Campbell clock management
- Thread starter cymac2408
- Start date
Ridiculous take.
Doing what ISU did ensured they had little to no margin of error to even get the ball back. It makes scoring the touchdown borderline irrelevant.
Now, if this was the first time it's been an issue one could say the staff maybe didn't think Rocco could run a hurry up. I think that would be weak (you do what the game and situation dictate) but it's least it's plausible. Problem is Campbell has mismanaged clock his entire tenure. In other words the fact it was Rocco likely had little bearing on their decision to waste time. Somehow Campbell just doesn't know any better.
Like I said I would have loved to have had the ability to go fast but we have not shown that ability yet. We are still struggling with going slower.
If we didn’t score there, how fast we went absolutely wouldn’t have mattered. We first needed to score. Second we needed to do it fast.
I thought with the time it took we would have needed an onside kick but we didn’t even need that. We were able to kick off and trust the defense to still have enough time.
I’m not going to sit here and say I’m a fan of Campbell’s clock management but clock management didn’t actually affect the outcome.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
If you can’t go fast with 8 minutes left what makes you think you can go fast with 1:50 left?
That’s the situation clock management put ISU in. You had the ball with about 8 minutes left, but you needed to score twice. You’re going to have to move the ball with urgency sometime. Were the Cyclones in position to tie/win the game at the end? Sort of … but if the coaching staff didn’t have confidence in them moving quickly on the first drive, what made them think they had a chance to move quickly on the last drive? They basically admitted the offense can’t do it.
This strategy of “keep it close & have a chance at the end” sounds good, but you need explosive plays and players that can get chunks of yardage late to make that game plan pay off. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of one-score losses … sounds pretty familiar to us ISU fans. Sure, rolling the dice more often and trying to stretch the field during the heart of the game might mean more 20-30 point losses, but an L is an L, you don’t get points for “having a shot at the end.”
That’s the situation clock management put ISU in. You had the ball with about 8 minutes left, but you needed to score twice. You’re going to have to move the ball with urgency sometime. Were the Cyclones in position to tie/win the game at the end? Sort of … but if the coaching staff didn’t have confidence in them moving quickly on the first drive, what made them think they had a chance to move quickly on the last drive? They basically admitted the offense can’t do it.
This strategy of “keep it close & have a chance at the end” sounds good, but you need explosive plays and players that can get chunks of yardage late to make that game plan pay off. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of one-score losses … sounds pretty familiar to us ISU fans. Sure, rolling the dice more often and trying to stretch the field during the heart of the game might mean more 20-30 point losses, but an L is an L, you don’t get points for “having a shot at the end.”
Last edited:
When your strategy is simply to keep it close no matter what, errors are magnified.
You better have exceptional coaching like Iowa, or a huge talent advantage.
ISU has neither on the offensive side of the ball.
Teams know CampbellBall means limiting risks and keeping it close. Other teams with better talent and/or coaching simply do it better.
Heacock and the defense are amazing, and keep us in games. But the lack of talent, creativity, and risk-taking on the offensive side will always doom ISU now. Get used to it.
You better have exceptional coaching like Iowa, or a huge talent advantage.
ISU has neither on the offensive side of the ball.
Teams know CampbellBall means limiting risks and keeping it close. Other teams with better talent and/or coaching simply do it better.
Heacock and the defense are amazing, and keep us in games. But the lack of talent, creativity, and risk-taking on the offensive side will always doom ISU now. Get used to it.
I feel like there's more confidence and long term benefit when you play to win
Ridiculous take.
As has been mentioned ad nauseam, we had a first time starting QB and a first time OC. What hasn’t been mentioned is that the offense has a grand total of ONE player who is starting at the same position he did all last year—Jaylin Noel.
That’s not mentioning the freshmen, redshirt freshmen and transfer who have never played together before.
Yes, Campbell played conservatively—big shocker.
But he deliberately played carefully so that he could build confidence in these guys playing together, rather than taking a much higher risk of a mistake happening and destroying any and all progress.
Success is built through repetitions. Campbell is building the foundation now for success the rest of the season—and for the next few years.
I’m sorry some of you didn’t get your immediate gratification…but unless lightning somehow strikes, that’s really not how it works.
It felt like the worst part was the subbing in and out for different packages every play on that drive…why even give Iowa the opportunity to sub?
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
I get what you’re saying, but this strategy has remained unchanged through new starters/veteran starters/NFL caliber starters. The only difference is the NFL caliber starters had the ability to make that necessary big play at the end when it was still close.
Since CampbellBall has always been like this, and while I can indeed see the benefit of this approach for the younger players, I don’t think Saturday’s 4th quarter clock management was because of young, untested starters. That’s simply the way CMC wants to play - and until you get players with the ability and “clutchness” to get chunk yards in crunch time, you’re gonna lose most of those one-score outcomes.
I don't think anyone is asking for jet tempo but the play clock was consistently down to 5-10 seconds left. You need to have some time left on the clock for the next drive
Again, it's a ridiculous take and contradictory. If we don't have the ability to show more urgency with 10 minutes on the clock, how are we going to do it under two minutes IF we are able to get the ball back? Based on your logic (or lack thereof) we should have simply thrown in the towel as we simply don't have the ability to move the ball.
The real issue is you don't know if you don't even try, which we didn't. The game dictated that needed to occur in the last 10 minutes. Not acknowledging or refusing to do so is inadequate game management. No other way to spin in.
Read some of the posts above this. They explain that perfectly.
There was a lot more booing from that drive than during the standard questionable call. You were not alone in that feeling.
Right?
I don't expect a Petyon Manning no huddle where we call and get plays off in 5-7 seconds, but I would think a competent collegiate staff could so so in 15 seconds (max). Constantly running the clock to less than 10 seconds left was simply terrible coaching.
Yeah 14 play drive. If you can snap the ball with 15 seconds vs 10 seconds (sometimes it was even lower than that) that's 70 more seconds on the clock. Now you have 3 minutes left on the final drive and have time to be more methodical again.
Lol - sorry, I just have to laugh here. Literally. EVERYTHING that you stated here - every single thing that supposedly Campbell wanted to accomplish - could have been accomplished without running the play clock down under 3 seconds every snap. Literally could have saved 10 -15 seconds on nearly every single snap, and still methodically and patiently marched down the field. It took THAT long to get the play call in. That’s the sign of a staff that was scrambling to figure out what to do, not a staff that was ready with a scheme/plan to efficiently attack that specific opportunity.
Last edited:
On the post-game show, Jack Whitver repeatedly asserted some smooth-brain logic that clock management wasn't actually an issue because we got the ball back with 1:55 remaining and a chance to tie the game. We didn't, of course, and the clock expired.
Now imagine if we had shown the slightest sense of urgency throughout the second half, we may have had time for 1 more, maybe even 2 or more possessions.
We have this incredible 2nd half defense that gets stops when the game is on the line, but we're committed to playing hyper-conservative offense and don't even give them a chance.
Now imagine if we had shown the slightest sense of urgency throughout the second half, we may have had time for 1 more, maybe even 2 or more possessions.
We have this incredible 2nd half defense that gets stops when the game is on the line, but we're committed to playing hyper-conservative offense and don't even give them a chance.
See that logic makes no sense. We needed all this time to score the first time but that left us with no time to score the second time. That's why I feel like it should have been reasonable to expect us to go a little bit faster on the 1st time.
No your too dead set in your view that you refuse to listen to a different perspective.
Like I said we should have been moving faster. There was no real reason it took them so long to get the plays in and set. That is something that absolutely needs to improve.
That said they were not just running the clock down to run the clock down. They needed that time to get it right. If they hadn’t taken the time to get that stuff right they wouldn’t have scored and it wouldn’t have mattered how much time it took. It was less clock management and poor organization and preparation. Still on coaching but it’s a different issue. You have people complaining that they were running the ball when we saw all game they couldn’t just throw the ball only.
