MESS named OC

[cyhiphopp]

Quit basing your opinion of this offense on players recruited for a completely different offense. Wait until players who were recruited for and fit this offense are the ones running it.

Solid point.
However, no single factor is going to make this offense really good. It is going to be a combination of a LOT of different aspects.

The scheme needs to be solidified and absorbed by the players. Both JB and Jantz were first year starters and neither of them executed the offense consistently. One could argue (and many have on this board) that Barnett executed the offense much better which I think shows what having that extra year in the system can do. It goes beyond the QBs as well. We played multiple new starters at RB with ARob gone. Continuity should help the entire teams grasp of the offense.

Then you have to look at the players on offense. We have had some pretty solid recruiting classes accross the board the last two years (and the transition year was pretty decent as well) with this years shaping up to be solid as well. A lot of 3 star talent coming in that should develop nicely. Many of our young guys from CPRs first few classes are already playing a lot. That is generally a sign of good things to come. We have had the luxury of being able to redshirt a lot of our recent recruits which will help even more down the line.

The final key, and what I think will be most important, is execution. Once we have the right players for our style of offense and players that know the offense better, they then have to execute. We had some decent drives and offensive production at times this year, but we weren't consistent. We would drive 40 yards by controlling the line of scrimmage and making good passes and receptions, but then the drive would stall out because of a missed block in the run game, an innacurate pass by one of our inexperienced QBs, or a drop by one of our receivers. Top that off with the inability to consistently make field goals and you have a lot of wasted drives.

In the next few years we should have players recruited specifically for this offense that have played for multiple years. We will also have a well established scheme and our players should be able to execute without having to think about it so much.



Combine that with a defense that has proven to be pretty stout when the offense does their job and we have a pretty bright future ahead of us.


So, in my opinion it is not JUST scheme or JUST the players running it. It's a little bit of everything.

 

[dualthreat]

It IS a little bit of everything. That's a big reason a part of me is staying optimistic about losing our OC.

I think our scheme was pretty decent. Herman wasn't the greatest, but he did a fair job.
Next season, our talent level will be higher again. I think that can be a good reason to believe our O won't take a step laterally.

 

[besserheimerphat]

No doubt the recievers need to improve, but the scheme also needs to create more space and make easier plays for the QB and receivers.

What kind of scheme creates more space for the receivers? Isn't it the receiver's job to create his own space by running crisp routes and being fast, quick and physical?

It's not like we go into football games and the other team doesn't know what we're going to try and do. We need to be better at making week-to-week adjustments but that is irrelevant of scheme. That is gameplan. If we changed our scheme this evening, it might catch people off guard for half a season. But again, those other coaches watch game film too and they know that they can modify their defenses to take away what we want to do. Then what, change scheme again?

Scheme is most important in the NFL, where the is the smallest talent differential between the top and bottom teams. As you go down in level, the importance of scheme decreases and the importance of talent increases. You can go undefeated easily in junior high with one great player by giving him the ball and letting him run over and around people. In high school, it might take 3+ great players and the other team might have a couple great players too so you have to start thinking about "run inside" or "run outside" or "don't throw against that corner." In college, you need even more talent and your opponent has more talent. The gameplan has to account by taking more detailed information into consideration (how good is their pass rush, how good is their coverage, can our wideout beat their corner deep, can their linebackers run with our runningback on the perimeter, etc), but you fit this into your scheme, regardless of what your scheme is.

Upgrade execution and talent, run any scheme that fits within the rules, create a solid gameplan, win ball games.

 

[scyclonekid]

Sexy just gets you into trouble aka cheese****

 

[megamanxzero35]

Scheme is most important in the NFL, where the is the smallest talent differential between the top and bottom teams.

Very much agree. That is why we just saw Green Bay's backup QB break all sorts of Packers single game passing records because of the scheme and system they run.


As to your first question about what kinda scheme creating space for receivers, I think the biggest part is recognizing what the defense is doing and what plays you are calling to take advantage of that. You try and run plays that create confusion and leave a guy open for a pass.

I would consider that play we ran in the first OT against OSU where White ran that delayed wheel route out of the backfield where the rest of our WRs were on the other side of the field a scheme play.

