Is ISU better off going to a Pro-style offense?

Discussion in 'Football' started by Win5002, Oct 20, 2013.

  1. Win5002

    Win5002 Member

    Apr 20, 2010
    406
    7
    18
    I'm not sure the answer but I wonder if ISU is better off going with a pro-style offense that can run the ball and set up the play action. I doubt ISU is ever going to have the athletes to be better at the spread than the rest of the conference. This would also create a different scheme for most teams to try and defend that they do almost every other week in this league.

    The argument to this I can imagine is kids are not going to want to come play for ISU because everyone else plays the spread, but the fact is we have to field a team for the most part with the leftovers from everyone else anyway. Some people hate to hear that but its the fact. We will always lag the 6 Texahoma schools for kids in Texas, and while its nice we get kids out of Florida we are getting kids that have been picked over for the most part.


    Watching ISU football is kind of like understanding par in golf, if you don't understand what par is it really causes a lot of frustration as a fan. Maybe we should just be glad we are in a BCS conference so we have a BCS league for Hoiberg and basketball to compete in. I'm not down on Coach Rhoads either I think he is a good coach. Its very tough to win in this situation, and frankly most coaches wouldn't do any better, it probably takes a hall of fame coach like Snyder at KSU and how many of them would stick around after 2-3 yrs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. CychoCyclone

    CychoCyclone Member

    Oct 27, 2011
    434
    2
    18
    Cedar Rapids
    I think so... I'd really like to see that actually... but for as bad as our line has played they style of offense probably wouldn't matter a whole lot...
     
  3. oldwiseman

    oldwiseman Well-Known Member

    Oct 10, 2009
    1,107
    51
    48
    I think we need an OC that understands how to run the spread. We need WR's that can get separation. We need a line that can protect. I think a lot of that is coaching. Those of you that love *'s on Rivals, look at Baylor's athletes that dominated yesterday. Primarily 3 stars. They aren't winning with 5 star athletes over there. TX has far more athletic ability than Baylor. Whining about our athletes is a mistake. The difference between ours and theirs aren't as big as many think. In the Walden era, HUGE difference. It was like High School players vs a college team. CPR just needs to get better coaches imo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. rhillary

    rhillary Well-Known Member

    Jan 31, 2007
    2,018
    51
    48
    Quality Engineer
    Plainfield, IL
    I agree. However, with the spread as it stands we are not trying to be better offensively than Baylor, Texas, OSU, etc. I think we just need to at least get to average (i.e. 50th or so in the nation in most offensive statistical categories). We are almost constantly 90+. Think how many more wins we would have over Rhoad's tenure if we were just AVERAGE on offense.

    I really don't care what style offense we run. Just get something that WORKS.
     
  5. ISUKyro

    ISUKyro Well-Known Member

    Oct 28, 2006
    10,875
    296
    83
    Houston, TX
    Gotta get he o line taken care of first - until then you can try and run any offense you like, but not much will happen.
     
  6. CyBobby

    CyBobby Well-Known Member

    Oct 18, 2006
    4,967
    118
    63
    Central Iowa
    I don't know if we would do better under a Pro Style Offense but, I do know that it has won championships for both the U of Iowa and KState university.

    I also know that the spread offense hasn't work very well since CPR arrived, we just cant score enough points to win consistently.

    Lets Go State...............Beat the 'Pokes from Stillwater
     
  7. aeroclone

    aeroclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 30, 2006
    7,076
    371
    83
    Yes, a million times yes. We are trying to beat everyone else in this league at their own game, and they will always be recruiting better than us. We will never win consistently by following the crowd. We have to differentiate ourselves.

    The way we will be able to win is to do something different. That way we aren't recruiting the same players as the big dogs, and we aren't going against defenses designed to stop what we are built to do. It makes it harder to prep for us in a week. I look at teams like Stanford as a great example of this. Or maybe Georgia Tech with the option, or Texas Tech with the air raid before it was so common.
     
  8. Win5002

    Win5002 Member

    Apr 20, 2010
    406
    7
    18
    I agree 100% about the offensive line and was going to put that in the original post but I got typing and left that out. Going to that would require a new OC and hopefully someone that could correct that.

