MESS named OC

[Omaha Cy]

Deep down, I was actually hoping for CM to be named the OC. Its a good day here on my end.

Also, he has been the head special teams coach who implemented alot of the "innovative fakes and surprise kicks" so I am anxious to see what tweeks he makes to the offense.

If this is true, then its very awesome. Herman was pretty lack luster when it came to running trick plays that actually worked. I actually expected as lot of innovation from Herman in the trickiness department, and the trick plays we got were not that tricky. :skeptical:

With that said, this offense might become real fun and exciting to watch with a much greater element of surprise.

 

[cyhiphopp]

The solution WAS in place... The dropped passes, the numerous over and under throws to WIDE open WRs, inopportune penalties... None of those were part of the gameplan but had we executed on even half (pulling that out of my butt) its a different game and we're in it or win it at the end. Gameplan for Rutgers was fine - our execution was pathetic. Thats players and thats coaching...

That effing holding call on the kickoff killed us. From my recollection it looked like a really ticky tack call that could be made on every kickoff as well which sucks.

Give us that TD back and with the way Jantz started rolling in the 4th quarter (right on schedule) and we would have had a ballgame on our hands. The big pass given up at the end sealed it unfortunately.

 

[Cycsk]

That effing holding call on the kickoff killed us. From my recollection it looked like a really ticky tack call that could be made on every kickoff as well which sucks.

Give us that TD back and with the way Jantz started rolling in the 4th quarter (right on schedule) and we would have had a ballgame on our hands. The big pass given up at the end sealed it unfortunately.

I couldn't see the hold at the game, but it was pretty blatant on the replay.

 

[Cycsk]

The solution WAS in place... The dropped passes, the numerous over and under throws to WIDE open WRs, inopportune penalties... None of those were part of the gameplan but had we executed on even half (pulling that out of my butt) its a different game and we're in it or win it at the end. Gameplan for Rutgers was fine - our execution was pathetic. Thats players and thats coaching...

I wouldn't say pathetic. And the Rutgers offensive gameplan had its issues, mostly because of our solid defense. Apart from a 4-yard drive and an 86 yard TD, our defense held them to 13 points. Thus, I once again say that their big plays made the difference (one on defense in the 2nd Q and one on offense in the 4th Q). Do nothing but take those two plays away and the score is 13-13.

 

[klamath632]

Someone asked earlier what we should have done differently.

Rutgers was blitzing inside gaps all days after the first two series. TH decided "awesome! Let's bring the slot right into the path of the stunt and hand off to him!" Predictably, this got buried in the backfield every time.

The Rutgers defensive ends were slanting in. You could see the couple of times we went off tackle (no zone read, just straight handoff) and the RB was caught from behind by the unblocked backside defensive end. This defense SCREAMS for a bootleg. It never happened.

I actually watched Steele Jantz attempt to run an option play. What in the **** was that? The usual result was running out of bounds to the short side for a two yard loss.

What should have happened: abandon the zone read because Rutgers was attacking so much. Call flanker slants, outside zone runs, stretch toss runs, play-action passes to a crossing route, roll-out flood passes, and the occasional counter/shovel off of the roll-out.

 

[CyBer]

I'm happy with the hire, time will tell, but CPR must see something good in Messingham

 

[JUKEBOX]

I couldn't see the hold at the game, but it was pretty blatant on the replay.

There is no denying it was a hold, but the beef I have with that call is how the officials selectively call it. The offensive line of Rutgers was doing the same thing nearly every play but was never called.

 

[Ciclone]

I actually watched Steele Jantz attempt to run an option play. What in the **** was that? The usual result was running out of bounds to the short side for a two yard loss.

Man. I forgot about that one. And I love Woody, but he wouldn't be my first choice of back for an option either.

 

[Cycsk]

Someone asked earlier what we should have done differently.

Rutgers was blitzing inside gaps all days after the first two series. TH decided "awesome! Let's bring the slot right into the path of the stunt and hand off to him!" Predictably, this got buried in the backfield every time.

The Rutgers defensive ends were slanting in. You could see the couple of times we went off tackle (no zone read, just straight handoff) and the RB was caught from behind by the defensive end. This defense SCREAMS for a bootleg. It never happened.

I actually watched Steele Jantz attempt to run an option play. What in the **** was that? The usual result was running out of bounds to the short side for a two yard loss.

What should have happened: abandon the zone read because Rutgers was attacking so much. Call flanker slants, outside zone runs, stretch toss runs, play-action passes to a crossing route, roll-out flood passes, and the occasional counter/shovel off of the roll-out.

I would add much more use of Woody. Right before he scored, I said that I thought it would be a great time to let him run up the middle because at worst he is going to run over a blitzer and at best he is going to be too free to stop easily. However, I didn't expect to see the speed and move that got him to the endzone.

While I think we should have tried more of the plays you list, I'm not sure how much success we would have had with the plays you list. We just didn't seem to be able to get outside the double blitzing from one side and the blitzes just seemed to come too fast for us to have receivers in place or to roll out. The speed of their d-line and LBs was impressive.

 

[VeloClone]

Man. I forgot about that one. And I love Woody, but he wouldn't be my first choice of back for an option either.

Quite right. His strength is running into the line, not parallel to it.

 

[jbhtexas]

The pinkel example makes perfect sense if you don't use the false pretense that Pinkle did well in year 2. Pinkel DID take 5 years to get it going (Actually more like 6 or 7)...his record at mizzu:

2001: 4-7
2002: 5-7
2003: 8-5
2004: 5-6
2005: 7-5
2006: 8-5
2007: 12-2.

Again, this thread is about offense (where ISU has been sitting around 23 ppg for three years). The false pretense I see here is assuming that Pinkel's offense somehow wasn't successful because he had losing records. Both offense and defense contribute to winning. Just because Pinkel had losing records doesn't mean that his offense wasn't successful by reasonable standards. Teams can still lose even though individual aspects of the team do well.

Per the stats I posted earlier, the average scoring defense for the Big 12 was:
2002: 26.2 ppg
2003: 27.1 ppg

For those two years, Pinkel's offenses scored:
2002: 30 ppg
2003: 33.3 ppg

For those two years, Pinkel's offense was outscoring the average Big 12 defense, and by a significant margin. Would you not consider that to be a successful offense? If ISU's offense was doing that, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, and everyone likely (hopefully) would be thrilled that CM was promoted.

The difference between 2002 (losing season) and 2003 (winning season) for Pinkel was that his defense gave up just over 7 less ppg in 2003 than 2002, and went from 9th to 5th in Big 12 ranking.

Regardless of record, Pinkel's offense made signifcant improvements in his first three years. This cannot be disputed, and it directly contradicts any assertion that it takes five years for offenses to succeed after a coaching change.

 

[FootballinTexas]

Good post Cycsk. Points well taken. I agree the yardage was good. I used "vanilla" because we stayed basic in the passing game, mostly straight drops which are not good against middle blitzes on passing downs unless you max protect. You have to move the pocket, sprint out, throw bubbles, and quick stuff to the slots to keep the blitz honest.

 

[CTTB78]

Have to admit that I was disappointed when I read about the hire. I was hoping that we were going to get a OC from a top 20 offense that could take us to the next level. On the other hand that's what TH's rep was when we hired him and I would say that a lot us were not too sad to him go to OSU. Obviously hoping that I'm totally wrong here and that this turns out to be a great hire.
Here's to CM and offense that will actually throw the deep ball.

 

[dualthreat]

I thought hermans call when jarvis west threw that pass was a great call. It's an easy TD if he throws it .1 seconds sooner or JW is 2" taller.

Jantz and barnett were terrible

 

[Cycsk]

Good post Cycsk. Points well taken. I agree the yardage was good. I used "vanilla" because we stayed basic in the passing game, mostly straight drops which are not good against middle blitzes on passing downs unless you max protect. You have to move the pocket, sprint out, throw bubbles, and quick stuff to the slots to keep the blitz honest.

I'm still not sure that we could get any of these plays off. But we probably should have tried more.

The main thing I would have liked to have seen was Woody running more (and being there to block when we tried some of the things you suggest). It would have let our OL use their size and strength. It would have mitigated some of their blitzing (or made them pay for it, like on his TD run). And it is what we did effectively at clutch times toward the end of the season (Oklahoma State second OT, Kansas State last drive stopped only by an amazing surge by their lineman).

 

[synapticwave]

Again, this thread is about offense (where ISU has been sitting around 23 ppg for three years). The false pretense I see here is assuming that Pinkel's offense somehow wasn't successful because he had losing records. Both offense and defense contribute to winning. Just because Pinkel had losing records doesn't mean that his offense wasn't successful by reasonable standards. Teams can still lose even though individual aspects of the team do well.

Per the stats I posted earlier, the average scoring defense for the Big 12 was:
2002: 26.2 ppg
2003: 27.1 ppg

For those two years, Pinkel's offenses scored:
2002: 30 ppg
2003: 33.3 ppg

For those two years, Pinkel's offense was outscoring the average Big 12 defense, and by a significant margin. Would you not consider that to be a successful offense? If ISU's offense was doing that, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, and everyone likely (hopefully) would be thrilled that CM was promoted.

The difference between 2002 (losing season) and 2003 (winning season) for Pinkel was that his defense gave up just over 7 less ppg in 2003 than 2002, and went from 9th to 5th in Big 12 ranking.

Regardless of record, Pinkel's offense made signifcant improvements in his first three years. This cannot be disputed, and it directly contradicts any assertion that it takes five years for offenses to succeed after a coaching change.

I love it when people use stats but cherry picking only the parts they like to demonstrate a point. Since you picked PPG vs the conference as your metric for what constitutes "a successful offense" then let's look at Pinkels first 8 years in that context.

      ppg | conf med ppg* | rank
2001:  21.80      28.30      9
2002:  30.00      29.43      6
2003:  30.69      30.11      6
2004:  23.27      26.7      10
2005:  30.75      26.59      4
2006:  29.54      30.08      6
2007:  39.86      34.89      4
2008:  42.21      35.15      4

* conference median used midpoint between 6th and 7th place for the the conference average ppg.

All stats taken from NCAA Statistics

So, by this data, Pinkel's offense doesn't crack the top third of the conference till year 5 and in fact his worst year is year 4. So, using the stat that you picked out: PPG vs the conference average, we can see that Pinkel took 5 years to get his offense above average.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Not too excited, but it still is probably better than having Herman return.Mess has proven to be a good teacher as the execution on ST has been good, and that is where any offense starts.

However, I really think we need to get away from anything close to resembling the spread Herman wanted to run.

 

[clone99]

Well, I guess I trust CPR in his decision. None of us really know how this is going to work out. Welcome to the OC/QB positon Coach. I will reserve any negativity until the first game next season. Go Cycolones. I hope your name doesn't have to be used in vein as often as Herman's was. I know it is a lot easier to call plays from my seat in JTS then it is on the sidelines.

 

[CycloneErik]

You lose ALL credibility for your posts for not being able to spell RHOADS correctly. Seriously, it's even worse when you are a Cyclone fan and can't spell our coach's name right...

Names get misspelled all the time. That's part of life, and it doesn't indicate anything.

If he says roods but makes a good point, I don't care.

 

[jbhtexas]

I love it when people use stats but cherry picking only the parts they like to demonstrate a point. Since you picked PPG vs the conference as your metric for what constitutes "a successful offense" then let's look at Pinkels first 8 years in that context.

      ppg | conf med ppg* | rank
2001:  21.80      28.30      9
2002:  30.00      29.43      6
2003:  30.69      30.11      6
2004:  23.27      26.7      10
2005:  30.75      26.59      4
2006:  29.54      30.08      6
2007:  39.86      34.89      4
2008:  42.21      35.15      4

* conference median used midpoint between 6th and 7th place for the the conference average ppg.

All stats taken from NCAA Statistics

So, by this data, Pinkel's offense doesn't crack the top third of the conference till year 5 and in fact his worst year is year 4. So, using the stat that you picked out: PPG vs the conference average, we can see that Pinkel took 5 years to get his offense above average.

In a 12 team conference, Rank 1-6 is above average (top half of conference). Rank 7-12 are below average (bottom half of conference).

30.00 > 29.43; 30.69 > 30.11

Pinkel's offense was above average in year 2.