Will McDonald on Hard Knocks

[SEIOWA CLONE]

That's a good thing. 1) Being so big and heavy is not healthy for these players. [Both for them personlly, and for those they may tackle or hit.] 2) The bigger, faster, stronger somewhere along the line reaches a point where the potential injury risk is greater than it needs to be.

I was sort of wondering if it would ever get to the point of a "positional weight limit" in College football and the NFL. It could be another way to maybe keep the game 'safer', and to avoid the extreme weight gain race some of these players must feel they need to adhere to.

Are we talking football here or are you talking about what we call soccer, because if its football, I count 20 offensive line on the 2023 roster that are 300 pounds and over, plus 2 on the defensive line 300 or over. The ones on both sides of the ball that are under 300 pounds tend to be freshman, and have not matured enough to put on the weight.

Both ISU and EIU have spent millions on new nutritional health centers being built in the last 10 years. These kids are being taught the moment they walk on campus the correct way to eat to play and what to eat. They are weighed almost daily during training camp, same with the NFL.

Can McDonald play at his current weight, sure, but he also will need to put on another 15 pounds or so to last in the league.

 

[EvilBetty]

So does that mean 2023 is fixing to be 2nd?

basically a lock

 

[t-noah]

Are we talking football here or are you talking about what we call soccer, because if its football, I count 20 offensive line on the 2023 roster that are 300 pounds and over, plus 2 on the defensive line 300 or over. The ones on both sides of the ball that are under 300 pounds tend to be freshman, and have not matured enough to put on the weight.

Both ISU and EIU have spent millions on new nutritional health centers being built in the last 10 years. These kids are being taught the moment they walk on campus the correct way to eat to play and what to eat. They are weighed almost daily during training camp, same with the NFL.

Can McDonald play at his current weight, sure, but he also will need to put on another 15 pounds or so to last in the league.

Are you serious? Wow! That's a lot of beef! And of course, we (I anyway) are talking about American football, obviously not soccer.

And what you are describing is the 'norm now in football. The coaches want not only stronger and faster but 'bigger'!' Bigger! BIGGER! How much bigger? Is there a limit? Should there be a limit?

 

[nfrine]

 

[CoKane]

I still don't get how people think Will underperformed last year. He was everywhere, got double teamed every single play, and the entire game plan from every offense was planned around him. I'm not sure if people just watch the ball or what, he was the best player in the field almost every snap of the year.

If Will was held back by the team and still got the Big 12 sack record then he must have actually been the greatest CFB player of all time

 

[clonedude]

If Will was held back by the team and still got the Big 12 sack record then he must have actually been the greatest CFB player of all time

Do you think he would have had more sacks if he saw less double teams? I do. And with only a 3 man front, he was definitely seeing a lot more double teams than he would have if we played a 4 man front.

 

[CoKane]

Do you think he would have had more sacks if he saw less double teams? I do. And with only a 3 man front, he was definitely seeing a lot more double teams than he would have if we played a 4 man front.

I mean, maybe. I'm not sure why we're worried about it though when he still finished his career as the best pass rusher in Big 12 history.

 

[madguy30]

Do you think he would have had more sacks if he saw less double teams? I do. And with only a 3 man front, he was definitely seeing a lot more double teams than he would have if we played a 4 man front.

But it would have likely led to a worse defense overall.

A 3 man front isn't necessarily that easy to block if run well enough.

 

[clonedude]

But it would have likely led to a worse defense overall.

A 3 man front isn't necessarily that easy to block if run well enough.

I wasn’t arguing if it was the correct defense for us to be playing or not …. it was…. just not the best for someone of Will’s abilities.

 

[RezClone]

 

[t-noah]

Thank you for these links, each and every week!!! I have to really look for these and am not sure I can always get to see them, especially the full episodes. I don't think I could find episode 1, until now.

Should be an interesting Hard Knocks/Jets year.

 

[NWICY]

Some people just can’t let it go that they were wrong that Will needed to gain weight to get drafted in the first round.

Want to stick with your takes that Purdy will never start in the NFL because of arm strength or Tyrese will never make it in the NBA because of his funky shot, too?

Metrics over results.
Some people just can't be happy or even just silent over someone else's success.

 

[AuH2O]

I'm sure some will see your post, take it out of context, and say, "we can't blitz on every play". That's not what you (I presume) or many of us are wanting. Don't go straight vanilla and do a little better job of putting your talent in position to make plays. You get sacks and create interceptions by getting to the QB and forcing him to throw before he's ready or comfortable. We missed a big opportunity there, especially with our offense being as crappy/inconsistent as is was.

I think what I get annoyed with is people see a guy like Will that is an ideal 4 man front DE, and think Heacock should mix it up or change to fit that.

Here’s the deal. The only team in our league that has produced fewer NFL draft picks since Campbell and Heacock have taken over is KU.

It’s the best scheme in the country run by the best coordinator in the country. If someone can point out a unit that is consistent top 2 in its league despite being bottom 2 in NFL draftees I’ll reconsider that statement.

People can say they should’ve done different things but you have no idea what the side effects would’ve been had they tried to run a 4 man front to suit Will better. Will’s ability to own the sack record given his position and our defense is impressive, and of course is well understood by NFL scouts.

I also think it’s a little strange that the two guys that destroyed the ISU sack total were DEs in this scheme.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Since the 3 man front was designed to provide more coverage on the back end, you can't say, definitively, that he would have had more sacks in a 4 man front. If the QB can get rid of the ball more quickly because of less coverage, it may have been a wash.

If anything, the lack of blitzing might have lowered his sack numbers. Either way, overall unit success has to come first.

 

[ZRF]

I think what I get annoyed with is people see a guy like Will that is an ideal 4 man front DE, and think Heacock should mix it up or change to fit that.

Here’s the deal. The only team in our league that has produced fewer NFL draft picks since Campbell and Heacock have taken over is KU.

It’s the best scheme in the country run by the best coordinator in the country. If someone can point out a unit that is consistent top 2 in its league despite being bottom 2 in NFL draftees I’ll reconsider that statement.

People can say they should’ve done different things but you have no idea what the side effects would’ve been had they tried to run a 4 man front to suit Will better. Will’s ability to own the sack record given his position and our defense is impressive, and of course is well understood by NFL scouts.

I also think it’s a little strange that the two guys that destroyed the ISU sack total were DEs in this scheme.

For me it wasn't "just about Will". It had to do with our personnel group as a whole.

We had two pretty good pass rushers that were often stymied by double (or even triple teams) in McD and Anderson. Our LBs were average at best, especially when Reeder was out of action. We had a lot of playmakers/talent in the secondary but the lack of a consistent rush, which was largely due to the aforementioned and lack of blitzing/pressure, meant opposing QBs often weren't taxed in getting rid of the ball. Our offense also sucked ass and had a hard time moving the ball, scoring, and/or at least flipping field position with regularity.

I think we can all agree the defense "wasn't" the problem. With that said, I think you coach/play to your strengths to win football games and we NEEDED the defense to be a little more aggressive. The lack of resulted in minimal TOs created and ZERO defensive touchdowns. You also miss opportunities to flip field position which we (unfortunately) couldn't do with our (anemic) STs.

If Campbell wanted to be bowl eligible, given the mistakes he made with his staff (offense and STs) and performances on the field he needed to do it via the defense. I'd understand the conservative approach when winning games but losing? Outside of X every playmaker this team had was on defense. I just don't think the system was ADAPTED (key word here) to fit the personnel we had. I think adapting (on both sides of the ball) should be a crucial concept at Iowa State where the unit talent can vary wildly from year to year.

 

[hurdleisu24]

For me it wasn't "just about Will". It had to do with our personnel group as a whole.

