QB Under Center

[WastedTalent]

The coaches have figured it out. The issue was physical errors which will not always happen. The coaches made the call, put trevor ryan in position to make a big play, he didn't catch the ball. How is this poor coaching? The coaches put Park and Montgomery in perfect position to make a play on 4th down for a score. Physical error again didn't make the play. These are basically first year players, it's going to happen. Like Kansas State when the kids are older we will start winning these games. We knew this year would be a transition year, recruiting is solid. We are on the right track.

While I agree with what you're saying, play calling in short yardages has become a real pet peeve of mine the last couple years. You should call the plays with the least amount of variables that could go wrong. I'm all for spreading it around, and trying different things everywhere on the field, but when it comes to less than yard, when you absolutely need it, why get cute?

Statistically, the offense is the one that wins the short yardage situations, and it's because they know where they're going, and they call the play with the least amount of variables.

 

[clonedude]

C'mon people, there is NO excuse for not having a goal line package with the QB under center at ANY level of football, much less Big 12 college level football with coaches making millions of dollars.

I saw Devon Moore of Waterloo West play on Friday night and he plays almost exclusively in the shotgun, but guess what they did on the one yard line-- yep, Moore went under center and sneaked it for the TD with no problem. But yet, there are people on here that don't think we can do this because we are concerned about the exchange, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Always excuses for this crap. Just quit it already.

I was also at the ISU game yesterday and nearly everyone in our entire section was so pissed on that goal line situation that we didn't go under center and sneak it. It was a Football 101 play call, but for some reason ISU can't execute it.

The one play where we Lanning took the shotgun snap on the 6 yd line and started running sideways was nearly a fire-able offense by the OC IMO. That is beyond insane. And yes, the 4th down call did work as planned, just a very poor throw, but it was just another embarrassment that we had to get that cute from that spot on the field. Those 4 plays set football back 50 years or more. Lombardi would be just rolling, or more likely laughing, in his grave at us. He'd say "You call that football? Or is this dance class?".

 

[oldwiseman]

I coached youth football for years and I've seen kids starting at 5 years old handle an under center snap. By maybe 8-9 years old they can handle it at full speed and rarely have an issue with a fumbled snap. It's not like some low percentage trick play. It's youth football 101!

 

[clonedude]

I coached youth football for years and I've seen kids starting at 5 years old handle an under center snap. By maybe 8-9 years old they can handle it at full speed and rarely have an issue with a fumbled snap. It's not like some low percentage trick play. It's youth football 101!

Yet, according to some, we can't execute a simple under center snap because we don't practice it. The insanity of that is just beyond my comprehension level. The excuses we make for coaches making millions is just ridiculous. If Campbell and company can't install, practice, and execute a simple under center snap AND even understand the need for it, then I guess they are incompetent and should be shown the door.

This was one of the biggest pet peeves of mine under Rhoads, and now it hasn't changed. There is NO advantage whatsoever on the goal line to being in shotgun, none. Not only does the QB get it 6 or 7 yards backwards, but it also takes longer for the ball to get back to him than it does under center. Any advantage the offense has by knowing the snap count is not only gone, but it takes so long the advantage now switches over to the defense. Then add to that that on one of the plays we ran we did a fake hand off, so the QB is standing in place for another second back on the 6 yard line. And then running sideways, really?

Sorry, I'm just so frustrated by this series of 4 downs. How can a coaching staff have lost all sense of reason and just plain physics?

 

[CyValley]

Not convinced that this year is the year to walk out on Monday after a 4th and 1 and say we need to go under center for that situation. So many other things to keep working on. . . . Toledo did it, but the team was experienced and had their identity.

Amen! The emphasis so far in the program, or so the coaches say, has been fundamentals and mental approach. During spring ball, the emphasis, said CMC, was not installing the playbook nearly as much as . . . fundamentals work.

Coaches want to get this team to position where it can walk before it attempts to run.

And, a counterpoint to the QB under center argument. Twice, or was it three times yesterday, in an attempt to convert short yardage KSU went into as compact a formation as I've ever seen: Ertz under center, a running back about a yard behind RG, line splits non-existent. iSu stuffed it a couple of times, iirc. KSU fans must have been screaming at the Vampire.

Let's see, the 235-lb Joeldozer with a running start plowing into the line, or the Joeldozer under center with no possibility to pick up speed and momentum. Since our OLine is weak, maybe Joel with a head of steam was a better choice.

And, questioned after the game, CMC pointedly said the staff would look at going under center, whatever it takes, they will do it. My guess, the playbook is still limited what with all the execution problems apparent in the first few games.

From the JTS stands yesterday I spent much time focusing on line play. KSU has a mature, seasoned program, and its guys play like it. KSU's linemen were tree trunks out there, not moveable much. Couple more years, I'm betting, as we compile good recruiting classes one after another, work hard to improve the team's strength and power (a big CMC goal), scoring from the one yard line won't be an issue.

I'll bet on CMC and staff rather than bet against them getting it done at iSu. But today we're at just the beginning, we're seeing an undermanned team that has not yet learn to run. As the cliche goes, It is a work in progress, hardly a finished product.

But, man, I saw the coaches doing whatever they could yesterday. Two successful offside kicks - each a different type of play, no less! (The second attempt was good, but Jeff Francis grabbed the ball 1/2 yard before he should have or needed to).

We were versatile on the drive that stalled inside the one. Joeldozer ran it twice; from a tight formation he handed off to Montgomery on an inside counter that gave us great blocking angles (we just were not strong enough up front to get it done); and Park's sprint-option-right was open either for him to run in or lob it to an open Montgomery. Park muffed the toss; that's on him, the coaches put us in position to score.

Then, of course, during the game the coaches chose to begin alternating the QBs during series, Park operating in the open field with his arm (he finished with 301 passing yards) and the Joeldozer taking over in the Red Zone. In the first quarter, KSU had 150 yards of offense and we were stymied. At game's end, we had 100 more yards total offense; KSU had under 10 yards in the 4th quarter. Amazing in-game turnaround.

We flipped what appeared to be a blowout in the making into a thrilling, contested game. The coaches brought our guys back from the cliff's edge. The did a great job changing-up while under pressure.

To me, yesterday, I saw the future of iSu football. Our coaches have 'It,' that certain quality possessed by winners. We are gonna be good in the coming years. I think the coaches are working miracles with an immature team, a roster in turmoil, and a squad sorely lacking in Oline and Dline talent.

The team's ability to execute from the UNI game till now has soared. Nothing to be done about the talent-short roster until the next couple of recruiting classes land in Ames.

Our coaches are a talented bunch of guys, and one day, I'll wager, almost every iSu fan will come to understand just how good they are.

(Well, cripes, over the last 24 hours I seem unable to write short posts. It's an indication of my enthusiasm for the good things I saw yesterday in JTS, I guess. No matter, just skip over 'em.)

(P.S. - Did we see a HB pass yesterday, too? Can't recall for sure. The pass to D Jones for our final TD?)

 

[acody]

No........it's evidence that they will be developing an identity which is the ability to run it down peoples throats from the gun. At least that is the case if they are continuing to follow the plan developed at Toledo. I report, you decide. I will bet ya though.

Considering the circumstances yesterday, continuing to follow the plan or "process" was a terrible choice and agreed to by the overwhelming fan base. By the way, whatever worked at Toledo doesn't necessarily transition to the Big 12. As Charles Barkley says, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[RealisticCy]

While I agree with what you're saying, play calling in short yardages has become a real pet peeve of mine the last couple years. You should call the plays with the least amount of variables that could go wrong. I'm all for spreading it around, and trying different things everywhere on the field, but when it comes to less than yard, when you absolutely need it, why get cute?

Statistically, the offense is the one that wins the short yardage situations, and it's because they know where they're going, and they call the play with the least amount of variables.

Fully agree. Will never understand needing 1/2 yard and sending it 5 yards backwards.

I have no clue why we don't have a short yardage, jumbo package with 7 OL, 225 pound Lanning under center, 260 pound TE Chandler lined up at FB, 222 pound RB Montgomery at tailback, and 6'5" 223 pound Lazard lined up to the wide side of the field. Rhodes never did anything like this either and it drove me nuts. This would give us options:

1. QB sneak, with Chandler and Montgomery pushing Lanning from behind (completely legal).
2. Handoff to RB off the LT or RT.
3. Lob to Lazard (absolute freak athlete with incredible size) if he is single covered which brings the possibility of a pass interference call.
4. Play action into naked bootleg or Lazard on a slant.
5. FB dive
6. In 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1 situations that aren't at the goaline, use a hard count to draw the DL offsides.

 

[RealisticCy]

I will tell you the most likely reason. You can disagree with it but I highly doubt we see this unless Lanning converts to a special situation quarterback. The problem is if they never go under center they are afraid that they will have trouble with the exchange.

Yet every single team uses goes under center in the victory formation, when the one thing you want to do is minimize the risk of trouble with the exchange.

