ISU Football "Pro Style Offense"

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
25,686
18,420
113
McCarney ran a conservative style offense like this and everyone hated it. Everyone said we need to do something original and unique because we would never be able to get the recruits to beat the big boys at their own game. I don't really think that has changed.

True, but that grindball offense scored just as much as our "jet tempo" offense, so we might as well go back to that to give the defense a rest.

That will be a major overhaul though.
 

ThatllDoCy

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2009
17,991
11,142
113
51
Minneapolis, MN
www.katchllc.com
One big question is if Mark Mangino will sign another contract with ISU. I could see it going both ways. I haven't heard rumblings he is unhappy, but he could start interviewing late in the season.

So we may get a new offense whether we like it or not.
 

Doc

This is it Morty
Aug 6, 2006
37,437
21,962
113
Denver
So assuming Paul is fired at the end of the season. Do we bring in another spread offense type of coach or do we bring in a Pro style offense like Iowa, Stanford and Wisconsin? I personally think we need to switch to a pro style and go under center more. I think with the talent we go up against we need to have a different offense that defenses need to prepare differently for.

As far as recruiting, I think this would benefit us as we wouldn't be going after the same type of talent that the rest of the Big 12 is already going after. The next 5-6 years will be rough as no coach will be able to come in and flip this program right around. Anything is better than the crap display we watch every week.

If a lot of HS are running spreads, it's going to make recruiting a QB for that system a *****.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
59,399
20,930
113
Macomb, MI
McCarney ran a conservative style offense like this and everyone hated it. Everyone said we need to do something original and unique because we would never be able to get the recruits to beat the big boys at their own game. I don't really think that has changed.

Wrong.

The offense in itself was fine. In reality there were two different problems:

When things were going good: Any time McCarney got a lead, he was always afraid of his offense making the big mistake - the critical turnover that would swing the game in an instant, one from which his team would never be able to recover from. To his credit he had some really good defenses late in his tenure and his expectation was for the defense to go out and win the game. The problem is, as good as the defense was, the lead was never that large (usually no more than two possessions), so opponents would chip away at the lead, and eventually ISU would find itself tied or down. Unfortunately, by that time, the offense was completely out of rhythm and never could kick it back into gear to win the game. This was best exhibited during the 2004 and 2005 seasons.

When things were going bad: The offense was so predictable that everyone - the opponents, the fans in the stadium, everyone watching at home - knew what play the offense was going to run before the OC called the play - usually it was run up the middle/run up the middle/3rd and long pass play/punt. Even if the defense was good, they got no support whatsoever and were left hanging out to dry. This was best exhibited during the second half of 2002, 2003, and 2006.

At the time we switched to the spread under Chizik, few teams in the conference were running it (mainly Texas Tech). That was when virtually everyone in the conference switched to it. ISU is in a situation where it has to be distinct from what everyone else in the conference does. And you can be just as creative running a Power-I as you can be running a spread. What you need is an OC that knows how to run an offense effectively and isn't hamstrung by a defensive coach (as was the case with McCarney, Chizik, and now Rhoads).
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
7,747
6,289
113
Dubuque
My struggle is why not a mix of spread and "pro style"? There are situations where I think it makes sense for the QB to be under center. Goal line situations or like Saturday night when we were trying to set up the game losing field goal. Why risk two shotgun snaps?

I put quotes around pro style because teams like Iowa, Wisconsin or Stanford don't really run pro-style offenses. When I watched NFL games yesterday, I saw teams go with 4 WR sets, then at times 2 TE's. They had their QB under center and in shotgun.
 

Cyhart

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2009
3,184
132
48
Des Moines
I am saying if you want the fastest way to clean house, go with this plan. All the skill players signed with us to play a certain style of offense, you change that you change the need for those players, great plan lets push the program back to the Walden era.....

Couldn't agree more. Think recruiting is hard now? Try running what kids these days see as a "boring" system. I say we go the opposite way. Thinking Leach or Bob Stitt. A gimmicky air raid of sorts.
 

Wesley

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
70,923
546
113
Omaha
One big question is if Mark Mangino will sign another contract with ISU. I could see it going both ways. I haven't heard rumblings he is unhappy, but he could start interviewing late in the season.

So we may get a new offense whether we like it or not.
Bring back the mess?:shocked:
 

Ficklone02

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,702
377
83
City by the Bay
Wrong.

The offense in itself was fine. In reality there were two different problems:

When things were going good: Any time McCarney got a lead, he was always afraid of his offense making the big mistake - the critical turnover that would swing the game in an instant, one from which his team would never be able to recover from. To his credit he had some really good defenses late in his tenure and his expectation was for the defense to go out and win the game. The problem is, as good as the defense was, the lead was never that large (usually no more than two possessions), so opponents would chip away at the lead, and eventually ISU would find itself tied or down. Unfortunately, by that time, the offense was completely out of rhythm and never could kick it back into gear to win the game. This was best exhibited during the 2004 and 2005 seasons.

When things were going bad: The offense was so predictable that everyone - the opponents, the fans in the stadium, everyone watching at home - knew what play the offense was going to run before the OC called the play - usually it was run up the middle/run up the middle/3rd and long pass play/punt. Even if the defense was good, they got no support whatsoever and were left hanging out to dry. This was best exhibited during the second half of 2002, 2003, and 2006.

At the time we switched to the spread under Chizik, few teams in the conference were running it (mainly Texas Tech). That was when virtually everyone in the conference switched to it. ISU is in a situation where it has to be distinct from what everyone else in the conference does. And you can be just as creative running a Power-I as you can be running a spread. What you need is an OC that knows how to run an offense effectively and isn't hamstrung by a defensive coach (as was the case with McCarney, Chizik, and now Rhoads).

Agree that the offense wasn't vanilla at all. I remember watching Sage run the read option....this was before maybe 90% of college football was running it.
 

Cyclonus

Member
Nov 22, 2009
236
13
18
Milwaukee
Run the Option.

ISU will always be the scrappy underdog. May as well make it a pain in the *** to play against us. Take the really athletic kids running the Triple Option in high school who are only being recruited as generic "athletes" at other schools (minus Georgia Tech and the service academies) and let them play their natural positions. The ceiling will be lower for success but 6-8 wins doesn't seem so bad right now. Sign me up for a Paul Johnson disciple and being difficult to play against.
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,445
48
48
Do you think K-State wins because of their offensive scheme or cuz of some guy called Snyder? Besides, K-State spreads things out plenty. They just run from it a lot.

My point being if it works, and we win, I will be happy with it. Avoiding it because that offense would be "boring" is a dumb idea, when we probably have the most boring offense out there.

It's a dumb idea because this thread completely whiffs on why teams run a version of the spread. It's about numbers in the box. Not taking advantage of that at isu is beyond stupid.

Pro set doesn't accomplish that.

kstate runs the spread and pro. Their quarterbacks run all the time. Spread!
 

D UP Clones

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,445
48
48
Do you think K-State wins because of their offensive scheme or cuz of some guy called Snyder? Besides, K-State spreads things out plenty. They just run from it a lot.

Run the Option.

ISU will always be the scrappy underdog. May as well make it a pain in the *** to play against us. Take the really athletic kids running the Triple Option in high school who are only being recruited as generic "athletes" at other schools (minus Georgia Tech and the service academies) and let them play their natural positions. The ceiling will be lower for success but 6-8 wins doesn't seem so bad right now. Sign me up for a Paul Johnson disciple and being difficult to play against.


My goodness I hope none of you have any say in the isu offense.
 

LivntheCyLife

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2006
1,890
860
113
St. Louis, MO
I think a lot of the spread offense concepts are here to stay in football at all levels. The biggest thing I see is the read option as your bread and butter run play is much better defended and just too predictable. NFL teams have taken a lot of ideas from the spread but most still get their QB under center some with a centered tailback being able to easily run to either side. And the lineman know how to run block when they need to and it's not just all zone blocking.