We had two pretty good pass rushers that were often stymied by double (or even triple teams) in McD and Anderson. Our LBs were average at best, especially when Reeder was out of action. We had a lot of playmakers/talent in the secondary but the lack of a consistent rush, which was largely due to the aforementioned and lack of blitzing/pressure, meant opposing QBs often weren't taxed in getting rid of the ball. Our offense also sucked ass and had a hard time moving the ball, scoring, and/or at least flipping field position with regularity.

I think we can all agree the defense "wasn't" the problem. With that said, I think you coach/play to your strengths to win football games and we NEEDED the defense to be a little more aggressive. The lack of resulted in minimal TOs created and ZERO defensive touchdowns. You also miss opportunities to flip field position which we (unfortunately) couldn't do with our (anemic) STs.

If Campbell wanted to be bowl eligible, given the mistakes he made with his staff (offense and STs) and performances on the field he needed to do it via the defense. I'd understand the conservative approach when winning games but losing? Outside of X every playmaker this team had was on defense. I just don't think the system was ADAPTED (key word here) to fit the personnel we had. I think adapting (on both sides of the ball) should be a crucial concept at Iowa State where the unit talent can vary wildly from year to year.

I would say we did play to our strength as a team last year. We were 4th in yards per game defensively last year, 18th in defensive points per game, 99th in TO gained and 114th in sacks per game. That shows me we had a solid group of defensive players playing together as a team and understanding their roles and playing within themselves. If you get more risky to try and get more TO or sacks, you leave others exposed- we didn't have the experience to do that. At the beginning of last year, remember, we were young in the defensive backfield, thin at LB and only Will as a major player on the Dline. We needed to scheme to play together as a team.

 

[ZRF]

I would say we did play to our strength as a team last year. We were 4th in yards per game defensively last year, 18th in defensive points per game, 99th in TO gained and 114th in sacks per game. That shows me we had a solid group of defensive players playing together as a team and understanding their roles and playing within themselves. If you get more risky to try and get more TO or sacks, you leave others exposed- we didn't have the experience to do that. At the beginning of last year, remember, we were young in the defensive backfield, thin at LB and only Will as a major player on the Dline. We needed to scheme to play together as a team.

I think you are selling the potential of the pass rush and the secondary short. We knew what we had with McD and Anderson played well from day one. The problem is both guys were smallish and a three man front allowed the opposition to double BOTH of our best players. Our secondary may have been young but we also knew, on paper, it was the most talented positional group on the roster and they backed that up early on.

So here we have a first round pass rusher getting doubled (sometimes tripled), a more than viable rusher in Anderson, yet we were fairly abysmal at getting sacks. Admittedly the stats don't always tell the entire story as sometimes we got pressure but with a 3 man front there is often a LOT of scrambling room. With that said we did absolutely nothing to create favorable matchups and try to help our anemic offense get field position, ergo help them score points. Instead we played a base defense that was excellent in preventing yards and touchdowns, but beyond paltry in flipping field position, scoring touchdowns (we didn't score ONE defensive TD all season), and creating TOs. Those three things mitigated some of the impact the defense had, especially for the team we put on the field.

At the end of the day the offense was trash, the coaching (outside Heacock) was suspect, and the special teams were the joke (yet again) of college football. This wasn't really a good football team but I would have liked to see Heacock and the coaches be more aggressive with THE BEST UNIT we had and see what they could have done. People act like some (like myself here) are saying the defense was faulty and that we need to completely abandon the system. That's not the case. I think we could have done a better job of moving guys around, mitigating the biggest defensive weakness we had (LB), and put the line AND the secondary in better positions to make game changing plays.

Would it have worked? None of us, including myself can say for certain. But I do think it was a huge mistake, given the offensive and special teams struggles, not to try. It's akin to an awesome offense being taken off the field on a 4th and 1, down 42-46 with 3 minutes to go with 3 timeouts. The staff is clearly playing to get the ball back but you are taking your BEST unit, the unit that's put you in a position to win the game in the first place, off the field. To a lesser degree we did the same thing with our defense. We stuck with the status quo despite greater team needs (in order to win) and positional talent that screamed for an alteration.

Will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[AuH2O]

I think you are selling the potential of the pass rush and the secondary short. We knew what we had with McD and Anderson played well from day one. The problem is both guys were smallish and a three man front allowed the opposition to double BOTH of our best players. Our secondary may have been young but we also knew, on paper, it was the most talented positional group on the roster and they backed that up early on.

So here we have a first round pass rusher getting doubled (sometimes tripled), a more than viable rusher in Anderson, yet we were fairly abysmal at getting sacks. Admittedly the stats don't always tell the entire story as sometimes we got pressure but with a 3 man front there is often a LOT of scrambling room. With that said we did absolutely nothing to create favorable matchups and try to help our anemic offense get field position, ergo help them score points. Instead we played a base defense that was excellent in preventing yards and touchdowns, but beyond paltry in flipping field position, scoring touchdowns (we didn't score ONE defensive TD all season), and creating TOs. Those three things mitigated some of the impact the defense had, especially for the team we put on the field.

At the end of the day the offense was trash, the coaching (outside Heacock) was suspect, and the special teams were the joke (yet again) of college football. This wasn't really a good football team but I would have liked to see Heacock and the coaches be more aggressive with THE BEST UNIT we had and see what they could have done. People act like some (like myself here) are saying the defense was faulty and that we need to completely abandon the system. That's not the case. I think we could have done a better job of moving guys around, mitigating the biggest defensive weakness we had (LB), and put the line AND the secondary in better positions to make game changing plays.

Would it have worked? None of us, including myself can say for certain. But I do think it was a huge mistake, given the offensive and special teams struggles, not to try. It's akin to an awesome offense being taken off the field on a 4th and 1, down 42-46 with 3 minutes to go with 3 timeouts. The staff is clearly playing to get the ball back but you are taking your BEST unit, the unit that's put you in a position to win the game in the first place, off the field. To a lesser degree we did the same thing with our defense. We stuck with the status quo despite greater team needs (in order to win) and positional talent that screamed for an alteration.

Will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think this is a fair assessment. Our offense and special teams were poor last year, so maybe trying to gamble a bit and be more disruptive would've been worth the risk.

That may be correct, but I think hindsight and knowing that we fell short in all those close games makes that an easier decision. It would've been really tough to make that call and change course while the season was still in full swing and ISU was a play away so many times.

 

[madguy30]

I think this is a fair assessment. Our offense and special teams were poor last year, so maybe trying to gamble a bit and be more disruptive would've been worth the risk.

That may be correct, but I think hindsight and knowing that we fell short in all those close games makes that an easier decision. It would've been really tough to make that call and change course while the season was still in full swing and ISU was a play away so many times.

In 2021, ISU was 79th in these rankings in turnovers, 70th in INTs, 108th in fumbles in this ranking. It's a trend that ISU doesn't turn teams over at real strong rate.

2021 College Football Team Defense | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the 2021 College Football Team Defense and more about College Football at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

Last year, 2/3 phases were pretty bad and the main part of the problem.

However, the lean on the defense has to be something that creates havoc and potentially gives a spark to the offense like a short field if the ability is there.

The defense keeps things in front to not give up much, but it doesn't make much happen either. A few good and great players, but it's still not exactly a defense made up of 1st rounders all over and I suppose there has to be caution in taking risks to try to force disruption with what's realistically not a group that can cover up mistakes/gaps.

 

[t-noah]

Have you guys seen..All Access/2023/One Jets Drive? A Jets production, and it's pretty good. Reminds me a little of Hard Knocks. Here's episode 3, and starting with Them talking about Breece..