 

[jkclone]

Yet every single team uses goes under center in the victory formation, when the one thing you want to do is minimize the risk of trouble with the exchange.

This is not true. I've seen top 25 teams do it out of shotgun.

 

[CyValley]

In this case, I know this to be true:

If Lanning ran from under center on the one-yard line and got stopped short, some here would be screaming for him to run from shotgun since he would have momentum and speed when he hit the line.

Or, others would be in a raging funk claiming we should do anything but an obvious QB sneak (like sprint Park right with an option run-throw. . . .)

I don't know a lot, but I do know this. It is a certainty.

 

[clonedude]

In this case, I know this to be true:

If Lanning ran from under center on the one-yard line and got stopped short, some here would be screaming for him to run from shotgun since he would have momentum and speed when he hit the line.

Or, others would be in a raging funk claiming we should do anything but an obvious QB sneak (like sprint Park right with an option run-throw. . . .)

I don't know a lot, but I do know this. It is a certainty.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe a few would, but I'd bet 90% of the posters on here have been complaining about running out of the shotgun on the goal line going back to at least since Rhoads started here, possibly even before that.

 

[veteran4cy]

I would like to see ngwandu do the Walter Payton leap considering he was a state championship in Texas last year

 

[NickTheGreat]

Jack said something about that in the call in show. The staff says they don't run under center since they don't practice it. Jack says "uhh . . . maybe they should practice it."

 

[tolfbfan]

Considering the circumstances yesterday, continuing to follow the plan or "process" was a terrible choice and agreed to by the overwhelming fan base. By the way, whatever worked at Toledo doesn't necessarily transition to the Big 12. As Charles Barkley says, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Considering the circumstances yesterday, continuing to follow the plan or "process" was a terrible choice and agreed to by the overwhelming fan base. By the way, whatever worked at Toledo doesn't necessarily transition to the Big 12. As Charles Barkley says, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Bold print...I call bull ****. Many "big" schools do it quite effectively!

 

[tolfbfan]

Fully agree. Will never understand needing 1/2 yard and sending it 5 yards backwards.

I have no clue why we don't have a short yardage, jumbo package with 7 OL, 225 pound Lanning under center, 260 pound TE Chandler lined up at FB, 222 pound RB Montgomery at tailback, and 6'5" 223 pound Lazard lined up to the wide side of the field. Rhodes never did anything like this either and it drove me nuts. This would give us options:

1. QB sneak, with Chandler and Montgomery pushing Lanning from behind (completely legal).
2. Handoff to RB off the LT or RT.
3. Lob to Lazard (absolute freak athlete with incredible size) if he is single covered which brings the possibility of a pass interference call.
4. Play action into naked bootleg or Lazard on a slant.
5. FB dive
6. In 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1 situations that aren't at the goaline, use a hard count to draw the DL offsides.

We will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will be double tights, Hback, one receiver split out, QB, and RB. Not yet w/ this line, te's, and hbacks. It will come.

 

[tolfbfan]

Jack said something about that in the call in show. The staff says they don't run under center since they don't practice it. Jack says "uhh . . . maybe they should practice it."

Not until we are solid in gun. If we have to go under center to try and get a yard, our line is not very good yet. Oh, never mind.

 

[tolfbfan]

I don't care if you're Alabama, Toledo, Iowa St, or Junior High football, it doesn't matter what your "identity" is, you should use the QB under center in these situations. Even if you don't run the QB sneak, which is automatically what the defense will expect if a team like Iowa St lines up under center. It opens up so many play call options.

Or, if you keep the defense spread out, it gives your inferior line less people to push/block. Depends how you look at it.

 

[acody]

Or, if you keep the defense spread out, it gives your inferior line less people to push/block. Depends how you look at it.

You're clearly getting ganged up on this issue Einstein. Give it up. Your logic is flawed. The coaches really blew it.

 

[MNCYWX]

Nearly lost my voice because of this play sequence. Every football team should have a goalline package in our book. We needed a freaking foot.

#GetUnderCenter!

 

[Cydwinder]

You're clearly getting ganged up on this issue Einstein. Give it up. Your logic is flawed. The coaches really blew it.

Your logic of everyone else thinks we should go under center so I must be right is flawed. This is really a pointless argument. If the line can't get any push, it doesn't matter if you are under center or in the gun.
One could argue you have a better chance to get it because of momentum of the runner and the line having more time to create a push.
Or you could argue that you need to go under center because you have less distance to go.
Looking at the result of a single series and saying it will never work and the alternative would 100% have worked is crazy.