Hmmm...last year's team featured lots of Mac-recruited starters: we go to a bowl!
This year's team has fewer Mac players...and the team isn't as good.
Not too difficult to figure out...
I'm sorry to say it, but there needs to be some questions on Herman as OC
- Thread starter sdcyfan
- Start date
Hmmm...last year's team featured lots of Mac-recruited starters: we go to a bowl!
This year's team has fewer Mac players...and the team isn't as good.
Not too difficult to figure out...
Herman could do a lot better and he has really been schooled by several teams this year and last, but he is also very limited in what he can try to do with the quality and play of the OL and QBs in place. AA really tries hard and fought for everything he did last week. but he is still not a good passer and missed some guys at OU, and threw a couple passes down field out of bounds. Everything in Herman's offense is based on a very accurate passer that can complete short routes in tight coverage and then make the over the top passes when the defense moves up. Right now, noone is afraid of ISU getting behind them, so they have 9 defenders within 8 yards of the LOS. That makes it tough for any offense to go.
Let's keep in mind the level of competition difference between year 2 of McFarland (2008) and year 2 of Herman (2010).
2008 was a year of inflated offensive statistics across the board in the Big XII. Oklahoma (#3), Texas Tech (#4), Oklahoma State (#6), Missouri (#8), Texas (#9), Nebraska (#12), and Kansas (#21) were all in the top 25 nationally in total offense. There wasn't a single Big XII team in the top 25 in total defense. The highest rated defense was #51 Texas. There was likely many bad defenses in the Big XII that year.
The best team we played was 9-4 Iowa or 10-4 Missouri. We faced 5 bowl-eligible teams.
2008:
South Dakota State
Kent (4-8)
@Iowa (9-4)
@UNLV (5-7)
Kansas (8-5)
@Baylor (4-8)
Nebraska (9-4)
TAMU (4-8)
@OSU (9-4)
@Colorado (5-7)
Missouri (10-4)
@KSU (5-7)
In 2010, offenses in the Big XII aren't nearly as prolific. Oklahoma State (#2), Baylor (#8), Oklahoma (#17), TAMU (#18), and Nebraska (#24) rank in the top 25 nationally in total offense. There are currently 2 defenses in the top 25 nationally in total defense. Texas (#4) and Nebraska (#9).
We have only played one team that currently has a losing record (UNI), and I think the 6 FBS teams we've played will all make a bowl game this year, as will at least 3 of the remaining 5, for 9 or 10 bowl teams this year. We are playing 4 teams that potentially could make a BCS bowl (Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Utah).
2010:
Northern Illinois (5-2) [probable finish 9-3 or 10-2]
@Iowa (5-1) [10-2 or 11-1]
KSU (5-1) [7-5 or 8-4]
UNI
Texas Tech (3-3) [6-6 or 7-5]
Utah (6-0) [11-1 or 12-0]
@Oklahoma (6-0) [11-1 or 12-0]
@Texas (4-2) [8-4 or 9-3]
Kansas (2-4) [2-10 or 3-9]
Nebraska (5-1) [9-3 or 10-2]
@Colorado (3-3) [5-7 or 6-6]
Missouri (6-0) [9-3 or 10-2]
IMO, our offensive production under Herman has not been good, but probably about what should be anticipated to this point given the level of competition we've faced.
I'm looking forward to seeing him next year... Capello at QB(or hopefully at least Barnett). Shontrel Johnson at RB should be really exciting to watch. If Capello is the QB then we might actually see some good stuff from Darks and Johnson at WR with someone who actually has the arm to be a good throwing QB. We should be seeing guys like Gary and West in the slot who are the quick explosive types you want in a Herman offense.
good points here. We need to have a "flashy" play from time to time. Hell, a red zone HB pass just to suprise the D once in a while would be nice. Flea Flicker? Anything! Here's to hoping we throw the kitchen sink at Texas and the rest of our opponets. At least try to show that we can have a different look....or take chances.
We have been very bland out there this year.
As for the actual offense we run, I feel like I was never completely sold, but the lack of results may be influencing my recollection.
Just because many teams are running it now does not mean ISU should. Fads are not popular because they offer universal success. I wonder if we are buying high. Many schools that are pointed to as using the "spread" offense as an equalizer were innovative for their market and time. For example, TT (different spread) and Northwestern. Defenses catch-up and the scheme no longer enhances your inferior athletes like they once did, plus other teams start to recruit your players. Wasn't the wishbone popular at one time?
I hear the argument that the spread gets your athletes in space more, giving them a chance to make plays. However I have three rebuttals/questions:
-Maybe this is an indictment of Herman and not the spread, but I saw more big plays out of the pro-set offenses and quasi-spread of McFarland.
-something to be said that if you do not have guns, do not turn it into a gun fight...I think it is kind of counter-intuitive to think the way you respond to having inferior athletes is to play a game based on space. Are you schematically enhancing your athletes or exposing them? Intuitively, I think it could be said you would want to hide them by going power, suck them in, then use deception to go over the top.
-along the same lines, ISU will be limited in competing in a track meet style of play. What we can do through hard work and toughness is push people around. An inferior athlete can spend time in the weight room and become the toughest SOB. -A lot of these spread offenses have always recruited better than ISU. Maybe the spread works in allowing B athletes to over take A athletes. The offense has a slight advantage in space by knowing where to go. However if you have C athletes, does it matter?
Just because many teams are running it now does not mean ISU should. Fads are not popular because they offer universal success. I wonder if we are buying high. Many schools that are pointed to as using the "spread" offense as an equalizer were innovative for their market and time. For example, TT (different spread) and Northwestern. Defenses catch-up and the scheme no longer enhances your inferior athletes like they once did, plus other teams start to recruit your players. Wasn't the wishbone popular at one time?
I hear the argument that the spread gets your athletes in space more, giving them a chance to make plays. However I have three rebuttals/questions:
-Maybe this is an indictment of Herman and not the spread, but I saw more big plays out of the pro-set offenses and quasi-spread of McFarland.
-something to be said that if you do not have guns, do not turn it into a gun fight...I think it is kind of counter-intuitive to think the way you respond to having inferior athletes is to play a game based on space. Are you schematically enhancing your athletes or exposing them? Intuitively, I think it could be said you would want to hide them by going power, suck them in, then use deception to go over the top.
-along the same lines, ISU will be limited in competing in a track meet style of play. What we can do through hard work and toughness is push people around. An inferior athlete can spend time in the weight room and become the toughest SOB. -A lot of these spread offenses have always recruited better than ISU. Maybe the spread works in allowing B athletes to over take A athletes. The offense has a slight advantage in space by knowing where to go. However if you have C athletes, does it matter?
I guess I'll wait for the Neb game to make an accurate comparison then. In last year's win at Lincoln, Jessie Smith and Michael Brandtner, both McCarney players, were dominant players; they were named Big 12 Defensive and Special teams players of the week respectively. Smith ended up leading the Big 12 in tackles for the season.
We did this. It resulted in a TD called pack for a pass interference. The thing I question is, Why don't we use our recievers. Sedrick Johnson hasn't proved anything, why not try Jennert, or Blanton, or Gary? I highly doubt there is much of a/any drop off with them in. They might prove to be gamers.
I agree, we have been using more than one running back and its helped the team.
Why not use more receivers, they can drop them just as well as the first team is.
Maybe catch a few, and inspire the team.
As for Herman, lets remember we are playing ranked teams, 10,4,14 so back off.
Against good teams we hold our own and win.
Utah, Oklahoma, Texas have much better talent and deep.
Remember last year Oklahoma did not have a good offense last year because of injuries, now there undefeated.
If your IMAGE is based on ISU football success go find another team.
ISU fans are emotionally mature enough that we don't develop our self worth based on the talent of OTHERS. That is a hawkeye fan .
As every week goes by, I have these same thoughts as well. We are trying to run a spread, speed-based offense...in a league that is dominated by speed defenses featuring better athletes than what we have!
Now I know conferences have their own differences and nuances in styles of play, but look at Iowa's offense. You don't need to have 10 years of staff continuity to run that offense well. It is basic and straight-forward. When guys, regardless of their speed/size/athleticism, know their purpose in the offense and don't have to make a hundred different reads while their head is spinning, they have every chance to be successful. Be physical and run the football, which opens up playaction to tight ends and deep crossing patterns with man-to-man coverage. Also dump offs to RB/FB in the flats is something that is rarely used in college football but can be such an easy and comforting throw for a QB. With that type of offensive balance, defenses are continuously kept honest, and it takes lessor athletes to be successful and not as much time to implement.
Aside from spread quarterbacks needing the obvious accuracy skills to do well, just as importantly I believe they need a mix of a gunslinger's mindset AND smart game-management quarterback play, which is hard to come by. You take an above average QB in Stanzi, and he looks extremely comfortable and good in a simple offense that many times gives him an easy outlet to dump off to in case of any confusion or trouble. You don't have to try to recruit elite spread quarterbacks and 4 different types of receivers like we currently are, which is pretty difficult considering our tradition and facilities.
In my opinion Herman has a long ways to go to become a competent OC that flat out shreds inferior defenses and still stays at least somewhat competitive against superior defenses. Too often do we let opposing teams dictate the flow of the game and whatever they want to do, on both sides of the ball, instead of our O and D being the aggressors, while every other team in the country makes numerous big plays a game...
That's not necessarily a good thing or indication of anything. That could just mean he's making a ton of plays because the people in front of him are worthless...kinda like how Sims had a zillion tackles in Oklahoma.
Fine, Cotton, McFarland, Herman. None of them have be able to put points up. Maybe the problem isnt the OC. Maybe Mcfarland should have kept on to coach the Oline. I just think the biggest problem with this team is the Oline. No time for any QB, he always feels rushed and it shows in his passes, they cannot even move the pocket with success.
great idea. Compare a redshirt senior LB with 3 years as a starter to one of our true sophomore LB with 7 career starts. That's a great comparison, especially using a single game as a comparison where the senior had his best game of his career, that seems fair. While we're at it, let's find the best defensive player Mac ever recruited and compare his best game ever against Klien or Knott and decide if they're any good based on any one single game they play.
To be fair, at least you set up a fair comparison for the punter comparison, comparing a true freshman to a 4 years starting senior in a single game where they each will play a whooping 6 plays...oh wait, nevermind that's even more ridiculous.
get a ******* clue.
These are great points, and echo my thoughts. We need to do something different, that other teams aren't used to, and right now, everyone is used to the spread.
I think this era would be a great time to go back to the offenses we ran under Loney, with allot of motion. I miss seeing JJ or Lane go in motion behind Sage and Seneca. That look forced the defense to defend allot of different angles.
It has been established that fine was not good. Cotton had ok offenses for what he had to work with. McFarland put up some points (assisted by a bad defense).
The past two years have seen a good line and an average line. AA is pretty bad in the pocket, and can not throw while moving.
So what happened in 2008, a team full of Dmac players? Or 2006?
This year and last year should be dominated by Dmac guys. Instead it has been patch-work. Right now we have few quality seniors. What the hell was DMac doing at the end of his tenure? Jesse Smith was a walk-on. DMac gets very little credit.
In reality, we are seeing the (double)dip as the coaching change(s) move through the program. Previous coaches are going to have the most upperclassmen, and thus the most impact guys. This year should be lead by DMac's last year, and Chiz's first, of course it is going to be down.
Bingo. Take a look at the number of high school recruits from those classes that didn't finish here or didn't even make it to school.
2006
RB Josh Johnson
RB Harry Scott
RB Mitchell Moore
WR Derron Montgomery
WR Derrick Russell
OL Jose Vargas
OL Matt Hulbert
DT John Richardson
LB Kris Means
LB Matt Leaders
DB Randy Palmer
DB Drenard Williams
DB Devin McDowell
DB Prince McKinney
DB Justin Robertson
DB Kellen White
That's 16 guys from the 2006 class, and that's not even counting guys like Nate Frere and Fred Garrin who really could have used a redshirt year, or Austin Alburtis who could have played this year but had already graduated and decided not to. Even if just half of those 16 had panned out and been 5th year seniors this year, we would be a far more experienced team with more depth.
2007
QB Phillip Bates
WR Alex Sandvig
OL Joseph Klerekoper
OL James Carpenter
OL Trey Baysinger
DE Randy Kellman
DE/LB Fabian Brown
LB Anthony Green
LB Curtiz Mathis
LB Cameron Bell
LB/DB A.J. Mathews
That's 11 players, which is even worse when you take into account that we also signed 12 JUCOs that year. This class is the reason why we're so thin at linebacker. Unfortunately, it has forced us to burn the redshirt on Jeremiah George, who definitely could have used a redshirt year.
We only have seven players from the 2006 class and four from the 2007 class still in the program. That's why nine former walk-ons are now on scholarship. In order to be really successful, ISU needs to have a decent base of guys who have been developed in the same system for four or five years. Not only do we have a small number of 4th and 5th year players, but they've also been under two or three different coaching staffs. Our struggles should be no surprise to anyone when these things are taken into account.
Yet in spite of all of these things and the downward spiral of 2006-2008, this staff found a way to get us to a bowl game last year and bring us our third bowl victory ever. And whether people believe it or not, a bowl is still not out of the question for us this year, even though we're facing the toughest schedule in the nation.
This staff is doing a good job, but the team has some issues that can't be fixed in a year and a half. I know people are tired of patiently waiting, but the more impatient we become, the deeper the hole we dig for this program.
Here's why I think you're wrong about that. The first class signed after a new coaching staff is hired doesn't really count. I'm not saying there aren't any good players in a transition class, but you're basically left with whoever the last staff had committed and whoever you can find to fill out the class in the last month or two before signing day. It's never your ideal class.
The second class is a coaching staff's first real class. Most of them will redshirt, which means they'll only be redshirt freshmen in Year 3. Making a coordinator change because his redshirt freshmen aren't getting the job done yet is no way to build a program.