 

[besserheimerphat]

If you are interested in Dana Holgerson's AirRaid, the Pistol Formation or the Diamond Formation, I suggest you check out this site: Dana Holgorsen’s West Virginia “Airraid” offense | Smart Football

It's got a bunch of links discussing the in's and out's of the different formations and schemes. It's actual "technical" football info - instead of saying "you get better angles" it tells you where the angles are and why they are there and why that is different than other formations.

 

[wright4cy]

So what would you think of Austin Flynn as wr coach? He is back in Iowa coaching ,after coaching in texas at a school ? Don't beat me up I did not read all 22 pages of this thread ..Just curious Now that Mess is OC.If Austin would be a good fit ? Loved him as a Cyclone and Glad he is coaching .

 

[AlleyAddict]

So what would you think of Austin Flynn as wr coach? He is back in Iowa coaching ,after coaching in texas at a school ? Don't beat me up I did not read all 22 pages of this thread ..Just curious Now that Mess is OC.If Austin would be a good fit ? Loved him as a Cyclone and Glad he is coaching .

 

[jbhtexas]

What kind of scheme creates more space for the receivers? Isn't it the receiver's job to create his own space by running crisp routes and being fast, quick and physical?

One that doesn't have all of the receivers running routes within 10 yds of the LOS (which is what ISU did with regularity for the past three years). It is unrealistic to expect receivers to create space when they (and their defenders) are all jammed into a tight space.

It's not like we go into football games and the other team doesn't know what we're going to try and do.

Correct. The opposing defense knows that ISU rarely runs deep routes, so they cheat their defenders up to clog up the routes that ISU does run and inhibit the running game.

We need to be better at making week-to-week adjustments but that is irrelevant of scheme.

Of course one has to make week-to-week adjustments. But ISU needs to run a scheme that doesn't compress the field vertically. Making minor adjustments to a fundamentally flawed scheme is futile.

Upgrade execution and talent, run any scheme that fits within the rules, create a solid gameplan, win ball games.

The only way ISU's present practice running mostly short routes will ever be successful is if the QB talent is on the level and Andrew Luck (to make pinpoint passes) and the talent of all receivers is on the level of Justin Blackmon (who can simply "out-physical" defenders in tight space). I don't know of any successful spread offenses that don't regularly run deep routes (not only run them, but actually pass to the receivers running the deep routes).

 

[Cycsk]

Some of the players on twitter seemed real jacked about it.

That's great. Which players?

 

[heitclone]

I'm not thrilled about this hire (meaning its not a sexy hire), but I think its a good one for the program. We already have a guy the kids have already bought in to, thats a big first step for any new coach. Continuity is really big when you're talking about 18-21 year old kids. Now the big question should be who will coach QB's.

 

[VeloClone]

I'm not thrilled about this hire (meaning its not a sexy hire), but I think its a good one for the program. We already have a guy the kids have already bought in to, thats a big first step for any new coach. Continuity is really big when you're talking about 18-21 year old kids. Now the big question should be who will coach QB's.

It has already been published that he will be QB's coach. AA intimated that when QB's come to the bench they talk to Mess as the OC was up in the booth.

 

[besserheimerphat]

One that doesn't have all of the receivers running routes within 10 yds of the LOS (which is what ISU did with regularity for the past three years). It is unrealistic to expect receivers to create space when they (and their defenders) are all jammed into a tight space.

We had 5 receivers this year who individually averaged over 11 ypc. As a team, we averaged 11.1 ypc. Sure some of that was yac, but the law of averages says we must have completed about as many >10 yard passes as <10 yard passes. Reynolds, Lenz and Gary averaged >12.5 ypc.

None of the stats or play-by-play say anything about whether or not a pass play included a deep route. Without going back to game film (and watching a broadcast won't help because it doesn't show enough of the field) or having extensive notes from attending the game (I personally can't take notes at a football game, too busy being a fan), there is no way for us to know how often we included a deep route in a play.

