So its been at least a year since I posted here, had to get a new screen name cause my old one wouldn't work. I used to be just JCloned. I use to write quite a few articles here and on my blog, but got tired of the negativity on a lot of sites and went dark for awhile. Anyway, what prompts my at least temporary return is a desire to shed some light on the events of the last few weeks.
Here is what I know, what I have heard from normally reliable folks, and what I believe based on the first two.
Chizik realized midstream this year that his original vision for how to build ISU was not going to work. Coming in Chizik envisioned a balanced, but run first offense that made few mistakes and kept the defense off the field. Scoring would be moderate, defense would stout. He would be able to win initially with fewer blue chip athletes by being exceptionally fundamentally sound football team that took care of the ball, could run and grind down the clock. If you go back even 3 years its easy to make a case that this would work. What changed is the explosion of superpowered offenses in the Big 12 and around the nation. Even a defense like OU or UT was consistently giving up more points than ISU's offense could realistically expect to post on a weekly basis. That is if the big guys have to score 30 plus with their athletes on defense how could he expect the offense he grew up with and envisioned for ISU to be sufficient.
His solution was to have to create an aggressive high scoring offense by bringing in some of the best and brightest and that required a couple of staff changes. First, new coordinator. As much as he liked and still likes RMac, he knew he wasn't the guy to make this transition he needed someone who had done it before. Second new QB coach. Peterson is a good guy by all accounts but his experience is coaching QB in more conventional offense and in the new offense it truly all begins with the QB so Peterson must go. Again need right experience.
Chizik had a list of people he wanted to bring to Ames and on that list was the Tulsa coordinator who just joined Chizik at Auburn. During this process however Auburn came a calling and starting over in Ames, as he envisioned the transition he was about to take and his roots in the South made the move too hard to refuse. In Auburn he will do what he was going to try to do in Ames, just that it isn't a mid course change like it would have been here.
Defensively with his background as a Defensive coach he couldn't handle the poor execution on defense and while much weaker personnel than many will admit played a big part in our defensive struggles, he had to make the change with Bolt. There was not going to be a big transformation like on offense, but he thought he needed new leadership to get it done.
So why does all this matter. First, as much as the whole Chizik thing frustrates me, I believe he was right about what had to be done. I don't think ISU can do it this era by staying with the offensive philosophy of the McCarney era nor the Chizik era (or fleeting moment). ISU has to be able to score points in bunches or it won't matter that we can run the ball and lead nation in takeaway/givaway ratio. It was a different time in the Big 12 with DMac and that is why I pray PR doesn't bring in Loney, his mindset will not win enough games in this era of college football.
Second, it will be interesting to see how things go on offense in Auburn because 80/20 that is the offense and offensive coaches we would have seen in Ames this fall.
Third, the most important hire that PR will make is the offensive coordinator. There are a lot of good guys out there like Fitch, Loney etc. that will keep ISU on the outside looking in and be the downfall of PR. Key question is, does PR realize yet what our transition coach from DMAc to PR learned the hard way? If so look for a hire from Houston, Rice or upcoming position coach from like offenses in BCS conferences. You can ignore almost all the other hires he makes, who and what philosophy does he hire on offense - that will likely determine the outcome of the PR era.
Here is what I know, what I have heard from normally reliable folks, and what I believe based on the first two.
Chizik realized midstream this year that his original vision for how to build ISU was not going to work. Coming in Chizik envisioned a balanced, but run first offense that made few mistakes and kept the defense off the field. Scoring would be moderate, defense would stout. He would be able to win initially with fewer blue chip athletes by being exceptionally fundamentally sound football team that took care of the ball, could run and grind down the clock. If you go back even 3 years its easy to make a case that this would work. What changed is the explosion of superpowered offenses in the Big 12 and around the nation. Even a defense like OU or UT was consistently giving up more points than ISU's offense could realistically expect to post on a weekly basis. That is if the big guys have to score 30 plus with their athletes on defense how could he expect the offense he grew up with and envisioned for ISU to be sufficient.
His solution was to have to create an aggressive high scoring offense by bringing in some of the best and brightest and that required a couple of staff changes. First, new coordinator. As much as he liked and still likes RMac, he knew he wasn't the guy to make this transition he needed someone who had done it before. Second new QB coach. Peterson is a good guy by all accounts but his experience is coaching QB in more conventional offense and in the new offense it truly all begins with the QB so Peterson must go. Again need right experience.
Chizik had a list of people he wanted to bring to Ames and on that list was the Tulsa coordinator who just joined Chizik at Auburn. During this process however Auburn came a calling and starting over in Ames, as he envisioned the transition he was about to take and his roots in the South made the move too hard to refuse. In Auburn he will do what he was going to try to do in Ames, just that it isn't a mid course change like it would have been here.
Defensively with his background as a Defensive coach he couldn't handle the poor execution on defense and while much weaker personnel than many will admit played a big part in our defensive struggles, he had to make the change with Bolt. There was not going to be a big transformation like on offense, but he thought he needed new leadership to get it done.
So why does all this matter. First, as much as the whole Chizik thing frustrates me, I believe he was right about what had to be done. I don't think ISU can do it this era by staying with the offensive philosophy of the McCarney era nor the Chizik era (or fleeting moment). ISU has to be able to score points in bunches or it won't matter that we can run the ball and lead nation in takeaway/givaway ratio. It was a different time in the Big 12 with DMac and that is why I pray PR doesn't bring in Loney, his mindset will not win enough games in this era of college football.
Second, it will be interesting to see how things go on offense in Auburn because 80/20 that is the offense and offensive coaches we would have seen in Ames this fall.
Third, the most important hire that PR will make is the offensive coordinator. There are a lot of good guys out there like Fitch, Loney etc. that will keep ISU on the outside looking in and be the downfall of PR. Key question is, does PR realize yet what our transition coach from DMAc to PR learned the hard way? If so look for a hire from Houston, Rice or upcoming position coach from like offenses in BCS conferences. You can ignore almost all the other hires he makes, who and what philosophy does he hire on offense - that will likely determine the outcome of the PR era.
Last edited:
