About the play calling...

[ISUFan22]

Post Toledo...there has been a lot of criticism of the play calling in the game...the non-aggressive approach.

I'd like to point out...we started the game with 4 straight passing plays. Well...the 2nd play was a run by Meyer but only after he checked all receivers and not a one was open.

A recap...

1st and 10 - quick out to Davis for 3 yards

2nd and 7 - Meyer rolls left...looks...tucks and runs for a couple

3rd and a long 4 - Meyer hits Blythe quick for a first down

1st and 10 - Meyer hits Barkema on the left for what appears to be the best play so far, then the fumble.

The Cyclone Recap Show will show ya this...

Cyclones.com

As I said in a few posts prior to the game...I felt the game plan would be to attack Toledo via the air early and often. That's exactly what we did...even on the 2nd drive when we scored. Yet I think the early fumble put some caution on the coaches - as it should. Anytime you turn the ball over you have to re-evaluate your approach...no matter how the turnover happened.

While I too would have liked to see us kill the game in the 3rd/4th quarter when we had our chances...I can also understand where the coaching staff was coming from.

 

[monkeybrow]

Post Toledo...there has been a lot of criticism of the play calling in the game...the non-aggressive approach.

I'd like to point out...we started the game with 4 straight passing plays. Well...the 2nd play was a run by Meyer but only after he checked all receivers and not a one was open.

A recap...

1st and 10 - quick out to Davis for 3 yards

2nd and 7 - Meyer rolls left...looks...tucks and runs for a couple

3rd and a long 4 - Meyer hits Blythe quick for a first down

1st and 10 - Meyer hits Barkema on the left for what appears to be the best play so far, then the fumble.

The Cyclone Recap Show will show ya this...

Cyclones.com

As I said in a few posts prior to the game...I felt the game plan would be to attack Toledo via the air early and often. That's exactly what we did...even on the 2nd drive when we scored. Yet I think the early fumble put some caution on the coaches - as it should. Anytime you turn the ball over you have to re-evaluate your approach...no matter how the turnover happened.

While I too would have liked to see us kill the game in the 3rd/4th quarter when we had our chances...I can also understand where the coaching staff was coming from.

Worry not mate...no matter what you post to prove your point...there will always be the armchair generals...I popped about a longhorn fansite and I was seeing the same tripe...and they are the national champs for sweet mary's sake!

 

[cydsho]

Post Toledo...there has been a lot of criticism of the play calling in the game...the non-aggressive approach.

I'd like to point out...we started the game with 4 straight passing plays. Well...the 2nd play was a run by Meyer but only after he checked all receivers and not a one was open.

A recap...

1st and 10 - quick out to Davis for 3 yards

2nd and 7 - Meyer rolls left...looks...tucks and runs for a couple

3rd and a long 4 - Meyer hits Blythe quick for a first down

1st and 10 - Meyer hits Barkema on the left for what appears to be the best play so far, then the fumble.

The Cyclone Recap Show will show ya this...

Cyclones.com

As I said in a few posts prior to the game...I felt the game plan would be to attack Toledo via the air early and often. That's exactly what we did...even on the 2nd drive when we scored. Yet I think the early fumble put some caution on the coaches - as it should. Anytime you turn the ball over you have to re-evaluate your approach...no matter how the turnover happened.

While I too would have liked to see us kill the game in the 3rd/4th quarter when we had our chances...I can also understand where the coaching staff was coming from.

I was extremely excited to see us open up the offensive at the beginning of the game. I wasn't expecting us to continue that the whole game because at some point when you have a large lead you go conservative. With Mac it seems like this time is in the 3rd quarter only up two scores. I think that is too early with our young defense.
I'm curious about your comments on the early fumble by Barkema and how that might have made the coaches re-evaluate the game plan. IMO this is why we might never get over the hump with Mac. (if true) You put your best players out on the field and let them play. If you don't believe in them enough you will never be a great team. Changing after the fumble only proves we are playing scared and we will be runner ups again. Why tout up your WR corp then decide they aren't good enough to win?

 

[TheHelgo]

Ok, i don't want to make a habit of questioning the play-calling, but it is easy to see where people are coming from. We are not talking about the early aggressive play in the 1st/2nd quarter - the talk is of the 'playing not to lose' mentality that ISU has employed over the last couple of years. Remember Kansas/Missouri last year how we had a 4th Quarter leads and proceeded to become conservative and settle for 3 and outs, and putting an incredible amount of pressure on our defense to hold the lead (and not become fatigued at the same time). I saw us do this again against Toledo last Thursday - slowing down the game with a 2nd half lead to 'preserve the lead and not make mistakes'. We don't have the defense for that. We simply need to play to win, and not play to not lose. Let our 'high-powered' offense win the game, and not rely on our young defense to hold leads. Just my 2 cents.

 

[pyrocyz]

so riddle me this cyclone fans...if we all agree that the offense was going to be responsible for winning the game on thursday, then why are we all complaining that they ran the ball. By running the ball they remove time off the clock. If we were to go to the passing attack and score quickly...then we just put the defense back on the field and there is a very good chance that toledo scores again also. Why not play it a little conservatively and take time off the clock. In my opinion, I don't think that Mac had a choice but to burn the clock. The less time that our defense was on the field, the better. If we let the game go into an all out shoot out then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Until our defense shows that they can make a stop on 3rd or even 4th down, I have no problem keeping them off the field. hopefully we have a larger lead before we go conservative during the UNLV game, but if we have that lead I personally don't care if we go conservative.

 

[ISUFan22]

so riddle me this cyclone fans...if we all agree that the offense was going to be responsible for winning the game on thursday, then why are we all complaining that they ran the ball. By running the ball they remove time off the clock. If we were to go to the passing attack and score quickly...then we just put the defense back on the field and there is a very good chance that toledo scores again also. Why not play it a little conservatively and take time off the clock. In my opinion, I don't think that Mac had a choice but to burn the clock. The less time that our defense was on the field, the better. If we let the game go into an all out shoot out then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Until our defense shows that they can make a stop on 3rd or even 4th down, I have no problem keeping them off the field. hopefully we have a larger lead before we go conservative during the UNLV game, but if we have that lead I personally don't care if we go conservative.

Ohhhhhhh...good stuff there sir!

 

[cydsho]

so riddle me this cyclone fans...if we all agree that the offense was going to be responsible for winning the game on thursday, then why are we all complaining that they ran the ball. By running the ball they remove time off the clock. If we were to go to the passing attack and score quickly...then we just put the defense back on the field and there is a very good chance that toledo scores again also. Why not play it a little conservatively and take time off the clock. In my opinion, I don't think that Mac had a choice but to burn the clock. The less time that our defense was on the field, the better. If we let the game go into an all out shoot out then we are setting ourselves up for failure. Until our defense shows that they can make a stop on 3rd or even 4th down, I have no problem keeping them off the field. hopefully we have a larger lead before we go conservative during the UNLV game, but if we have that lead I personally don't care if we go conservative.

Good points........that is IF we had a consistant running game that can grind out a 10-12 play drive. Did that happen? What is better, a 1-2 series conservative running drive or a 1-3 passing drive with a score? I think if we score more points, it's a good thing. Having momentum is good and you don't think our def wouldn't be pumped up more after a score. Plus if you extend the lead it makes the other team hurry up and maybe you can capitalize on their mistakes, like a sack or a turnover. This is perfect for our def.
BTW, you can pass the ball and still control the clock. With the tools we have I think we could have easily made a long clock eating drive with the pass as the main weapon. I don't expect us to throw the bomb every play.

 

[tazclone]

Good points........that is IF we had a consistant running game that can grind out a 10-12 play drive. Did that happen? What is better, a 1-2 series conservative running drive or a 1-3 passing drive with a score? I think if we score more points, it's a good thing. Having momentum is good and you don't think our def wouldn't be pumped up more after a score. Plus if you extend the lead it makes the other team hurry up and maybe you can capitalize on their mistakes, like a sack or a turnover. This is perfect for our def.
BTW, you can pass the ball and still control the clock. With the tools we have I think we could have easily made a long clock eating drive with the pass as the main weapon. I don't expect us to throw the bomb every play.