    Yes, Baylor and OSU did not start out getting 4 star recruits but actually start looking at their commit list they are starting to get those kind of kids. OSU & Baylor each have 4 four star recruits. But its not only who has the most 4 star recruits, I bet we lose 90% of the time on the 3 star recruits to Texahoma schools for the kids in Texas.
     
  9. jdoggivjc

    jdoggivjc Well-Known Member

    Sep 27, 2006
    40,861
    1,318
    113
    Sterling Heights, MI
    People who think that switching from the spread to a pro style offense will automatically fix everything that is wrong with this offense are kidding themselves. The problems with this offense go WAY beyond what formation we use - play calling, blocking, and health are things that don't just get magically better by changing the formation.

    People seem to forget that before McCarney was fired we utilized a pro style offense, and it was at times just as bad as what we're seeing now. Not only that, people cheered when Chizik dumped the pro style in favor of the spread.

    I'm not saying I'm opposed to using the pro set, I'm saying what is wrong with this offense goes much deeper than whatever style of offense we run, and until we address those problems, it's not going to matter what formation we run the plays out of because it's going to continue to be a dumpster fire.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Cyinthenorth

    Cyinthenorth Active Member

    Mar 29, 2013
    2,031
    9
    38
    Male
    North Iowa
    It doesn't matter what type of offense we run, really. What matters is having an offensive coordinator, or offensive coach of any kind, on staff. There are 8, maybe 9 offensive coordinators and/or head coaches in the Big 12 with a better understanding of offense than Messingham. There are x amount of MAC teams that have better OC's than Iowa State does with Messingham. An offensive mind is needed. Not some guy who couldn't even cut the mustard at Upper Iowa University.
     
  11. joefrog

    joefrog Well-Known Member

    Apr 29, 2008
    6,621
    418
    83
    Marketing
    Clive, Iowa
    Been saying it for years. We run the same offense as the rest of the conference, only not as good. You think conference teams have a hard time preparing for us? How hard is that to understand? We should run a pro style offense, and give kids a chance to play in a system that is widely used at the pro level. Differentiate ourselves. How hard is that to figure out?

    Honestly we would be better off going to any sort of option offense at this time. Yes, I am serious.
     
  12. JUKEBOX

    JUKEBOX Well-Known Member

    Oct 27, 2008
    7,198
    420
    83
    We run a crappier version of the same schemes with crappier players... WHY AREN'T WE WINNING?
     
  13. Cyinthenorth

    Cyinthenorth Active Member

    Mar 29, 2013
    2,031
    9
    38
    Male
    North Iowa
    I would simply love it if Iowa State could run the spread as well as other teams in the conference. The simple fact is though, they can't. I blame it on the o-line and the OC. Our position players have turned the corner, IMO.
     
  14. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    First, a new coordinator. But yes, I think there is an advantage running something different when opposing defenses are being built around stopping one style.

    So I would switch to......




    Wait for it......




    The triple option






    Jimlad implied
     
  15. Wesley

    Wesley Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2006
    70,964
    542
    113
    Envr Engr/Program Manager
    Omaha
    [TABLE]
    [TR="bgcolor: #00008b"]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: left"]TEAM STATISTICS [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: center"]ISU [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: center"]OPP [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]SCORING [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]151 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]220 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Points Per Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]25.2 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]36.7 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]FIRST DOWNS [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]108 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]157 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Rushing [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]47 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]61 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Passing [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]61 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]85 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Penalty [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]0 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]11 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]RUSHING YARDAGE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]791 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1193 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Yards gained rushing [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]957 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1293 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Yards lost rushing [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]166 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]100 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Rushing Attempts [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]234 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]248 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Rush [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]3.4 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]4.8 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]131.8 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]198.8 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] TDs Rushing [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]7 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]15 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]PASSING YARDAGE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1320 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1759 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Comp-Att-Int [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]116-206-6 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]152-241-2 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Pass [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]6.4 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]7.3 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Catch [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]11.4 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]11.6 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]220.0 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]293.2 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] TDs Passing [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]11 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]12 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]TOTAL OFFENSE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]2111 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]2952 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Total Plays [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]440 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]489 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Play [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]4.8 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]6.0 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]351.8 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]492.0 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]KICK RETURNS: #-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]26-592 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]15-361 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]PUNT RETURNS: #-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]11-143 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]9-72 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]INT RETURNS: #-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]2-16 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]6-57 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]KICK RETURN AVERAGE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]22.8 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]24.1 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]PUNT RETURN AVERAGE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]13.0 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]8.0 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]INT RETURN AVERAGE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]8.0 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]9.5 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]FUMBLES-LOST [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]7-2 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]15-9 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]PENALTIES-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]31-291 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]22-167 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]48.5 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]27.8 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]PUNTS-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]42-1860 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]33-1391 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Punt [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]44.3 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]42.2 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Net punt average [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]39.7 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]36.6 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]KICKOFFS-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]28-1781 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]39-2317 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Average Per Kick [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]63.6 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]59.4 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Net kick average [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]39.1 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]35.9 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]TIME OF POSSESSION/Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"] 30:30 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"] 29:30 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]3RD-DOWN Conversions [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]39/103 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]41/92 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] 3rd-Down Pct [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]38% [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]45% [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]4TH-DOWN Conversions [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]7/11 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]8/10 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] 4th-Down Pct [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]64% [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]80% [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]SACKS BY-Yards [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]10-52 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]23-136 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]MISC YARDS [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]0 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]0 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]TOUCHDOWNS SCORED [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]19 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]29 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]FIELD GOALS-ATTEMPTS [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]6-10 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]6-7 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]ON-SIDE KICKS [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]1-3 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]0-0 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]RED-ZONE SCORES [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"](17-18) 94% [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"](20-24) 83% [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]RED-ZONE TOUCHDOWNS [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"](13-18) 72% [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"](15-24) 63% [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]PAT-ATTEMPTS [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"](19-19) 100% [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"](28-29) 97% [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]ATTENDANCE [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]166362 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]124329 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Games/Avg Per Game [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]3/55454 [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]3/41443 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"] Neutral Site Games [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"] [/TD]
    [TD="align: center"]0/0 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    [TABLE]
    [TR="bgcolor: #00008b"]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: left"]Score by quarters [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: right"]1st [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: right"]2nd [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: right"]3rd [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: right"]4th [/TD]
    [TD="bgcolor: #00008b, align: right"]Total [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]Iowa State [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]21 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]41 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]34 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]55 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]151 [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR="bgcolor: #ffffff"]
    [TD="align: left"]Opponents [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]48 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]75 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]35 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]62 [/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]220






    Nothing needs to be said.......

    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    [HR][/HR]
     
  16. Aclone

    Aclone Well-Known Member

    Dec 14, 2007
    13,599
    433
    83
    Des Moines, Ia.
    Doesn't matter what system we run, if all of the experienced offensive linemen are banged up.
     
  17. swarthmoreCY

    swarthmoreCY Well-Known Member

    Aug 9, 2008
    15,643
    229
    63
    Here nor there
    Sure it does. This offense, particularly under Mess, is not sound enough to facilitate sufficient execution without having top-10 talent.
     
  18. kilroy

    kilroy Well-Known Member

    Jun 10, 2010
    2,917
    25
    48
    Land Surveying
    hills to flat lands
    I never like the spread under chizik, we've dumped every other piece of **** he drug in here lets dump the spread also and go back to I formation pro style please.
     
  19. AuH2O

    AuH2O Active Member

    Sep 7, 2013
    1,095
    14
    38
    I'm not so concerned about the specific type of offense, but as I've been ranting on multiple threads, we need to be a change of pace from all the other teams. Randy Walker was successful in the big 10 with the spread with very little athletic talent. Every other team in the conference was running the pro-style (except maybe Indiana and Purdue), so that's what defenses were built to stop. Big slow LBs were not much good against the spread, and it was tough to prepare for in a week. The flip side was Stanford going to the power I when everybody was built to stop Oregon, using 230 DEs and 210 LBs.

    Overall our offense needs to accomplish a couple goals. 1. minimize number of possessions. 2. Be a departure from the rest of the conference.

    With that said, until the development and S&C of our OL improve, scheme will matter little.
     
  20. Clonefan94

    Clonefan94 Well-Known Member

    Oct 18, 2006
    7,590
    264
    83
    Male
    Graphic Designer
    Schaumburg, IL
    Injuries are part of the game. Seems like every year under Rhoads I've heard excuses as to why the O-line isn't working. At this level, the O-line, even banged up should be serviceable. Hell UNI pushed them around like they were playing a Junior High team.
     

Share This Page