Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Jantz named the starter

You guys realize Barnett more than likely would have been pretty bad his first year on campus too right? Blows my mind how much people here don't realize how important knowing the offense and having a chemistry with your receivers means in college football. And no, you don't just have that in less than a year at this level.. thats also a big reason why its great to RS every player you can, even if they already have the size to play right away.
 
The primary goal of the offense is to move the ball and score points. Pretty obvious Jantz puts the offense in a better position to do that. Paul is playing to win as opposed to trying not to lose. Danny Mac played by trying not to lose its time to turn the corner and show we won the game the other team did not lose the game.

Great move by CPR here. Very excited for the season. Talk turnovers all you want you negitive nancies but SJ is a very dangerious weapon in the backfield just as SW was back in the early 2000's.
 
He looked terrible against UNI, pulled it out in the end, he looked terrible against Texas, anyone else remember that game, he looked terrible against UCONN before the ankle, He looked terrible at Mizzou, I guess I never saw him look really good minus the end of the UNI game and Iowa games. I will support him 100%, but this ankle talk is overrated in my opinion. Steele has a tendency to turn it over (so does JB) but with Steele it seems like they come in bunches and they come early in the game (see Texas and UCONN), and they put us in a hole that may or may not have been there with a more steady approach, I hope that is a thing of the past.
 
Let's Go State said:
I think we will see a lot of Barnett on the field.
Click to expand...

In what capacity? On the sidelines of the field?

Or, are you saying that Jantz will be yanked? I hope they give the kid some leash, simplify the decision-making process (anyone remember Bret Meyer only being allowed to throw to 1/3 of the field on any given play? I'm not advocating anything that drastic), and maximize his ability.
 
RustShack said:
You guys realize Barnett more than likely would have been pretty bad his first year on campus too right? Blows my mind how much people here don't realize how important knowing the offense and having a chemistry with your receivers means in college football. And no, you don't just have that in less than a year at this level.. thats also a big reason why its great to RS every player you can, even if they already have the size to play right away.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Barnett probably knew the system better. He wasn't getting the reps Steele was, though, until Tiller was gone. It's not like he was running with the runs all the time. Essentially, they were in similar places. Quit making excuses for Jantz without allowing the same excuses to be made for Barnett.
 
jbhtexas said:
You can afford some errant passes if you are going to rush for nearly 90/ypg in conference...

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Rushing[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]CI[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[TD]Att[/TD]
[TD]Yds[/TD]
[TD]Avg[/TD]
[TD]TD[/TD]
[TD]Long[/TD]
[TD]Yds/G[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011[/TD]
[TD]Klein, Collin[/TD]
[TD]KSU[/TD]
[TD]JR[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]227[/TD]
[TD]789[/TD]
[TD]3.5[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]87.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...
Sweet maybe Mess will change the offense so its a run first offense. Steele needs to run more, no doubt about that.
 
You can't make the same excuse for Barnett, as he didn't his first season on campus. The playbook was the same for fourth string as it was first string.
 
klamath632 said:
Did he hurt his ankle before he threw 3 INTs in his first four attempts at UCONN, or after he threw 3 INTs in his first four attempts at UCONN?
Click to expand...

CyCloned said:
I think if you review that UConn game, you will see that one pass was picked because the WR ran a bad route and didn't adjust to the pass at all, one INT was stoned off the hands of a TE and right to a defender. Yes, he struggled in that game, but not all of the blame goes on him.

Jantz is just not near as effective when he can not use his feet. Hopefully he has learned to value the ball a little more and the receivers and him are more on the same page this year.
Click to expand...
 
jbhtexas said:
60% needs to be the bare minimum, regardless of who is QB. It really needs to be 65%+ for ISU to hit 7+ wins (unless ISU has developed a monster of a running game).

The challenge for SJ is that he has never hit 60% for a season as a college QB. Hopefully he is there now.
Click to expand...

Who was our last 65% passer?
 
klamath632 said:
Did he hurt his ankle before he threw 3 INTs in his first four attempts at UCONN, or after he threw 3 INTs in his first four attempts at UCONN?
Click to expand...

You pretty good at the quarterback position after only 3 starts ever at the D1 level?
 
RustShack said:
You can't make the same excuse for Barnett, as he didn't his first season on campus. The playbook was the same for fourth string as it was first string.
Click to expand...

The playbook excuse is getting old. He had 8 months to get a handle on that. The issue was execution and he didn't cut it for large periods of time. You talked about working with the receivers. Jantz worked with them much more than Barnett did for those 8 months. Remember, Barnett wasn't even really in the discussion until fall rolled around and even then we didn't really know he was a serious contender. I'm all for Steele but let's not act as if Barnett was a returning junior who had seen a bunch of time with the 1s. He wasn't. He hadn't played a down of college football.
 
Congrat to SJ - its his last year to play - hopefully he can make it a good one and end this debate for this year. I preferred JB just based on what he did in the Okie State Game to get that win - of course he made mistakes but he made a heck of a lot of plays that led his team to victory - the biggest victory in Cyclone Football history JB reminds me a lot of Austen Arnaud -it will be hard to keep him out of the starting line up in his final two years if he continues to lead like he did when he was in there last year. I also would not be surprised if he gets a shot again this year but I am rooting for SJ success, lots of wins and no more debate until spring camp.
 
Tre4ISU said:
The playbook excuse is getting old. He had 8 months to get a handle on that. The issue was execution and he didn't cut it for large periods of time. You talked about working with the receivers. Jantz worked with them much more than Barnett did for those 8 months. Remember, Barnett wasn't even really in the discussion until fall rolled around and even then we didn't really know he was a serious contender. I'm all for Steele but let's not act as if Barnett was a returning junior who had seen a bunch of time with the 1s. He wasn't. He hadn't played a down of college football.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People are making too many excuses for his bad play. He had his moments but overall it was not good.


I am actually surprised that he was benched at all last year because he threw more INTs in the wins than the losses. And lets face it, they weren't going to beat Baylor last year and winning at Missouri was a long shot. Texas was out for revenge and their defense is really good. Jantz would have most likely beat KU and Texas Tech. Im guessing it had a lot to do with Barnetts ability to run the zone read so well.
 
CycloneVet said:
He looked terrible against UNI, pulled it out in the end, he looked terrible against Texas, anyone else remember that game, he looked terrible against UCONN before the ankle, He looked terrible at Mizzou, I guess I never saw him look really good minus the end of the UNI game and Iowa games. I will support him 100%, but this ankle talk is overrated in my opinion. Steele has a tendency to turn it over (so does JB) but with Steele it seems like they come in bunches and they come early in the game (see Texas and UCONN), and they put us in a hole that may or may not have been there with a more steady approach, I hope that is a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

I will go ahead and add that he didn't show much of anything in the bowl game either. Count me as a skeptic of this move. Outside of the end of the UNI and iowa games, there aren't any bright spots in his resume from last year. JB may not have had the highest of highs that SJ did, but he didn't have the lowest of lows either. With what I'm expecting to be a solid defense and a deep stable of running backs, it seems to me like JB can manage the game and have us in a position to win in the 4th quarter. SJ has shown that he can have us heading back to our tailgates before the 1st quarter is even over. Hard to leverage a strong defense and a running attack when you are down 3 scores in the opening minutes.
 
A little surprised because I thought Barnett was better last year than SJ, other than the Iowa game where SJ was great. But SJ does have a cannon and probably a higher upside, here is to him having a great senior year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back