majority of the Mizzou vs Northwestern game, I'd say that the Northwestern D was actually dictating the tempo to the Mizzou O.

See, the Minnesota game in my mind was a perfect example of what I was talking about....they went 3 and out like 40 times in a row, but even I as a Michigan fan didn't feel like it was our D dominating.

We did have 4 sacks, but their D gave up sacks all season, iirc. I just felt like it was largely a Minnesota being off as much as any kind of heroic defensive effort from our D.

Can't speak for the NW/Mizzou game.

While I completely agree that the D's of Michigan and Northwestern were the true catalysts regarding dictating tempo ... however, just look at the time of possession for Michigan and Northwestern in those games. Their Os also managed to systematically move the ball and own the clock ... obviously not in a "grinding fashion" ... however, they did so in much the same spirit.

Also, if you look at the Ole Miss vs Florida game. The ability of Ole Miss to hold serve on O and play strong D were the very factors that they needed in order to stay in that game ... and what eventually led to them winning it.

Ok, but still...even if we assume I give you all those games, by and large it's the high-powered offenses that are dictating things in every conference. The B12 is case in point for sure. Even the SEC which still has some decent Pro style offenses lend themselves to higher scoring, faster pace games.

And, again, look at every successful Pro style offense team...they are implementing Spread concepts because of the need to score.

All I was mainly saying is that it's not as easy to actually grind it out on offense and win with clock control in D1 as that statement alluded.

 

[cyismydog]

i remember reading in Phil steele's magazine that ISU led the Big XII North in rushing one year in the late 90s or early 00s and how that was impressive considering how great a ground game Nebraska had then.

Do you guys think it is possible that it might happen this next season, even though the opposing teams return Washington, sharp, and helu?

I mean think of this play. Arnaud gets the snap from shotgun surrounded by Schwartz on the strong side and Robinson on the weak side and he then:

hands off to Schwartz, if there is running room up the middle he gives it to him or if there is no running room he fakes it to him to draw the D off guard

Robinson meanwhile sweeps underneath and Arnaud could pitch to Robinson if the defense has swarmed to Schwartz

if Arnaud worries that they will lose yards if he pitches to Robinson then he takes it himself

and if then if the running lanes are cut off Arnaud drops back and throws to one of the three receivers down field as a last resort.

I think the reason your name is Anti-snob is because you have absolutely nothing that you could be snobby about, especially your football knowledge.

 

[homerHAWKeye777]

We did have 4 sacks, but their D gave up sacks all season, iirc. I just felt like it was largely a Minnesota being off as much as any kind of heroic defensive effort from our D.

LOL ... Minny was a bit of mystery last year. However, if you look before and after the Michigan game ... the Minny O performed MUCH, MUCH better than they did against Michigan. Furthermore, the game was a home game for them no less.

Ok, but still...even if we assume I give you all those games, by and large it's the high-powered offenses that are dictating things in every conference. The B12 is case in point for sure. Even the SEC which still has some decent Pro style offenses lend themselves to higher scoring, faster pace games.

And, again, look at every successful Pro style offense team...they are implementing Spread concepts because of the need to score.

I think that last year Alabama was a bit overrated ... however, their success was hung on the recipe that Saban has pretty much always relied upon. For him it's all about the D with a smattering of ball-control O thrown in for good measure. Obviously, Alabama lost to Florida and Utah (both spread teams) ... however, they also dominated some spread teams too. It also doesn't help that they arguably weren't "up" for the Utah game either ...

 

[JustRedman]

bates at rb?

Bates and Arnaud on the field at the same time?!?:chatterbox: