Game Thoughts: UNI

[HouClone]

Dekkers was a mental midget. I doubt the game plan last


Dekkers was a mental midget that really cost Manning his job along with the ineptitude of the Oline. Dekkers stopped his progressions when he locked on X. He wasn’t capable of hitting a tightend consistently.

I’m of the opinion that if the Oline would have progressed over the years Manning would still be here. Was he a terrible coordinator? No but he wasn’t a great one. But Dekkers inability to grasp things probably forced a simplified game plan out of Manning.

I’m not a Manning fan so don’t come at me like I am

Cincinnati, with Tom Manning as offensive coordinator, scored 66 points yesterday.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Clanton is going to need a couple of seasons to go out and get his type of players, right now he is working with what he was dealt by the former coach. The guy has done a great job of finding talent that was overlooked by bigger schools and placed two of them in the NFL as fairly high draft picks. Until he shows us, he cannot turn it around I have confidence in him, if he is not successful, then no one can develop a line at ISU.

 

[CyGuy5]

Cincinnati, with Tom Manning as offensive coordinator, scored 66 points yesterday.

Tom Manning is not their OC

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

FSU just ran a play I wish ISU would run sometimes. They have been throwing a lot of WR screens like we do, but on this play, the wr that was the blocker went down the field, broke down like to stock block the Dback, and then kicked it in gear and was wide open for a TD. Stops the DB's from flying up to make the tackle and puts the WR catching the ball one on one with a DB.

 

[HouClone]

Tom Manning is not their OC

Oops. Yeah, he is at Indy again. Took the Cincy OC job for month.

 

[dafarmer]

We also don’t have a tall wide receiver like FSU.

 

[NetflixAndClone]

We also don’t have a tall wide receiver like FSU.

Higgins? I would assume 6’4+ is considered taller for a wr. FSU has a monster at 6’7 but here that would probably be a TE.

 

[cyclone1209]

Propaganda.

How? Cartevious Norton averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Abu Sama averaged over 6 yards a carry. We had 130 yards rushing.

I'm not saying we are an elite rushing squad, but this is big improvement over last year already. Oh and by the way, the first play of the game was a 10 yard rush called back because of a hold, could have easily been a non call.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

We also don’t have a tall wide receiver like FSU.

The play wasn't about the receivers, it was the scheme. The guy faked like he was going to stock block the Dback, and instead turned up field and was wide open. The Dback came up and ran right by the guy figuring he would get in on the tackle, instead he gave up an easy TD.
Pump fake the screen and then throw the ball deep, you have to do this to keep the safety from coming up to help, allowing the WR when you throw the screen to get one on one with the corner.

 

[HouClone]

I watched the 1st half again and focused on the lines. Holy moly, Onyedim and Orange were beasts. On offense, our left tackle, Neal, lost nearly ever battle and badly whiffed on one causing Rocco to bail right away.

 

[bosco]

How? Cartevious Norton averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Abu Sama averaged over 6 yards a carry. We had 130 yards rushing.

I'm not saying we are an elite rushing squad, but this is big improvement over last year already. Oh and by the way, the first play of the game was a 10 yard rush called back because of a hold, could have easily been a non call.

It's all talk until I see real improvement.

 

[singsing]

For those watching the game at home, what happened there on the late hit/roughing the passer call that occurred in the 3rd quarter to extend a UNI drive. They only showed one replay on the board.

To me it looked like the ISU player hit the QB right as the ball was leaving his hand, he did not hit him anywhere near his head, so why make the call?

It's been discussed and pretty much everyone in agreement that was bs.

 

[singsing]

We aren't good enough to be throwing downs away like that. Or timeouts. Which is why we should can the WR screens (they have been low yield plays since CMC got here) and the "we're going for it" ******** that results in us wasting a timeout.

On the latter, I think that's worked ONCE that I can recall, but the dozen plus other times it's simply resulted in us wasting a time out. Several of those times that TO proved to be useful later in the game.

If something hasn't worked, isn't working, and isn't likely to ever work I wish they'd just quit doing it.

Glad I'm not the only one that hates that play when we do it. Throw it to a receiver 3 yards behind the line and hope he makes it back to the LOS. Wasted down every time. Get Noel into crossing routes, or other short routes. Hope we start seeing more misdirection too. ISU's offense has been easy to read for years now.

 

[isutrevman]

The play wasn't about the receivers, it was the scheme. The guy faked like he was going to stock block the Dback, and instead turned up field and was wide open. The Dback came up and ran right by the guy figuring he would get in on the tackle, instead he gave up an easy TD.
Pump fake the screen and then throw the ball deep, you have to do this to keep the safety from coming up to help, allowing the WR when you throw the screen to get one on one with the corner.

We've run that play before, or something similar. I believe Kolar scored on it his senior year. I think we did it with Milton too against Louisiana Monroe.

 

[TClone99]

How? Cartevious Norton averaged 4.5 yards per carry. Abu Sama averaged over 6 yards a carry. We had 130 yards rushing.

I'm not saying we are an elite rushing squad, but this is big improvement over last year already. Oh and by the way, the first play of the game was a 10 yard rush called back because of a hold, could have easily been a non call.

It can’t be said enough, ISU ran 45(!!) plays. You just can’t read much into the totals from this game.

 

[Pope]

It can’t be said enough, ISU ran 45(!!) plays. You just can’t read much into the totals from this game.

This x 100. We had only 45 plays compared to 72 for UNI. This was because

• we kicked off 3 times in the 1st quarter (due to our pick 6 and a quick drive after our big punt return)
• we passed only the 18 times for the game
• UNI was able to sustain some drives against our 2's and 3's on defense

Nevertheless , we averaged 5.6 yards per play vs 3.9 for UNI, and that's despite us playing 35 different guys on defense.

Not saying our offense was great, but I am saying the sample size of plays is too small to make any huge judgements this soon.

No doubt they're gonna have a huge task trying to move the ball against Iowa's defense next week. Let's hope they're ready for the challenge.

 

[SCarolinaCy]

I had to "watch" the game this morning. Watched the first 3 quarters, which seems more pertinent anyway given the dynamics at that point and the lead we had. On the overall I was extremely pleased with what I saw save for the OL. That (sadly) continues to be a work in progress.

GOOD

- Rocco was great. Juuussssttttt missed on a couple of deep throws but they were accurate (in line with the route...not off "line"), just a tad overthrown. Very quick release and he definitely sees the field (as he sould) much better than JJ. At this point Rocco needs to be the clear cut starter and get the reps. JJ needs another year of seasoning (the freshman "lock on" was apparent on several snaps). I think I feel better about QB than I did before the game.

- The defense was outstanding. I think we are better up the middle than we were last year....which is needed since we don't have the edge rushers we had. Both Orange and Onyedim showed some big flashes.

- The secondary showed it was every bit as good as I thought it was. Coverage was outstanding. Guys made plays all over the field and almost every completion was only a few inches out of hand's reach. This group will do great things all year long.

- Heacock DEFINITELY showed he wants, and is willing, to put guys in position to make more plays. Yesterday's game was EXACTLY what myself and some others were clamoring for. Okay, your defense is good and isn't "the problem" but we don't attempt to nearly make enough plays. We wanted to see more calculated risks given down and yardage situations and he delivered. More blitzes...more front variations....and not just at half but from the start. Big shoutout to coach Heacock here.

- Our LB situation is so much better than it was a year ago. I saw the freshman fall for some misdirection and get caught out of position a few times but man, we are so much more athletic here. Given it was their first game I thought they played very well. With the LBs and the tackeles we are SO MUCH STRONGER up the middle defensively, in my opinion.

- RB room is stocked. Not sure how many holes they'll have this year to show it. More on that later.

- Nate was a 50-50 bag for me, on the play calling and design, but I want to give the shout outs here. One is he seems much more open to the idea of play action, and it was shown (with effectiveness) throughout the game. We also ran the QB sneak in a situation where we would have snapped it 5 yards into the backfield and took a 2 yard loss on 4th and short. I also thought Nate didn't call quite as many plays the team couldnt' block for. That was a plus.

- Sorry it's so far down but SPECIAL TEAMS WERE GREAT!!! nOT sure what that extra point botch was about but given the rest: a 56 yard FG bomb, deep kicks, great punts/coverage, great returns. Couldn't have asked for much more, after all we are Iowa State.

