Hate to rehash but.....

[HitItHard58]

....finally watched the Tech replay and I have to vent a little. If I hear anybody yell "Just get rid of it!" @ Sam Richardson for the rest of the season, I might completely lose my ****. Whether live and in person @ JTS or watching on TV with friends and family, there always seems to be somebody around me who thinks it's a good idea for Sam to blindly toss it up when pressured. I've seen/heard plenty of people talk about Sam having a terrible game against Tech and that is just flat out not true. When given more than a split second to throw, he made the right play most of the time. Unfortunately he didn't have much if any time consistently enough and our receivers were locked down when he did. I'm not solely blaming Mess for our offensive ineptitude but his play calling did not cut it in this one (or the rest of the season for that matter.) We rarely made Tech pay for bringing so much pressure and it would have been pretty simple to do so. We went away from the diamond set run game when it worked almost every time and hardly called any screens or quick slants. Also found ourselves in far too many 3rd and long situations where our receivers couldn't even get close to completing their routes before Sam was running for his life. The issue with our offense is definitely not Richardson holding on to the ball for too long. Our problem imo is the man calling the plays overthinks and makes it too complicated. All we need to do is take what's there and stick with what's moving the ball down the field. If you disagree with me, I'm totally fine with that but take the time to watch the replay if you haven't already. Rant over. Now let's move forward and kick some major Bear ***!

 

[The_Architect]

The offensive line had a terrible game. Assignments were blown left and right by everyone. Tech linebackers were shooting the gaps and many times completely untouched. They did a great job masking their scheme pre-snap.

 

[HitItHard58]

The offensive line had a terrible game. Assignments were blown left and right be everyone. Tech linebackers were shooting the gaps and many times completely untouched. They did a great masking their scheme pre-snap.

The O line is obviously far from perfect but they actually looked better than I expected upon a second viewing. When matched up straight up against Tech's D, they were more than adequate but dealt with a lot of heat throughout the game. Quick hitting plays are the way to make a D pay for bringing the heat.

 

[GoSTATE71]

Our offense has good skill players (WR's, RB's, good QB) but the line is young and gets flat out dominated. I know you are young but you should not be getting blown 5 yards off the ball when you are 6'6 300 pounds. Its embarassing. Farniok has been pretty good and he is still getting over an injury. I bet Aaron Wimberly could run for 150 each game behind Alabama's offensive line or for any matter a decent O-line. The O-line play needs to improve and play calling needs to vastly improve. Our WR's don't get too much separation either but for the most part they can't even get halfway through a route before Sam is running for his life.

People blitz us because they know they can get 4-5 sacks a game very easily yet dumb a*s Messingham just can't figure out a way to make a team pay for it. We blitz a team and it turns into a 50 yard play. Mind baffling. If I was a major donor and could afford to do it I'd walk into Pollards office and offer a huge donation to get rid of Messingham. I hate him as an OC that much. Good skill position coach for the most part, but awful at his current job, yet Rhoads just loves him and thinks he is the future of Big 12 offenses. Rant over

 

[Bigman38]

prepare to hold on to your ****

At times Sam does tend to hold on to the ball too long. Honestly he could learn a few lessons from Webb on it. Throwing the ball out of bounds doesn't look pretty but it can be a lot more effective than taking a sack or getting crushed for a 1 yard gain.

 

[Luth4Cy]

prepare to hold on to your ****

At times Sam does tend to hold on to the ball too long. Honestly he could learn a few lessons from Webb on it. Throwing the ball out of bounds doesn't look pretty but it can be a lot more effective than taking a sack or getting crushed for a 1 yard gain.

Sometimes I think he needs to get out of the pocket quicker. Not saying take off and run, just get outside the tackle box where he has an option to either run or throw it away.

 

[HitItHard58]

Our offense has good skill players (WR's, RB's, good QB) but the line is young and gets flat out dominated. I know you are young but you should not be getting blown 5 yards off the ball when you are 6'6 300 pounds. Its embarassing. Farniok has been pretty good and he is still getting over an injury. I bet Aaron Wimberly could run for 150 each game behind Alabama's offensive line or for any matter a decent O-line. The O-line play needs to improve and play calling needs to vastly improve. Our WR's don't get too much separation either but for the most part they can't even get halfway through a route before Sam is running for his life.

People blitz us because they know they can get 4-5 sacks a game very easily yet dumb a*s Messingham just can't figure out a way to make a team pay for it. We blitz a team and it turns into a 50 yard play. Mind baffling. If I was a major donor and could afford to do it I'd walk into Pollards office and offer a huge donation to get rid of Messingham. I hate him as an OC that much. Good skill position coach for the most part, but awful at his current job, yet Rhoads just loves him and thinks he is the future of Big 12 offenses. Rant over

Right there with ya man but don't think my $20,000/year will get me very far. :twitcy: Maybe we can pool funds with other frustrated Clone fans and see how far it gets us!

