Steele Jantz

[Cloned4Life]

2 plays that could have changed this game bigtime.

1. Shontrelle's fumble that wasn't a fumble. And again, his knee was down. If we score there, the whole half changes.
2. Brun dropping the touchdown. I can't believe this isn't talked about more. It was actually a pretty good pass under pressure by Steele. And Brun biffs it. Wasn't an easy catch, but he has to get that one. And then he b!tches about the ball placement as he runs back to the sideline. That ticked me off a lot. Shut up and catch it.

Steele played awesome, then played ok, then sprinkled in some Steele dumbness. Although I have to say, his redzone INT was the first redzone passing bone-heading decision that he's had in 2 years. He's usually more carefully passing that close to the goal line. Maybe trying to be hero, who knows.

 

[bozclone]

The only real issue I had on Saturday with Jantz was the throw in the endzone late in the game. It was a bad throw in a critical spot. But I wouldn't have been happy if he threw it out of the back of the endzone either. A touchdown in that spot seals the victory. I thought we really put Jantz in a bad spot on 3rd down when we ran on first and second down with no success. It became an obvious passing situation.

The game should not have even been a game at the point if we had made plays ealier in the game. The pass to Bruns in the endzone was perfect, but not caught. If Shontelle Johnson doesn't fumble, we likely score there. The fumbled handoff which may be Jantz's fault or White's fault also cost us a score. The point is 9 points will not win many games, but it won this one and the lack of scoring was not solely Jantz's fault. I thought overall, he played much better than last year.

 

[Cycl1]

I was watching the packers play last night, Aaron Rogers threw it right to an opposing player. Interceptions happen. Steele will learn and get better.

 

[The_Architect]

2 plays that could have changed this game bigtime.

1. Shontrelle's fumble that wasn't a fumble. And again, his knee was down. If we score there, the whole half changes.
2. Brun dropping the touchdown. I can't believe this isn't talked about more. It was actually a pretty good pass under pressure by Steele. And Brun biffs it. Wasn't an easy catch, but he has to get that one. And then he b!tches about the ball placement as he runs back to the sideline. That ticked me off a lot. Shut up and catch it.

Steele played awesome, then played ok, then sprinkled in some Steele dumbness. Although I have to say, his redzone INT was the first redzone passing bone-heading decision that he's had in 2 years. He's usually more carefully passing that close to the goal line. Maybe trying to be hero, who knows.

Yeah I have no idea why Brun was complaining about that pass, it was right in his hands. Nothing wrong with the throw at all.

 

[cymaniac17]

I was watching the packers play last night, Aaron Rogers threw it right to an opposing player. Interceptions happen. Steele will learn and get better.

Lies. Only steele does that crap.

 

[Clonefan94]

Lies. Only steele does that crap.

It's not that only Steele does it, it's the fact that every time he goes back to pass, you wonder if he is going to do it. I agree, bad passes are going to happen. I've been saying for years that NFL receivers are the ones who make most NFL quarterbacks look so accurate. But to say Steele isn't becoming known for bonehead INTs and just turnovers in general, is burying your head in the sand a bit.

I like the guy, Ok, he's our starter, but quite honestly, the INT's he had against Iowa, he should have learned already, from doing it so many times last year, not to make that throw.

 

[VeloClone]

encouraging we had open receivers deep in this game, don't recall that being the case much last year.

Yeah OL was great in pass and poor in run which was to be expected this year.

Don't you guys think these two might be related? If a D (Iowa, for example) is selling out to defend the zone read, it gives receivers more one on one coverage. That is why the zone read wasn't working but the long ball was open. ISU just needs to make some of those plays. Sometimes a play (many of the zone reads today, for example) isn't effective because of what it yields you, but rather because of what it sets up for you later. By not abandoning the zone read, Mess was keeping the D in the box which gave ISU those long ball opportunities. Frankly the O should have capitalized on at least one of them and put this game away. I think if Horne wouldn't have given up on the one it could have been first and goal. I didn't like the announcers, but they were right on that one; sometimes you have to leave your feet, son.

Oh, and don't forget that ISU had one of those where the defender was out of position and chose to tackle the receiver and take the 15 yard penalty rather than give up a likely long reception and possible score. That is a situation where I like the NFL rule more. When it is blatant like that it should be a spot foul, not a 15 yarder. Of course then it is just another judgement call...

 

[WalkingCY]

From what I saw out of the game against iowa was a very poised QB come out of the gate and lead us to a TD. We all felt pretty good out of his performace at that time and our chances in the game no doubt. The red zone TO's we really awful. I think a lot had to do with Woody being out too... I think we have really prepared for thos situations with a running attack.... but since he is hurt, we changed in the red zone. Steele just simply has to get smarter in those situations....(Last year we lost because of those mistakes HE caused....he should be counting his blessings that he has all week to correct that behavior and learn from the Iowa game, because we did find a way to win.) I didn't have a problem with him outside of the 20 though....made some nice decisions with his feet and lead us down the field..... but you HAVE to finish drives in the Big 12. We had iowa out of the game IMO if we put those in the endzone w/out TO's...I mean it would have been a blow out.

 

[VeloClone]

BTW, as far as this thread goes, I am not sold that Jantz has his propensity to make poor decisions taken care of. I agree with another poster after the Tulsa game that one game was not a big enough sample to say that the problem was behind him. To be clear, I don't expect perfection. But he still has his warts.

That being said, he is our starting QB and I think it is a little bit ridiculous to jump him after one good performance and one mixed performance. I still like that his completion percentage is up; I still like that he isn't taking the sack. If he can be a little more careful with the ball (passing and running both) then I think he will have set himself apart.

He's the starting QB, let's give him a chance. Nothing good will come of having QB's who are always looking over their shoulder for the hook.

 

[CRAZYGREG]

Barnett is not that much better of an option. My problem is that everyone on here defending SJ keep saying that he is still learning and that he will get better. When? He is a senior and we are counting on him THIS year. There is no time for him to take his lumps and learn as he goes. If we are willing to accept a QB that is still learning then why not go with one of the young guys? Steele is gone after this year period! No time for learning on the job

 

[FootballinTexas]

BTW, as far as this thread goes, I am not sold that Jantz has his propensity to make poor decisions taken care of. I agree with another poster after the Tulsa game that one game was not a big enough sample to say that the problem was behind him. To be clear, I don't expect perfection. But he still has his warts.

That being said, he is our starting QB and I think it is a little bit ridiculous to jump him after one good performance and one mixed performance. I still like that his completion percentage is up; I still like that he isn't taking the sack. If he can be a little more careful with the ball (passing and running both) then I think he will have set himself apart.

He's the starting QB, let's give him a chance. Nothing good will come of having QB's who are always looking over their shoulder for the hook.

I agree with the first bolded statement. I disagree with the second bolded statement. Yes, he is on pace to have bigger passing numbers, higher completion percentage, and more wins than last year. However, he is also on target for touchdowns/Int (3 and 3) and sacks (4).

But, I will continue to say, we have to run the football better. When you look at our history and the games we have played well in, we ran the ball at a high level. That's consistent across our conference. For example, WVU, even with Geno's gaudy numbers 2 weeks ago, they are averaging 9.5 ypc and 4 TD's. OU (7.1 ypc and 9 TD's), OSU (8 ypc, 10 TD's), BU (7 ypc, 2 TD's), UT (5.5 ypc, 7 TD's), TT (5.3 ypc, 3 TD's), KSU (6.1 ypc, 10 TD's), KU (5.5 ypc, 5 TD's).....ISU (3 ypc, 3 TD's) OU and KU are the only conference teams that have QB completion % less than 70% (Landry Jones 63% and Dayne Crist 53%). BTW, Steele has looked great at times but we are still last in the conference in passing efficiency, scoring offense, rushing offense, and 9th in total offense (we are 12 yards ahead of KU).

Now, Steele (individually) has very good passing numbers. He has done what everyone wanted to see from the QB except for run game success to quote CPR, "either on designed runs or broken plays". But it's a team sport people. As my grandpa always told me, "you can't rob Peter to pay Paul." If we take away from the zone-read, the staple of "our" spread offense, and try to pass our way into Big 12 wins, we will be in trouble. Even with JB's 378 passing yards against OSU we still rushed for almost 200 yards. KU win we rushed for 251, TT win we rushed for 368, the KSU game we almost won we rushed for 215. All of the pieces have to work in sync for us to be successfull in this conference. The teams are so much better than what we will see in these first 3 games.

 

[VeloClone]

FBinTx - I should have been clearer. I am glad that he didn't hold the ball and take a sack this week. It was an identified problem last week (by CPR) and he (along with the O-Line!) cleaned it up.

Running game is crucial; I agree. Making them pay for stacking the box would go a long way toward opening up some running lanes. It didn't seem ISU could make those plays when they were there. Just one of those would have put the insurance run on the board as well.

 

[FootballinTexas]

FBinTx - I should have been clearer. I am glad that he didn't hold the ball and take a sack this week. It was an identified problem last week (by CPR) and he (along with the O-Line!) cleaned it up.

Running game is crucial; I agree. Making them pay for stacking the box would go a long way toward opening up some running lanes. It didn't seem ISU could make those plays when they were there. Just one of those would have put the insurance run on the board as well.

You're right on point.

 

[IcSyU]

Our running game was pathetic, but some of that also comes back to the play calling. If you know they're bringing 8 or 9 like they did inside the 10, you can't be wasting time doing something that develops slowly like the zone read or a counter.

As soon as the quarterback touches the ball they need to know where it needs to go. The zone read doesn't allow for that which gives the defensive guys who are unblocked just a little bit more time to blow stuff up. Even something like a quick option or rolling the pocket to the wide side would have been an improvement. Keeping the ball between the tackles when you're outnumbered is tough, especially inside the 10 where every defensive player is within 10 yards of the LOS.

The only problem with stretching the field is that we have running backs who run backwards 3 yards to train and outrun defenders and end up losing said 3 yards.

 

[AdamJGray]

Poor play calling and poor run blocking.

The poor run blocking is to be expected. We lost 2 NFL caliber guys that were great run blockers that could pave the way. We replaced them with guys who are very good pass blockers and probably a bit more athletic but they don't pave the way for the running game.

We will have to adjust and I have full faith that the staff will adjust. We have a great/smart staff.

 

[BigBake]

I'm not calling for the benching of Steele. But I also think its a ridiculous statement to say he played well.

He had a very bad game. You can't ignore the picks, fumble or missing nearly all deep throws.

Steele has to improve greatly if we want to get to a bowl game.

 

[FootballinTexas]

Our running game was pathetic, but some of that also comes back to the play calling. If you know they're bringing 8 or 9 like they did inside the 10, you can't be wasting time doing something that develops slowly like the zone read or a counter.

As soon as the quarterback touches the ball they need to know where it needs to go. The zone read doesn't allow for that which gives the defensive guys who are unblocked just a little bit more time to blow stuff up. Even something like a quick option or rolling the pocket to the wide side would have been an improvement. Keeping the ball between the tackles when you're outnumbered is tough, especially inside the 10 where every defensive player is within 10 yards of the LOS.

The only problem with stretching the field is that we have running backs who run backwards 3 yards to train and outrun defenders and end up losing said 3 yards.

From what I could tell Steele has the option to check out of every play. He did that several times. For instance, one the drives we were inside of the 15 and he checked Jarvis to slant route that he almost scored on. Against Tulsa, we were getting a lot of soft coverage (cover 3 and 4) by the CB's and he threw checks. That's why we he threw so many screens. You could tell by the play-action fakes to the RB. This week, we didn't get that soft coverage (cover 2), so not as many screens. We threw more to the middle of the field because that's where you attack a cover 2. The problem was our inability to connect on those deep throws (either high risk high reward or high risk no reward) and the lack of run game. Also, you can run zone read inside the 10. If you are spread out and they put 8-10 in the box, someone has to be wide open. However, that's not the case. The box just looks congested because the field is compressed. It's execution.

 

[Clones21]

I'm not calling for the benching of Steele. But I also think its a ridiculous statement to say he played well.

He had a very bad game. You can't ignore the picks, fumble or missing nearly all deep throws.

Steele has to improve greatly if we want to get to a bowl game.

Steele played GREAT in the first half. He forced a couple throws, but hey who doesn't? Get over it. This team will easily be going bowling this year.

 

[FootballinTexas]

Poor play calling and poor run blocking.

The poor run blocking is to be expected. We lost 2 NFL caliber guys that were great run blockers that could pave the way. We replaced them with guys who are very good pass blockers and probably a bit more athletic but they don't pave the way for the running game.

We will have to adjust and I have full faith that the staff will adjust. We have a great/smart staff.

We ran for 160 the week before. What changed in the OL?

 

[Al_4_State]

Steele's biggest issue right now besides the horrible turnovers is he only looks at one receiver. He is obviously deciding who he is throwing to ahead of time and if that guy isn't open he gets uncomfortable in the pocket.

Are you serious?

He has made a TON of check downs to non-primary receivers this year, and its been a good thing.