"Winning Cures Everything" Cyclone Preview

Meh, pretty lazy analysis. They are about where everyone else is.

Not sure what team they're looking at because we return more starters than they say we do. It's 8 on defense and 8 on offense, right? We lost Eaton, Butler and Montgomery on offense, and Harvey, Peavy and Payne on defense. Then they say they return five of their front seven on defense. We don't play a front seven on defense. Who are the two they think we lose from a "front seven?"
 
Not sure what team they're looking at because we return more starters than they say we do. It's 8 on defense and 8 on offense, right? We lost Eaton, Butler and Montgomery on offense, and Harvey, Peavy and Payne on defense. Then they say they return five of their front seven on defense. We don't play a front seven on defense. Who are the two they think we lose from a "front seven?"

I think that they probably saw 5 players returning and just made the assumption it was a 3-4 or 4-3. 3-3 is pretty uncommon. On offense, you could easily say that Seonbuchner was a starter. Depends on the formation.

I don't buy that the secondary was that much of a liability last year. There were times that teams threw the ball on us just because we weren't getting a huge rush with 3 guys or they were keeping everything in front of them and forcing teams to make a bunch of consecutive plays to drive the ball.
 
I think that they probably saw 5 players returning and just made the assumption it was a 3-4 or 4-3. 3-3 is pretty uncommon. On offense, you could easily say that Seonbuchner was a starter. Depends on the formation.

I don't buy that the secondary was that much of a liability last year. There were times that teams threw the ball on us just because we weren't getting a huge rush with 3 guys or they were keeping everything in front of them and forcing teams to make a bunch of consecutive plays to drive the ball.

One thing I didn't like about their analysis is start throwing out national rankings without context. "Oh - ISU has a passing defense that ranks in the bottom half of FCS - it MUST be a bad passing defense" without taking into consideration for a second that the Big 12 is an extremely pass-happy league and ISU held nearly every Big 12 opponent below its season average in passing. ISU had a very good pass defense last year that was never going to rank high nationally simply because of the play style of its opponents.
 
One thing I didn't like about their analysis is start throwing out national rankings without context. "Oh - ISU has a passing defense that ranks in the bottom half of FCS - it MUST be a bad passing defense" without taking into consideration for a second that the Big 12 is an extremely pass-happy league and ISU held nearly every Big 12 opponent below its season average in passing. ISU had a very good pass defense last year that was never going to rank high nationally simply because of the play style of its opponents.
Yep, lazy analysis.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman

Help Support Us

Become a patron