BAD

- Alright CMC, I'm going to hit you real hard right off the bat here...STOP WASTING ******* TIMEOUTS WITH THE WE "MIGHT GO FOR IT" ********. Want to go for it, that's fine, do it. Want to kick it, that's fine, do it. But wasting numerous timeouts, and timeouts that have often come back to bite us, when he CLEARLY has no intention of going for it, needs to stop. Off hand I'd have to guess we did this at LEAST 5-6 times last year. I'm sure I'm not the only one that was pissed when they saw that play.

- The offensive line did not look good. They didn't fire off the ball very well and struggled to control the line of scrimmage. I think most would agree this was the biggest negative of the game and doesn't bod well for the offense. It's just "one game" but it wasn't a good one. Clanton has his work cut out for him.

- I wasn't super impressed with Nate sticking with the WR screens (that **** has got to go...we don't have the athleticism or physical dominance outside for those to consitently work) or the receiver trees. Other than Dean releasing down the seam we did little to attack the middle of the field. We ran the receiver screens and targeted the outside of the field. We challenged deep (a plus). At some point we are going to need more crosses, slants, and quick hits over the middle, especially if the o-line is as "good" as it looks. I also think we could use more misdirection. It's a different league, but Getsy with the Bears made a very untalented offense look competent with play design. I think Nate will have to do similar things here.

- Penalties. Too many sloppy and ill-timed penalties. It was the first game of the season so hopefully we clean things up. The roughing call in the 3rd quarter was a terrible call and should be stricken from the record.

Final Thoughts

With where this team was/is, I thought it was pretty close to a best case outcome. Rocco looked great, STs had one of their best overall games in recent memory, and the defense looked outstanding. By far the most concerning thing was the play of the offensive line. If we want to keep Rocco upright and effective Nate will need to evolve the offense a bit more with misdirection, route trees, etc.

It was nice to have this game finally look like an FBS vs an FCS opponent but Iowa should provide a much stiffer test. With that said I feel much better about the season that I did going into the game.

These WR screens are ONLY for an elite QB. It is too easy for the young QB to have in his mind to hurry the throw, without looking and assessing the D. An easy INT or the unintended backward pass (as we saw yesterday) has bobble/pick 6 written all over it.

 

[madguy30]

We've run that play before, or something similar. I believe Kolar scored on it his senior year. I think we did it with Milton too against Louisiana Monroe.

I'm trying to visualize the general make up of the play and it seems like a running game would need to be established for all moving parts.

 

[Cloneon]

We aren't good enough to be throwing downs away like that. Or timeouts. Which is why we should can the WR screens (they have been low yield plays since CMC got here) and the "we're going for it" ******** that results in us wasting a timeout.

On the latter, I think that's worked ONCE that I can recall, but the dozen plus other times it's simply resulted in us wasting a time out. Several of those times that TO proved to be useful later in the game.

If something hasn't worked, isn't working, and isn't likely to ever work I wish they'd just quit doing it.

The one JJ threw which was anticipated was too far out for it to succeed with his throwing mechanics. BUT, I noticed it's only one upfield blocker pump fake and continued route to a touchdown for a big play. After looking it again, it would've totally worked as the upfield blocker was engaged at the perfect time for him to fake block and run a sideline route. We did that a couple of times last year with great success.

 

[RagingCloner]

This x 100. We had only 45 plays compared to 72 for UNI. This was because

• we kicked off 3 times in the 1st quarter (due to our pick 6 and a quick drive after our big punt return)
• we passed only the 18 times for the game
• UNI was able to sustain some drives against our 2's and 3's on defense

Nevertheless , we averaged 5.6 yards per play vs 3.9 for UNI, and that's despite us playing 35 different guys on defense.

Not saying our offense was great, but I am saying the sample size of plays is too small to make any huge judgements this soon.

No doubt they're gonna have a huge task trying to move the ball against Iowa's defense next week. Let's hope they're ready for the challenge.

At first glance, it won’t be as much of a challenge as we think. We moved the ball against them last year, and the Iowa defense did not get better over the offseason. They allowed 329 yards to Utah state. Mistake free football gives us a great shot to continue the streak in Ames