Unless there's some new truly innovative offense out there, I think we'll increasingly see the effective offensive teams be the ones that can give multiple looks and creativity that's more of a hybrid system.
 

aeroclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
9,766
5,762
113
It's a dumb idea because this thread completely whiffs on why teams run a version of the spread. It's about numbers in the box. Not taking advantage of that at isu is beyond stupid.

Pro set doesn't accomplish that.

kstate runs the spread and pro. Their quarterbacks run all the time. Spread!

What makes you think we can ever run the spread effectively? Chiz couldn't, and CPR is failing with his third OC. Two of those coordinators being very highly regarded in Herman and Mangino.
 

kingcy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 16, 2006
22,570
3,351
113
Menlo, Iowa
Run the Option.

ISU will always be the scrappy underdog. May as well make it a pain in the *** to play against us. Take the really athletic kids running the Triple Option in high school who are only being recruited as generic "athletes" at other schools (minus Georgia Tech and the service academies) and let them play their natural positions. The ceiling will be lower for success but 6-8 wins doesn't seem so bad right now. Sign me up for a Paul Johnson disciple and being difficult to play against.

Hi coach Walden.
 

temperflare

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2007
7,800
249
63
Bondurant
Just one but I would hope that would be the case. Outside of Vick, no one was taking guys who were perceived as a real running threat. Since teams started using them, they have had a lot of success.

Guys in the NFL shift around Gase goes from one team to another. A lot of guys do and at the end of the day, systems are all pretty similar. The difference is if you have Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, or Peyton Manning. Russell Wilson isn't half the passer those guys are but he makes up for it in other way and teams that use a guy like that can really narrow the gap rather than sitting on a Dalton or Tannehill or you name the mediocre guy you hitch your wagon to.

I agree completely that having a mobile QB is a good thing. Vick is/was an extremely exciting player to watch going back to his VaTech days. But every team is after the next Tom Brady, Payton Manning and Aaron Rodgers. Aside from SB rings, they are franchise QB's and great for PR. Aaron Rodgers is the most mobile of the 3 and he can make things happen with his legs, but I'm certain he'd rather not.

I think the only way you are going to have longevity with a mobile QB is if he runs as a last option when the reads don't pan out and he avoids getting hit squarely (Aaron Rodgers). I'm sure Tom Brady or Payton Manning would love to not have a 5.2 40 time. But because they don't they are hard ***** when it comes to their WR's running good routes and their O-L blocking.

All that aside...

I am giddy as a lil school girl watching Harbaugh turn Michigan around. The offense is about as punishing as the defense and unlike the last 6 or so years they seem to know what their purpose is and are directed towards it in unison. It is turning back into the team I grew up loving. BYU will be a good litmus test for the rest of the season. I think if we play Utah again its a different game entirely. And with ISU football being down and I know you probably feel about the same way regarding TX, its good to have Harbaugh at Michigan.
 

Tedcyclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2009
2,992
201
63
45
West Des Moines
I dont care what offense we bring in but you need to fit the personal to the style. We dont! The Detroit Lions have the same damn problem. Calvin Johnson has been talked about as being old, slower, etc... Its not Calvin its the system. They throw 45 times a game, and run quick passes... Calvin is not a quick route guy. We do the same **** with Lazard and Montgomery. They are not in and out of cuts in 1 second. Which is what we need because we cant run the damn ball, and rarely have single man coverage on guys that can run 20 yard routes. With our best WR we need to run enough to set up play action and throw the single covered guy be it Lazard, Montgomery, Daley, or Bundrage. The system is failing us because it doesnt match our guys. It pisses me off every week. Again the Detroit Lions would be best running 30 times and passing 25. So would we.. If we are not going to do that or cant. Then we need Bundrage, Daley and some other quicker WRs to run quick easy routes that are open instantly. To lossen up Lazard and Montgomery deep.
 

CyInDFW

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2015
1,414
608
113
Lewisville, TX
Everyone has no clue what it takes to run a successful football program. Everyone will like the offense, no matter what offense it is, when we win with it. In the meantime, Everyone should shut his mouth and let the pros take care of it.

I could care less what offense it is. The only thing I care about is- can we win with it.


Actually I think you couldn't care less...if you could care less then why would you say anything...just saying.