Campbell clock management

WartburgClone

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2022
1,265
1,974
113
I hope Campbell and staff are watching the Eagles-Patriots game right now. 5:33 left, down 2 scores, NE drives 75 yards in under 2 minutes and scores a touchdown with 3:37 still on the clock. New England doing the exact opposite of what we did yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZRF

ZRF

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2015
4,392
2,119
113
I’m pretty confident that we wouldn’t have scored if we went more hurry up. The team was more in need of the confidence of driving the field than more time on the clock.

In a perfect world I would have loved to go faster but long term we will benefit more from what we did.

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.
 

Urbandale2013

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
4,789
5,930
113
30
Urbandale
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
Dec 18, 2010
11,074
21,745
113
Rapids of the Cedar
www.kegofglory.blogspot.com
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.”
 
Last edited:

joefrog

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2008
8,207
2,543
113
Clive, Iowa
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KidSilverhair

quasistellar

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
3,391
4,817
113
I’m pretty confident that we wouldn’t have scored if we went more hurry up. The team was more in need of the confidence of driving the field than more time on the clock.

In a perfect world I would have loved to go faster but long term we will benefit more from what we did.

I feel like there's more confidence and long term benefit when you play to win
 
  • Useful
Reactions: joefrog

Aclone

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2007
26,894
23,408
113
Des Moines, Ia.
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.
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.
 

KidSilverhair

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2010
11,074
21,745
113
Rapids of the Cedar
www.kegofglory.blogspot.com
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.
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.
 

ZRF

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2015
4,392
2,119
113
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.”

Well stated.
 

CloniesForLife

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 22, 2015
15,610
21,024
113
I’m pretty confident that we wouldn’t have scored if we went more hurry up. The team was more in need of the confidence of driving the field than more time on the clock.

In a perfect world I would have loved to go faster but long term we will benefit more from what we did.
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
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ZRF

ZRF

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2015
4,392
2,119
113
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.

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.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Urbandale2013

LtRaczack

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2010
833
670
93
Columbus, GA
Nothing like a back breaking 7 minute drive down by 14 in the 4th quarter. That was the most boneheaded thing I think I’ve ever seen

Edit: I was absolutely losing my mind at this during the game. No one else seemed to care
There was a lot more booing from that drive than during the standard questionable call. You were not alone in that feeling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZRF

ZRF

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2015
4,392
2,119
113
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

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joefrog

CloniesForLife

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 22, 2015
15,610
21,024
113
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZRF and Cloned4Life

Cloned4Life

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 5, 2006
3,610
3,369
113
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.
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:
  • Like
Reactions: joefrog

LeaningCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2008
3,348
6,222
113
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joefrog

CloniesForLife

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 22, 2015
15,610
21,024
113
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.
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.
 

Urbandale2013

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
4,789
5,930
113
30
Urbandale
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.
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.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: ZRF