My knowledge of football says that almost every pass play always has one route that goes >15 yards downfield - that meets my definition of a long pass. Without seeing some hard evidence that we ran very few 15+ yard routes each of the last 3 seasons, I can't believe that was the case. It has been proven time and again that humans are subject to all kinds of information bias and are not good at recalling and analysing this kind of data. Just saying you watch the game isn't good enough. Stating that the offense wasn't good isn't enough either - there are lots of reasons besides "length of pass" that result in bad offense.

 

[besserheimerphat]

The only way ISU's present practice running mostly short routes will ever be successful is if the QB talent is on the level and Andrew Luck (to make pinpoint passes) and the talent of all receivers is on the level of Justin Blackmon (who can simply "out-physical" defenders in tight space). I don't know of any successful spread offenses that don't regularly run deep routes (not only run them, but actually pass to the receivers running the deep routes).

Just having the route in the play should pose enough of a threat that the defense has to respect it. What is the defense going to do, just let receivers run deep and assume we won't throw it to them? Show me something besides your intuition that says we didn't have deep routes.

Also, if a QB lacks the arm strength to throw a deep pass (as many have said of Barnett) and/or the receiver can't get seperation on a deep route (as many have said about all of our receivers), that limits our deep passing game but is not due to scheme. If in fact we DID run almost no deep routes the past three years, is it not possible that Herman WAS adjusting his system to the players he had available? Isn't that what everyone wanted?

My whole point is that without having a lot more knowledge about what Herman WANTED to do with the offense, as opposed to what he HAD to do given the relative talent we have, we can't make sound evaluations about the offense. We can compare our offense to the conference and the nation, but ultimately we don't know if we lived up to our maximum potential. What if this offensive output is the best that the current talent can realistically expect? Just because we don't want it to be doesn't mean it isn't so.

I don't doubt that there are very sound football minds on this board but no one has the time or resources to really determine what was wrong with our offense - talent, scheme, gameplanning, playcalling or some combination. That's why we have to trust that the coaches know what they're doing and are acting in the team's best interest. It is their job. Urban Freaking Meyer saw something in Herman that he liked, yet many on this board wanted him fired. If UFM is confident in Herman's ability to coach a QB and develop an offense, then I will defer to his judgement because I KNOW that he's smarter than I am.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

We had 5 receivers this year who individually averaged over 11 ypc. As a team, we averaged 11.1 ypc. Sure some of that was yac, but the law of averages says we must have completed about as many >10 yard passes as <10 yard passes. Reynolds, Lenz and Gary averaged >12.5 ypc.

Your bias is showing. That stat indicates we have a good chance to complete passes when not completely congesting the field.

The argument is not that running vertical routes would necessarily equate to more ypc, but improve accuracy and effectiveness of the passing game by not making dump down passes congested....but that since you brought it up, our yards per completion was 93rd out of 120. Our yards per pass was 5.7, or 6th worst in the NCAA. ..leadng to a passing efficiency of passing 112 out of 120.

You should not need UFM to tell you that what is desirable for competently repeating what plays Urban calls for his 4 and 5 star recruits, is not sufficient for making a good OC at Iowa State.

 

[jbhtexas]

We had 5 receivers this year who individually averaged over 11 ypc. As a team, we averaged 11.1 ypc. Sure some of that was yac, but the law of averages says we must have completed about as many >10 yard passes as <10 yard passes. Reynolds, Lenz and Gary averaged >12.5 ypc.

None of the stats or play-by-play say anything about whether or not a pass play included a deep route. Without going back to game film (and watching a broadcast won't help because it doesn't show enough of the field) or having extensive notes from attending the game (I personally can't take notes at a football game, too busy being a fan), there is no way for us to know how often we included a deep route in a play.

My knowledge of football says that almost every pass play always has one route that goes >15 yards downfield - that meets my definition of a long pass. Without seeing some hard evidence that we ran very few 15+ yard routes each of the last 3 seasons, I can't believe that was the case. It has been proven time and again that humans are subject to all kinds of information bias and are not good at recalling and analysing this kind of data. Just saying you watch the game isn't good enough. Stating that the offense wasn't good isn't enough either - there are lots of reasons besides "length of pass" that result in bad offense.

After hearing from some on CF for two years how bad ISU's recievers were, I went to some games this year and specifically watched the pass routes run, and have based my comments on those observations. Also, one can gain useful information from watching TV, particulalry the replays, if one is consciously looking for that information while viewing.

Since, by your own admission, you have no evidence to refute my observations, I have no reason to trust your "knowledge of football" over my observations. Believe what you wish.

 

[jbhtexas]

Your bias is showing. That stat indicates we have a good chance to complete passes when not completely congesting the field.

The argument is not that running vertical routes would necessarily equate to more ypc, but improve accuracy and effectiveness of the passing game by not making dump down passes congested....but that since you brought it up, our yards per completion was 93rd out of 120. Our yards per pass was 5.7, or 6th worst in the NCAA. ..leadng to a passing efficiency of passing 112 out of 120.

You should not need UFM to tell you that what is desirable for competently repeating what plays Urban calls for his 4 and 5 star recruits, is not sufficient for making a good OC at Iowa State.

Can't rep you, so +1 will have to do...

 

[cybsball20]

Frankly, the fact that this hire so popular with the players scares me... I have had coaches at all levels (high school, college, pros) that were VERY popular with the players but in hindsight were TERRIBLE coaches. At the same time I have had coaches that players griped about and hated, but ended up being some of the best coaches I have ever played for. Normally, this takes YEARS to look back and recognize what coaches were most instrumental in your development.

This may not apply here, but I'm just speaking from personal experience.

 

[FarminCy]

Frankly, the fact that this hire so popular with the players scares me... I have had coaches at all levels (high school, college, pros) that were VERY popular with the players but in hindsight were TERRIBLE coaches. At the same time I have had coaches that players griped about and hated, but ended up being some of the best coaches I have ever played for. Normally, this takes YEARS to look back and recognize what coaches were most instrumental in your development.

This may not apply here, but I'm just speaking from personal experience.

I have had the exact opposite experience.

 

[besserheimerphat]

Your bias is showing. That stat indicates we have a good chance to complete passes when not completely congesting the field.

That stat came right out of the ISU webpage and includes every completed pass, regardless of "congestion." It doesn't take coverage, route depth, etc into account. We don't even know if they were all 1 yard passes with 10 YAC or 11 yard passes with 0 YAC. It is simply the average yards gained when a certain receiver caught the ball. I disagree that it is biased.

The argument is not that running vertical routes would necessarily equate to more ypc, but improve accuracy and effectiveness of the passing game by not making dump down passes congested....

So you want more receivers to run farther away from what CF proclaims is an "inaccurate and weak armed" quarterback in Barnett (or at least inaccurate in Jantz's case)? There is likely going to be a better return by upgrading the QB ability. And that wouldn't require all 10 other players to learn a new system either.

but that since you brought it up, our yards per completion was 93rd out of 120. Our yards per pass was 5.7, or 6th worst in the NCAA. ..leadng to a passing efficiency of passing 112 out of 120.

Our overall completion rate was abyssmal as well, 51%, which brings down the YPA stat. We had two receivers (Lenz and Gary) average almost 9 yards per target (not ypc, but yards each time the ball was thrown to them) with a greater than 65% catch rate. That isn't great but it's good enough. Money still averaged ~7.7 yards/target with only a 48% catch rate. My spreadsheet on receiver data is on my laptop so I cant give you the exact numbers right now though I had put it in other posts. Our QB's aren't great at getting the receivers the ball, and when they do the receivers drop it too often. The only "scheme" that fixes that is the one where you use better players.

You should not need UFM to tell you that what is desirable for competently repeating what plays Urban calls for his 4 and 5 star recruits, is not sufficient for making a good OC at Iowa State.

The point has been made many times that Herman will be QB coach and Meyer will call the plays. Despite the overall lack of output from the QB position, Meyer saw something he liked about the way the Herman develops QB's. Just because you or I didn't see it doesn't mean a more trained eye can't. We need better QB play. If Meyer feels that Herman can adequately develop a QB, I will assume he is right. If Meyer turns out to be wrong, I'll start listening to you.