Scheelhasse oc

Cough up $20M to buy out the most successful coach we've ever had. That's what it took to get rid of Prohm. It's not that hard to understand.

Exactly. Campbell has a minimum of 1.5 years left here unless he leaves in his own and I would guess he probably will be here through the 2025 season if he chooses and there isn’t a thing anyone can do about it.
 
Exactly. Campbell has a minimum of 1.5 years left here unless he leaves in his own and I would guess he probably will be here through the 2025 season if he chooses and there isn’t a thing anyone can do about it.
I also believe this guy knows how to coach and when his talent gets more experience we will all be eating crow.
 
A couple of seasons of being the laughingstock of the Big 12, and the donors will be begging to pay that 20 million to get rid of him. What have you won for me lately works every time.
 

Just adding a bit of context here - when you're averaging 1.6 yards per carry and the entire offense is ranked in the bottom 5 of all of college football, that's not just a lack of execution. Teams have backs fall forward for more than 1.6 yards per carry. Our QB sneaks get more than that. While execution is certainly a factor, there's also play calling, coaching, situational awareness, strength, and "margins".

Running straight up the middle every other play call is not "execution" unless you want to call suicide "self execution".
 
Yep I agree.

I fear we’re in for an awakening that there is no solution any time soon. JMO - I don’t believe the skillset exists on staff to improve or drastically change our offensive strategy. I don’t think anyone in staff is a P5 level offensive strategist, play designer, or play caller. I truly believe it’s THAT bad. And it is far worse than even Iowa, in terms of the overarching scheme and play design.

When you put our tape up against virtually any other team - it is bizarre how bad our scheme looks, from blocking schemes, to route concepts, and everything in between. It looks like a high school level design.
When you coach at Iowa State, you need to be elite at schemes to compensate for other shortcomings.
 
Once upon a time they did a great job of developing an offensive and defensive identity that played to the strengths of the players and complemented each other. A good group of TEs, NFL RBs, and an offense that could eat up yards between the 20s like it was nothing. A bend but don't break defense where it was perfect to get stops even if it meant giving the offense a long field.

They are trying to run the same play with a different set of actors and it is not working. Defensively there really isn't an issue, but are they really playing in a way to help the offense? Is the offense trying to establish the run or just establishing that they cannot run the ball? Are there any strengths to this offensive unit that they can play to?
 
Lots of people are talking about how stubborn Matt is about the offense, but I personally think the staff has tried to run portions of the offense that they felt best fit the talent on this team. Going into the season, the thought was that we would have an inexperienced QB and a very talented TE room. Thus we have used a lot of three TE sets. The thought is it allows the TEs to create a matchup issue because of their multiplicity (block and receive). The issue is that while talented, the TEs are not very good blockers yet. This coupled with poor offensive line play has caused significant issues in the running game. Those issues were not so glaring against UNI because it was an easy win and then we struggled against Iowa, but that could be explained away as Iowa's defense. Now that we struggled against Ohio, the staff must either fix the blocking by to OL and TEs or pivot to another plan of attack. Less TEs and more passing seems like the logical change, but how talented are our WRs. We played that way when Matt got here because we didn't have TEs for a couple of years. Even if that change is made, the OL run blocking must be fixed. It seems to me that we are asking our linemen to be more athletic in their blocks than what they are capable of. I think something there needs to change.

Good points, if I hear “there’s a lot of talent here” one more time I might barf. There’s not that much talent here and there is almost zero talent on the OL. We have a mid G5 OL playing in the big time and it will never work.
 



I remember back in the "good ol days" when Hall was in the backfield it seemed they gave up the run game too quick. Hall would be averaging 5-7 yards a carry some games.......but Matt wanted to get cute and fling it all over the field. And speaking of cute......that use to be the knock on Matt and his offensive scheme. Even remember announcers on certain games saying he needs to stop trying to be cute, stop out thinking himself.

Now we have this. I think I'll take the "cute" Matt Campbell trying to out think himself. We may have lost some high scoring head scratchers to Tech and WVU......but they were fun to watch. Watching this offense is like driving I-80 thought Nebraska or I-70 through Kansas. Making Brian Ferentz look like an offensive guru.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xboxfever
Well, looks can be deceiving. We know that when we execute properly the run game and present scheme works. Fundamentals. It has in the past. We need to give the young players more of an opportunity to develop and be the best players they can be.

We are still climbing the mountain. ; (

I'm starting to hate that expression, 'being the best you can be', when the coaching is not allowing just that to happen. It's becoming contemptuously ironic that the opposite is the case more often than not.
Lol

This scheme is marginalizing our roster even when it is executed as designed, which has a low occurrence rate because the staff is bad at teaching the details and it’s an easy offense to defend

A horrible paradigm- running an offense that is easy to defend means you’re asking a lot from players, while the players are not good because the staff can’t teach or develop well,

But sure, with a good NFL back, X, NFL TE, Purdy etc, it’s okay.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: t-noah
A couple of seasons of being the laughingstock of the Big 12, and the donors will be begging to pay that 20 million to get rid of him. What have you won for me lately works every time.
Easy to say when it's not your money.
 
Well, looks can be deceiving. We know that when we execute properly the run game and present scheme works. Fundamentals. It has in the past. We need to give the young players more of an opportunity to develop and be the best players they can be.

We are still climbing the mountain. ; (

I'm starting to hate that expression, 'being the best you can be', when the coaching is not allowing just that to happen. It's becoming contemptuously ironic that the opposite is the case more often than not.

Lol

This scheme is marginalizing our roster even when it is executed as designed, which has a low occurrence rate because the staff is bad at teaching the details and it’s an easy offense to defend

A horrible paradigm- running an offense that is easy to defend means you’re asking a lot from players, while the players are not good because the staff can’t teach or develop well,

But sure, with a good NFL back, X, NFL TE, Purdy etc, it’s okay.
Ahem, I was being sarcastic!

I thought that was clear from the whole post. I guess I just have to use the jimlad more often.
 
Just adding a bit of context here - when you're averaging 1.6 yards per carry and the entire offense is ranked in the bottom 5 of all of college football, that's not just a lack of execution. Teams have backs fall forward for more than 1.6 yards per carry. Our QB sneaks get more than that. While execution is certainly a factor, there's also play calling, coaching, situational awareness, strength, and "margins".

Running straight up the middle every other play call is not "execution" unless you want to call suicide "self execution".
Well said. I mean there's a variety of ways to get running yards: jet sweeps, outside pitches, lateral screen passes. As Chris Williams has said, it's not always about the run to pass ratio, but making a defense spread out and defend more of the field.

I actually wouldn't mind occasional runs up the middle if we spread out 4 WR's wide to thin the box out. But when we go jumbo package, and clog it up with TE's, we just suck at that. 3 games isn't a one off, 3 games are proof!
 
  • Like
Reactions: joefrog
Well said. I mean there's a variety of ways to get running yards: jet sweeps, outside pitches, lateral screen passes. As Chris Williams has said, it's not always about the run to pass ratio, but making a defense spread out and defend more of the field.

I actually wouldn't mind occasional runs up the middle if we spread out 4 WR's wide to thin the box out. But when we go jumbo package, and clog it up with TE's, we just suck at that. 3 games isn't a one off, 3 games are proof!

Does ISU have the blocking ability and speed in the line to be able to do these?

Does ISU have 4 WRs that that need to be held to account by something beyond base coverage?
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron