MESS named OC

[JCloned]

I kept trying to deny what I have been seeing during the last couple years with our fan base, but I can no longer deny what my eyes see so clearly.

We have become what I have hated so much. We have become like hawkeye fans. Not true you say how could you profane Cy in such a way?

Hawk fans:

• Forget the success at the first sign of a loss and jump on the coach before the game is even over. - hmmm sounds like a CF game day thread.
  
• Think they are better play callers and better personnel managers than every coach they have - check read CF threads after Rutgers game, CF threads during losing streak on Wally, yeah and all the MBB threads.
  
• Are smarter than their head coach and know which assistant coaches should be kept, fired, promoted. - check - see this thread.
  
• Go on other teams message boards and talk down to opposing fans - yep more than a few are polluting our opponents sites.
  
• Rave about a recruit, complain the coaches aren't playing him, then jump off the band wagon the first game that he struggles in only to jump back on then off, then on, then off, then why the hell did we recruit him...Wait didn't you talk smack about him as part of your recruiting class. Yep see Austin Arnaud, Jared Barnett, Chris Allen, Royce White, etc. etc. etc.

It pains me to say it, but if I was color blind I could no longer tell the difference between a Hawkeye fan and a Cyclone fan.

 

[Ficklone02]

Just a hunch: in the 3 years since arriving here Rhoads probably formed some new opinions on what kind of offense it will take for us to be successfull here. He and Mess must be on the same page on how to make that happen.

 

[JUKEBOX]

I kept trying to deny what I have been seeing during the last couple years with our fan base, but I can no longer deny what my eyes see so clearly.

We have become what I have hated so much. We have become like hawkeye fans. Not true you say how could you profane Cy in such a way?

Hawk fans:

• Forget the success at the first sign of a loss and jump on the coach before the game is even over. - hmmm sounds like a CF game day thread.
  
• Think they are better play callers and better personnel managers than every coach they have - check read CF threads after Rutgers game, CF threads during losing streak on Wally, yeah and all the MBB threads.
  
• Are smarter than their head coach and know which assistant coaches should be kept, fired, promoted. - check - see this thread.
  
• Go on other teams message boards and talk down to opposing fans - yep more than a few are polluting our opponents sites.
  
• Rave about a recruit, complain the coaches aren't playing him, then jump off the band wagon the first game that he struggles in only to jump back on then off, then on, then off, then why the hell did we recruit him...Wait didn't you talk smack about him as part of your recruiting class. Yep see Austin Arnaud, Jared Barnett, Chris Allen, Royce White, etc. etc. etc.

It pains me to say it, but if I was color blind I could no longer tell the difference between a Hawkeye fan and a Cyclone fan.

Why the heck do people always bring up the Hawks in every thread?

NOBODY CARES!

 

[Tre4ISU]

I kept trying to deny what I have been seeing during the last couple years with our fan base, but I can no longer deny what my eyes see so clearly.

We have become what I have hated so much. We have become like hawkeye fans. Not true you say how could you profane Cy in such a way?

Hawk fans:

• Forget the success at the first sign of a loss and jump on the coach before the game is even over. - hmmm sounds like a CF game day thread.
  
• Think they are better play callers and better personnel managers than every coach they have - check read CF threads after Rutgers game, CF threads during losing streak on Wally, yeah and all the MBB threads.
  
• Are smarter than their head coach and know which assistant coaches should be kept, fired, promoted. - check - see this thread.
  
• Go on other teams message boards and talk down to opposing fans - yep more than a few are polluting our opponents sites.
  
• Rave about a recruit, complain the coaches aren't playing him, then jump off the band wagon the first game that he struggles in only to jump back on then off, then on, then off, then why the hell did we recruit him...Wait didn't you talk smack about him as part of your recruiting class. Yep see Austin Arnaud, Jared Barnett, Chris Allen, Royce White, etc. etc. etc.

It pains me to say it, but if I was color blind I could no longer tell the difference between a Hawkeye fan and a Cyclone fan.

It's a message board.

 

[Cycsk]

This. ^^

I hope with Herman's departure, Messingham wasn't already given increased responsibility for the bowl game behind the scenes, because that was a turd of an offensive game plan.

I read lots of folks saying things about our game plan and play calling. However, I don't hear specifics. I think we mostly struggled executing on offense with a game plan that was pretty good, but there was only so much we could do against their linemen and LB speed, particularly with all their double blitzing.

So, give me some specifics:

1. What do you think our game plan was and what do you think it should have been? I'm assuming that you are concerned about offense, because we seemed pretty good on defense and special teams.

2. What plays should we have not called? Or what plays should we have called instead?

3. What adjustments would you have made? For instance, do you think that putting Jantz in was part of the game plan if Barnett struggled?

While there may be issues at the game plan level and I have thought about my own answers to these questions, I have also concluded that our gameplan was good enough to win if we executed better on the big plays.

For instance, if Reynolds turns out instead of in on the second pass to him in the endzone, it is a TD. If he makes the easy catch across the middle and breaks a tackle for a few yards, we don't go 3-and-out when we were within 7 and had the momentum in the middle of the 4th quarter. If Reeves had timed his jump a little better (or if Rutgers had thrown more of a straight ball rather than one that arced so high), that could have been an interception or a knock down rather than a TD. Coleman didn't outjump or outreach him, but caught it almost flat-footed just above his waist (and it should be noted that we broke up this same play twice, including once near the endzone). If we didn't hold on West's kickoff return (as if he needs a hold to pop free), we might have had the lead at halftime.

When you combine what we did against a well-designed defensive game plan by Rutgers with what we didn't do in terms of offensive execution, I think you can see the margin of defeat. I left the game feeling like we didn't play our best and guys like Woody said so in interviews. However, we were still in the game at the midpoint of the 4th quarter and we were just a few big plays away from the win, regardless of what you think of the game plan and play calling.

So, armchair coaches, don't just complain, tell us what you would have done differently.

 

[jbhtexas]

Are you going to acknowledge the defense in the North Division was pitiful and the conference as a whole was nowhere approaching what it is now or are you going to just ignore that?

From the defensive stats on Big12sports.com. I had to hand calculate the averages. 2011 only includes the 12 regular season games.

Average points per game allowed:
2002: 26.2
2003: 27.1
2011: 30.0

Average yards per game allowed:
2002: 342.1
2003: 381.1
2011: 422.2

Statistically, the defense was better back in 2002 and 2003. I don't know why you have this faulty recollection that the conference was so horrible then. It's just not correct.

 

[Clonefan32]

I read lots of folks saying things about our game plan and play calling. However, I don't hear specifics. I think we mostly struggled executing on offense with a game plan that was pretty good, but there was only so much we could do against their linemen and LB speed, particularly with all their double blitzing.

So, give me some specifics:

1. What do you think our game plan was and what do you think it should have been? I'm assuming that you are concerned about offense, because we seemed pretty good on defense and special teams.

2. What plays should we have not called? Or what plays should we have called instead?

3. What adjustments would you have made? For instance, do you think that putting Jantz in was part of the game plan if Barnett struggled?

While there may be issues at the game plan level and I have thought about my own answers to these questions, I have also concluded that our gameplan was good enough to win. We just didn't execute on the big plays.

For instance, if Reynolds turns out instead of in on the second pass to him in the endzone, it is a TD. If he makes the easy catch across the middle and breaks a tackle for a few yards, we don't go 3-and-out when we were within 7 and had the momentum in the middle of the 4th quarter. If Reeves had timed his jump a little better (or if Rutgers had thrown more of a straight ball rather than one that arced so high), that could have been an interception or a knock down rather than a TD. Coleman didn't outjump or outreach him, but caught it almost flat-footed just above his waist. If we didn't hold on West's kickoff return (as if he needs a hold to pop free), we might have had the lead at halftime.

When you combine what we did against a well-designed defensive game plan by Rutgers with what we didn't do in terms of offensive execution, I think you can see the margin of defeat. I left the game feeling like we didn't play our best and guys like Woody said so in interviews. However, we were still in the game at the midpoint of the 4th quarter and we were just a few big plays away from the win, regardless of what you think of the game plan and play calling.

So, armchair coaches, don't just complain, tell us what you would have done differently.

The difference is we aren't coaches. Either Schiano is a genius and we were playing the best defense in college football or our coaches couldn't figure out a way to scheme around their defense. The man's job is to figure out a solution, he didn't.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I read lots of folks saying things about our game plan and play calling. However, I don't hear specifics. I think we mostly struggled executing on offense with a game plan that was pretty good, but there was only so much we could do against their linemen and LB speed, particularly with all their double blitzing.

So, give me some specifics:

1. What do you think our game plan was and what do you think it should have been? I'm assuming that you are concerned about offense, because we seemed pretty good on defense and special teams.

2. What plays should we have not called? Or what plays should we have called instead?

3. What adjustments would you have made? For instance, do you think that putting Jantz in was part of the game plan if Barnett struggled?

While there may be issues at the game plan level and I have thought about my own answers to these questions, I have also concluded that our gameplan was good enough to win. We just didn't execute on the big plays.

For instance, if Reynolds turns out instead of in on the second pass to him in the endzone, it is a TD. If he makes the easy catch across the middle and breaks a tackle for a few yards, we don't go 3-and-out when we were within 7 and had the momentum in the middle of the 4th quarter. If Reeves had timed his jump a little better (or if Rutgers had thrown more of a straight ball rather than one that arced so high), that could have been an interception or a knock down rather than a TD. Coleman didn't outjump or outreach him, but caught it almost flat-footed just above his waist. If we didn't hold on West's kickoff return (as if he needs a hold to pop free), we might have had the lead at halftime.

When you combine what we did against a well-designed defensive game plan by Rutgers with what we didn't do in terms of offensive execution, I think you can see the margin of defeat. I left the game feeling like we didn't play our best and guys like Woody said so in interviews. However, we were still in the game at the midpoint of the 4th quarter and we were just a few big plays away from the win, regardless of what you think of the game plan and play calling.

So, armchair coaches, don't just complain, tell us what you would have done differently.

I don't know, maybe RUN A ******* SCREEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD. Seriously, all they did was blitz. What do we do? Throw it to where they weren't blitzing from, the corners. That seems pretty elementary because it is. We didn't take advantage of the areas they were vacating. That's just a start.

 

[Tre4ISU]

From the defensive stats on Big12sports.com. I had to hand calculate the averages. 2011 only includes the 12 regular season games.

Average points per game allowed:
2002: 26.2
2003: 27.1
2011: 30.0

Average yards per game allowed:
2002: 342.1
2003: 381.1
2011: 422.2

Statistically, the defense was better back in 2002 and 2003. I don't know why you have this faulty recollection that the conference so horrible then. It's just not correct.

Or the offenses are better now, which is the case.

 

[FarminCy]

I don't know, maybe RUN A ******* SCREEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD. Seriously, all they did was blitz. What do we do? Throw it to where they weren't blitzing from, the corners. That seems pretty elementary because it is. We didn't take advantage of the areas they were vacating. That's just a start.

Agree 100% As the game progressed we did nothing to neutralize the blitz even though they were doing it on a majority of plays and most of us could see it coming.

 

[proisu]

I kept trying to deny what I have been seeing during the last couple years with our fan base, but I can no longer deny what my eyes see so clearly.

We have become what I have hated so much. We have become like hawkeye fans. Not true you say how could you profane Cy in such a way?


Hawk fans:

• Forget the success at the first sign of a loss and jump on the coach before the game is even over. - hmmm sounds like a CF game day thread.
  
• Think they are better play callers and better personnel managers than every coach they have - check read CF threads after Rutgers game, CF threads during losing streak on Wally, yeah and all the MBB threads.
  
• Are smarter than their head coach and know which assistant coaches should be kept, fired, promoted. - check - see this thread.
  
• Go on other teams message boards and talk down to opposing fans - yep more than a few are polluting our opponents sites.
  
• Rave about a recruit, complain the coaches aren't playing him, then jump off the band wagon the first game that he struggles in only to jump back on then off, then on, then off, then why the hell did we recruit him...Wait didn't you talk smack about him as part of your recruiting class. Yep see Austin Arnaud, Jared Barnett, Chris Allen, Royce White, etc. etc. etc.

It pains me to say it, but if I was color blind I could no longer tell the difference between a Hawkeye fan and a Cyclone fan.

+ a BIG 1

 

[Cyclonepride]

I'm excited for the continuity, and also because he has done very well with his prior assignments at ISU. Even if he is on the staff already, one cannot assume that he will just continue on the former course. He will have his own style, and his own offense.

 

[Clone5]

I kept trying to deny what I have been seeing during the last couple years with our fan base, but I can no longer deny what my eyes see so clearly.

We have become what I have hated so much. We have become like hawkeye fans. Not true you say how could you profane Cy in such a way?

Hawk fans:

• Forget the success at the first sign of a loss and jump on the coach before the game is even over. - hmmm sounds like a CF game day thread.
  
• Think they are better play callers and better personnel managers than every coach they have - check read CF threads after Rutgers game, CF threads during losing streak on Wally, yeah and all the MBB threads.
  
• Are smarter than their head coach and know which assistant coaches should be kept, fired, promoted. - check - see this thread.
  
• Go on other teams message boards and talk down to opposing fans - yep more than a few are polluting our opponents sites.
  
• Rave about a recruit, complain the coaches aren't playing him, then jump off the band wagon the first game that he struggles in only to jump back on then off, then on, then off, then why the hell did we recruit him...Wait didn't you talk smack about him as part of your recruiting class. Yep see Austin Arnaud, Jared Barnett, Chris Allen, Royce White, etc. etc. etc.

It pains me to say it, but if I was color blind I could no longer tell the difference between a Hawkeye fan and a Cyclone fan.

Every fan base is the same.

 

[Cy$]

wow...CPR better know what he's doing with this hire...when Wally is gone if this hire turns out to suck CPR is in some big trouble keeping his job. While it's bad think about this for a second, if it wasn't for our defense would be even have had 5 wins this year?

Highly doubt it. Given our team, an OC that works would take our program to the next level, with 9-10 win seasons (yes I believe this could happen given we find the right OC).

Just saying, we won't have Wally forever, so we need to capitalize on this, hopefully this works bbut i'm not sold on it just like I wasn't sold on Hoiberg and still isn't.

 

[Cycsk]

I don't know, maybe RUN A ******* SCREEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD. Seriously, all they did was blitz. What do we do? Throw it to where they weren't blitzing from, the corners. That seems pretty elementary because it is. We didn't take advantage of the areas they were vacating. That's just a start.

Agreed. I would have called more screen passes and even more draw plays. Screen passes are tricky because you don't know where the blitzs are coming from. Draw plays let you react and go to the spots vacated by the blitzes.

Did you notice the one quasi-draw play/screen pass to White where he was held by #29? Even if he hadn't been held, that would have been a tough catch. And our blockers had trouble keeping anybody away from Jantz on the play. So, once again, it points to execution.

Did anybody on this site predict how much Rutgers would blitz? Or double blitz?

 

[GoSTATE71]

Not sure if I'm really feeling this hire, but time will tell and I'll trust CPR

 

[isulive2train]

Congrats to Messingham.

 

[Cy$]

Exactly.

Herman = Sexy hire
Chizik = Sexy hire

Wally = Not sexy hire
Rhoads = Not sexy hire

Enough said.

one of the best DC in the country at the time he came here...this has been the hire that is really helping Rhodes right now.

What if that OC expereince was one year at a 1-AA school that went 4-7 and averaged 24 ppg, had a leading rusher under 700 yards and a Qb that completed about 55% of his passes?

great post, some people don't look at how they did at other stops prior to this.

Can he be any worse than Herman? I liked Herman, but if Mess can come in and call a better game i'm up for it.

sadly he can, and that has we very worried about this...no Division 1 experience is troubling...plus he didn't do that good at his stops prior to ISU either.

A great hire, I'm sure this has previously been said. Coach Rhoads wouldn't do this if he wasn't 100% sure Mess could get it done. When I played Mess was always the QB's guy to talk to on the sideline when you weren't speaking with Herman on the phones. He is a very knowledgeable coach who has been around some good offenses. In the past years he had great influence on the pass game at Iowa State, this hire makes great sense because Bill Bleil (OL) does such a great job with teaching the run game upfront and also knows a great deal having been around great run offenses. I think what we saw the first 3 years of Herman's tenure is that the Spread offense cannot be executed and learned at a high level, overnight. This year was tough because of how young we were on offense and at times, inconsistent QB play. All in all, a good offense needs time to mature and with all the coaching changes at this university in the past 5-6 years, fans haven't had a chance to see an offense stick together for a long amount of time like other schools display. This is why I think that this offense will be similar in play calls, but however giving these young talented players that we have another year to familiarize themselves in a system that has won games, is essential!

I agreed until this part..our passing game has gotten worse since you were with McFarland so I don't buy this..you were in the program so I'll trust you a bit more than others.

I hate to say it, but I'm nervous. If this turns out great, feel free to quote this post and say I was just being a negative nancy.

Iowa State absolutely NEEDS to have improvement on offense the next few years. We have been scratching and clawing just to get 6 wins and we can't count on a huge upset every year. Yes, we have had a big win every year so far, but teams will start to figure us out. Noone is giong to overlook ISU anymore so we have to bring it and beat them head to head.

This hire will have a huge effect on the future of ISU football. CPR is not an offensive guy, so his OC HAS to know exactly what to do with the offense. On top of that, a school like ISU needs to have a really good gameplan/scheme, because we aren't going to "out talent" a lot of teams on our schedule.
If the offense get worse over the next few years ISU and CPR are screwed. We finally have some forward momentum as a program and setbacks are really going to hurt that.

I'm also worried about the QBs. We have a solid group of young QBs coming up in JB, Richardson, and Rohach. I would be much more comfortable with them having a QB coach who has successfully developed FBS talent.
Messingham seems like a good guy and a very good coach. He has held a lot of different positions in his career, but almost all of those were at a much lower level.

I trust CPR, don't get me wrong. I think he has a vision of where he wants to take the ISU program. He obviously has a lot of trust in Messingham and it's obvious that he gets allong with Mess WAY better than he got along with Herman. This just seems like a situation where CPR decided to value stability over actual coaching success and it's scary. It also makes me think that CPR took a shot at a couple coaches and was rejected. If Messingham was going to be the guy all along, why wait till now? Why not have him Co-OC with Herman for the bowl game?

A lot of people seem like they are happy that Messingham has Iowa roots. That's nice and all, but I don't personally subscribe to having to have most of our coaches be Iowa boys. The state of Iowa is NOT a good high school football state. It never has been and never will be. I think it is way more important to bring in coaches with connections to the football hotbeds like TX, , FL, CA... Look how much more exposure and success we are having in FL with the Burnham boys leading the way. I hope our new WR coach has some TX ties.

Others have touted that they like the fact that Messingham will be more likely to stick around. Personally, I would rather have someone who is so good that other schools want them. Upward mobility is usually a huge motivator for assistant coaches. We should want guys who's goals are to get a better job and get a promotion. Not guys who are content to just be the OC at ISU regardless. A lot of really good programs were built with assistant coaches that moved on. The key is to have them accomplish enough while they are here that the next hire is event better. Then finally, they end up staying at your program because it is the best job available, not because they have Iowa roots and just don't want to leave.

There's just a LOT riding on the shoulders of someone who's highest coaching achievements are coaching one really good TE with NFL talent and having the WRs show some improvement in his first year coaching them.

I don't know. I really hope this works out and hopefully Messingham is that perfect fit as an OC that CPR was as HC. We will certainly find out soon.

same concerns here, this feels like the Hoiberg hire...gonna be a great hire or a horrible one..time will tell

 

[LutherBlue]

I read lots of folks saying things about our game plan and play calling. However, I don't hear specifics. I think we mostly struggled executing on offense with a game plan that was pretty good, but there was only so much we could do against their linemen and LB speed, particularly with all their double blitzing.

So, give me some specifics:

1. What do you think our game plan was and what do you think it should have been? I'm assuming that you are concerned about offense, because we seemed pretty good on defense and special teams.

2. What plays should we have not called? Or what plays should we have called instead?

3. What adjustments would you have made? For instance, do you think that putting Jantz in was part of the game plan if Barnett struggled?

While there may be issues at the game plan level and I have thought about my own answers to these questions, I have also concluded that our gameplan was good enough to win if we executed better on the big plays.

For instance, if Reynolds turns out instead of in on the second pass to him in the endzone, it is a TD. If he makes the easy catch across the middle and breaks a tackle for a few yards, we don't go 3-and-out when we were within 7 and had the momentum in the middle of the 4th quarter. If Reeves had timed his jump a little better (or if Rutgers had thrown more of a straight ball rather than one that arced so high), that could have been an interception or a knock down rather than a TD. Coleman didn't outjump or outreach him, but caught it almost flat-footed just above his waist (and it should be noted that we broke up this same play twice, including once near the endzone). If we didn't hold on West's kickoff return (as if he needs a hold to pop free), we might have had the lead at halftime.

When you combine what we did against a well-designed defensive game plan by Rutgers with what we didn't do in terms of offensive execution, I think you can see the margin of defeat. I left the game feeling like we didn't play our best and guys like Woody said so in interviews. However, we were still in the game at the midpoint of the 4th quarter and we were just a few big plays away from the win, regardless of what you think of the game plan and play calling.

So, armchair coaches, don't just complain, tell us what you would have done differently.

I appreciate the points you're making and admit I don't know enough about football to tell you what plays should have been called in what circumstances (apart from the obvious screen pass against the blitz).

But when you pinpoint the plays you did ... I'm not into playing the "what if" game. You can't expect your guys to make every play. The other team is going to make some plays too and get some breaks. When you start a 5-7 corner, he is going to take his lumps no matter how hard and smart he plays. That's football and I don't think you can throw out the 5 or so biggest plays of the game and say "see, we were right there." There are very few games that don't turn on just a handful of plays.

 

[mt85]

Yes, the point is about the offense. This is a thread about the offensive coordinator hire, and your post was a response to someone who was concerned about hiring a OC from withn a program that has been struggling badly on offense for the past three years.

Your point seems to be that it takes 5 years to get the right talent in a system for it to be successful, and then you gave Gary Pinkel as example. Pinkel's offense made significant strides and became in successful year 2, and thus MU does not appear to be a very good example to support your claim that it takes 5 years for a system to become successful.

It is a suitable illustration. I can't help that you're not capable of understanding it.