Go back and watch the game. Our running game was knocking off 4-7 ypc. Hicks had over a 5 ypc average until the fourth, when Toledo commited to stopping the run for one series. Yes long sustained drives help keep the defense off the field but everyone here is saying go to Blythe on every play. Everybody wants the big play. The big play does not equate to long sustained drives. The rest of the game the playcalling was balanced. Don't believ me watch the game again or go to ESPN and check out the play by play.
THE ONLY PLAY CALLING that should be close to being questioned would be the drive that resulted in the bad snap. A recap for you. We recovered a fumble, ran the ball twice for little gain, and then hit Sumrall for 18 yds. We were then on the 26 had an 8 pt lead. Here is an opportunity to go up two scores and essentially seal the game. Shaggy was 90% inside 40 last year and a perfect 6-6 between 30-39. Over 40 yds he is 50% for his career. Essentially get five yards and go up by two scores. A sack, or any play that results in loss yardage takes us out of field goal range. Run the ball get five yards and eat clock. It is intelligent football.
If you are inside the twenty...hell yeah go for the end zone. Fade route that won't get INT. If you get sacked you are still in field goal range. Fewer risks. Kansas was a different story and different situation... We should have been more agressive.

 

[ISUFan22]

THE ONLY PLAY CALLING that should be close to being questioned would be the drive that resulted in the bad snap.

I agree 100%. That's the "drive" where we got the turnover and did nothing with it.

However...fans take that drive and behave as if the playcalling the entire game was horrible.

All it would have taken was a TD on that drive and fans (for the most part) would be praising the play calling in the game.

So one drive...and we wanna fire D-Mac and/or slam the play calling? C'mon...

 

[Wesley]

"Hicks had over a 5 ypc average until the fourth, when Toledo commited to stopping the run for one series."

If I observe properly, everyone in the ball park expected McC to sit on the ball in fourth quarter after being up 20-8. So did Toledo. So they challenged us to run the ball. We ran the ball to no avail and Toledo marched right down the field. Eerie.

Unfortunately last year we had a history of getting bombed at end of the game so we had to go overtime three times. Was it our lack of depth? Probably. Do we have more depth this year? Not.
Are we good enough to depend on our running game in the fourth quarter? Not.
Looks to me like we are pretty much a similar team except for more speed at linebacking with less ability to tackle big runners due to weight differentials. Our qb and running back are healthy and better. Blythe is full speed in first game. Otherwise we are much the same.
Can we learn from last year? Yes. Looks like we did in overtime by bombing the ball to Blythe without hesitation. When you have a favorite toy like Blythe, use it. The other kid will be jealous.

For as many tackles as our linebackers had to make, we better have some linebacking depth available against Nebraska, Tech, Texas, and Sooners.

 

[TheHelgo]

Seriously, there's running the ball and there is being conservative. When we go into conservative mode, we run the ball up the middle even though there are 9 defenders in the box. You can run the ball and run the clock in this scenario by running an option, or doing something a little more aggressive than doing EXACTLY what Toledo expects. And why do they suspect it? Because they watched game film and saw that that is what ISU does with a small lead in the 4th quarter - seriously, there is no mystery about how to get the ball back from ISU in the 4th quarter when ISU has a lead. Mix it up with play-action or something and you put the game out of reach. Yes, you take more risk, but if our offense is so good, then the risk/reward ratio easily makes it worth it.

C'mon now, how many of you play-calling defenders were not sick to your stomach last year when you saw Missouri & Kansas come storming back because we were too afraid to do anything but the old 'up the middle' run?

 

[cydsho]

I don't mind us running the ball if we do it smart. How many remember the toss to Hicks and him running for the corner? Hicks for that play? You might as well run him up the middle again because he is not going to outrun anyone on that play. I was hoping to see some runs by the freshman. Do a little of thunder and lightning or something like that. Between Hicks, Meyer, and Johnson/Scales you could get a little change of pace if we aren't going to use Blythe and Co for whatever reason

 

[Wesley]

The best coaches:Sheriff: continue to mix up playcalling so the other coach :Clown: guesses wrong. Whether we get to that point or not, this would be a perfect year for the transition with our excellent offensive players. Let's hope we try ONE 50 yard bomb :Bomb:against UNLV before the weather turns bad in the fall.

SMART Football? :Smart: