Oregon-angle Fiesta Bowl Analysis

[Cyvilian]

Didn't see this anywhere else...

SB Nation Duck Tape

One comment, he talks about how ISU had fewer deep passes/long plays as Oregon...well, we didn't need to do that.

 

[intrepid27]

Too lazy to look it up but weren't our points of turnovers minimal? I was thinking 3 or 7.

 

[JM4CY]

It’s guys like this that make me smile and glad people are still mindf*cked by Heacocks defense. He doesn’t understand how we wanted the game to go that way and probably thinks they beat us if we played them again which is doubtful at best.

 

[glenn_thegreat]

Too lazy to look it up but weren't our points of turnovers minimal? I was thinking 3 or 7.

10

 

[CycloneDaddy]

Here is the analysis for that game, ISU kicked their ass!

 

[JM4CY]

Here is the analysis for that game, ISU kicked their ass!

I believe Campbell said.... we “beat the **** out of Oregon”

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

That analysis is...something. Iowa State did EXACTLY what they wanted to do. We never really even had a reason to try to stretch the field. Outside of their first two possessions we absolutely dominated both sides of the ball. That was a vintage Jon Heacock game as far as adjustments go.

 

[madguy30]

Long deep passes aren't a strength for ISU so I'm glad they didn't go that way in the game.

Playing football the old methodical way still works when it's done well and with exception to much of the 3rd quarter ISU was really good with it.

 

[CascadeClone]

Long deep passes aren't a strength for ISU so I'm glad they didn't go that way in the game.

Playing football the old methodical way still works when it's done well and with exception to much of the 3rd quarter ISU was really good with it.

True, and this is of course what CMC likes best anyway. AND it helps our defense rest, and wears out the opponent defense, making it easier to move the ball later in the game too.

I would say though, you do have to have the ability for explosiveness - sometimes you don't have the time to run the ball 8 times on a drive. That doesn't mean you have to go over the top for 70 yards though. ISU had a few drives this year where it was Breece for 20, TE reception for 20, Breece to the end zone, and it took about 60 seconds. That's pretty damn explosive too.

 

[madguy30]

True, and this is of course what CMC likes best anyway. AND it helps our defense rest, and wears out the opponent defense, making it easier to move the ball later in the game too.

I would say though, you do have to have the ability for explosiveness - sometimes you don't have the time to run the ball 8 times on a drive. That doesn't mean you have to go over the top for 70 yards though. ISU had a few drives this year where it was Breece for 20, TE reception for 20, Breece to the end zone, and it took about 60 seconds. That's pretty damn explosive too.

Yeah and there were a few explosive plays here and there vs. Oregon in that context. Hutchinson had one for 20-30 iirc. It's done in a way though that doesn't make it into a track meet.

 

[BCClone]

Yeah and there were a few explosive plays here and there vs. Oregon in that context. Hutchinson had one for 20-30 iirc. It's done in a way though that doesn't make it into a track meet.

Have to do it just often enough, which is what we did, to keep the safeties honest and not have them flying up the whole time. Gives Breece a little more space and alleys to hit.

 

[keepngoal]

Yeah and there were a few explosive plays here and there vs. Oregon in that context. Hutchinson had one for 20-30 iirc. It's done in a way though that doesn't make it into a track meet.

Its this. And how you define a big or explosive play.

 

[mj4cy]

I think the guy is pretty knowledgeable and he's right. Oregon did look pretty even with us minus the turnovers. However, we knew our game plan just had to be run and manage the clock once we took advantage of turnovers. Had it been tied, I think you would have seen ISU take more chances.

 

[acoustimac]

Reading that was painful. Lots of analysis with one consistent bias - there was always an "excuse" why Oregon screwed up or ISU did well. Shows a clear non-understanding of what ISU does and that they did it very well. Ball control baby...ball control.

 

[CyCloned]

I think the guy is pretty knowledgeable and he's right. Oregon did look pretty even with us minus the turnovers. However, we knew our game plan just had to be run and manage the clock once we took advantage of turnovers. Had it been tied, I think you would have seen ISU take more chances.

Yes, it was a very boring game to watch, but part of that is on Oregon for turning the ball over so much. There was no reason for ISU to take any chances, period. Now if Oregon would have taken the ball after half and marched down the field to score, than ISU might have been more aggressive.

In general they did a pretty good job of stopping the running game in the second half by loading up the box. It would have been a lot more fun for fans like me to see them take a few shots down the field, but CMC is not as fond of blowing other teams out as me. Go figure.

I would also add that Oregon only handled the 3 man rush by holding like crazy. Bailey and McDonand were in headlocks all night with only one call I think. Even on the sacks they got they were being held for several seconds.

 

[AuH2O]

Yes, it was a very boring game to watch, but part of that is on Oregon for turning the ball over so much. There was no reason for ISU to take any chances, period. Now if Oregon would have taken the ball after half and marched down the field to score, than ISU might have been more aggressive.

In general they did a pretty good job of stopping the running game in the second half by loading up the box. It would have been a lot more fun for fans like me to see them take a few shots down the field, but CMC is not as fond of blowing other teams out as me. Go figure.

I would also add that Oregon only handled the 3 man rush by holding like crazy. Bailey and McDonand were in headlocks all night with only one call I think. Even on the sacks they got they were being held for several seconds.

I'm starting to wonder if there is some sort of officiating emphasis on not calling holding any more. It seems like every college game I watched this year edge guys were getting held like crazy, even "outside the framework" and it was hardly ever called. It didn't matter what team. It was like there might be one or two token holding calls.

Probably just yet another step to make football appeal to dumb fans that want to see this glorified 7 on 7 with a combined 90 points.

 

[clonehoodie]

I'm sure we attracted a lot of recruits with our high-powered offense.

 

[VeloClone]

Here is the analysis for that game, ISU kicked their ass!

Thank you, Coach Orr.

 

[inCyteful]

What an opening line:

"Oregon was 0-5 on turnovers, otherwise we played fine."

You know it is a worthless analysis at this point. Similar to "We went 1-10 this year but other than that it was a pretty good football team.

A good football team makes it a game losing that many turnovers and a big reason for those turnovers was the physical difference between ISU and Oregon.

 

[motorcy90]

What an opening line:

"Oregon was 0-5 on turnovers, otherwise we played fine."

You know it is a worthless analysis at this point. Similar to "We went 1-10 this year but other than that it was a pretty good football team.

A good football team makes it a game losing that many turnovers and a big reason for those turnovers was the physical difference between ISU and Oregon.

yeah we were 0-3 vs OU and it was still a 1 score game.