 

[cycfan]

....finally watched the Tech replay and I have to vent a little. If I hear anybody yell "Just get rid of it!" @ Sam Richardson for the rest of the season, I might completely lose my ****. Whether live and in person @ JTS or watching on TV with friends and family, there always seems to be somebody around me who thinks it's a good idea for Sam to blindly toss it up when pressured. I've seen/heard plenty of people talk about Sam having a terrible game against Tech and that is just flat out not true. When given more than a split second to throw, he made the right play most of the time. Unfortunately he didn't have much if any time consistently enough and our receivers were locked down when he did. I'm not solely blaming Mess for our offensive ineptitude but his play calling did not cut it in this one (or the rest of the season for that matter.) We rarely made Tech pay for bringing so much pressure and it would have been pretty simple to do so. We went away from the diamond set run game when it worked almost every time and hardly called any screens or quick slants. Also found ourselves in far too many 3rd and long situations where our receivers couldn't even get close to completing their routes before Sam was running for his life. The issue with our offense is definitely not Richardson holding on to the ball for too long. Our problem imo is the man calling the plays overthinks and makes it too complicated. All we need to do is take what's there and stick with what's moving the ball down the field. If you disagree with me, I'm totally fine with that but take the time to watch the replay if you haven't already. Rant over. Now let's move forward and kick some major Bear ***!

I'll neither agree nor disagree with most of your post. However, I can't go along with fans criticizing play calling by a coach. It is easy to watch the game on TV and see a play that doesn't work and say "that was a bad play call" in retrospect. But, how do you know it was a bad play call? Maybe a player missed an assignment. Just because it didn't work, doesn't mean it was a bad call. What would you say if we had called a quick slant while TTU was blitzing the linebackers and they batted it up in the air a got a pick 6? You would say it was a bad play call. My point is it is hard to legitimately criticize a play call when you will never know what would have happened if a different play were called.

Additionally, you say we failed to stick with what was moving the ball down the field. I don't understand that - so we run Wimberly left and he gets 5 yards, it worked so we run it again and he gets no gain. This time it didn't work, so we don't run that play again? You have to have some kind of balance so when you play action they respect the run, you can't just keep running the same plays over and over again because they worked a couple of times, unless you are physically dominant which we know ISU is not.

Your criticism that our coaches are overthinking and making it too complicated is off base. It seems your plan is over simplified. Anybody can say "do what works".

GO CYCLONES!!!

 

[HitItHard58]

Sometimes I think he needs to get out of the pocket quicker. Not saying take off and run, just get outside the tackle box where he has an option to either run or throw it away.

That's the key right there. Absolutely nothing wrong with throwing it away and living to fight another down as long as you can actually get outside the tackle. I love his toughness/willingness to stand in and take a hit in order to make the throw but there are certainly times where he needs to get the hell out of there!

 

[HitItHard58]

I'll neither agree nor disagree with most of your post. However, I can't go along with fans criticizing play calling by a coach. It is easy to watch the game on TV and see a play that doesn't work and say "that was a bad play call" in retrospect. But, how do you know it was a bad play call? Maybe a player missed an assignment. Just because it didn't work, doesn't mean it was a bad call. What would you say if we had called a quick slant while TTU was blitzing the linebackers and they batted it up in the air a got a pick 6? You would say it was a bad play call. My point is it is hard to legitimately criticize a play call when you will never know what would have happened if a different play were called.

Additionally, you say we failed to stick with what was moving the ball down the field. I don't understand that - so we run Wimberly left and he gets 5 yards, it worked so we run it again and he gets no gain. This time it didn't work, so we don't run that play again? You have to have some kind of balance so when you play action they respect the run, you can't just keep running the same plays over and over again because they worked a couple of times, unless you are physically dominant which we know ISU is not.

Your criticism that our coaches are overthinking and making it too complicated is off base. It seems your plan is over simplified. Anybody can say "do what works".

GO CYCLONES!!!

I'm perfectly aware of needing balance in an offense to be effective over the course of a game. My point is we go away from what is working too quick. We hardly, if ever, ran multiple plays out of the 3 back set and I don't recall them shutting it down once. Could be wrong but I literally just watched the replay so it's all pretty fresh in my memory. As far as running the slant and them making a play, you will never hear me ***** when the opposing team just makes a great play. Obviously play calling isn't everything and sometimes you get outplayed. That was not the case in Lubbock.

 

[cycfan]

I'm perfectly aware of needing balance in an offense to be effective over the course of a game. My point is we go away from what is working too quick. We hardly, if ever, ran multiple plays out of the 3 back set and I don't recall them shutting it down once. Could be wrong but I literally just watched the replay so it's all pretty fresh in my memory. As far as running the slant and them making a play, you will never hear me ***** when the opposing team just makes a great play. Obviously play calling isn't everything and sometimes you get outplayed. That was not the case in Lubbock.

But how do you know we went away from what is working too quickly? You mention we hardly ever ran multiple plays out of the 3 back set. What if we ran it 3 times in a row because it worked the first 2 times and the D blew it up and caused a turnover? This board would light up with rants about being stupid for running the same thing over and over again and having no imagination on offense. It's like trying to see how fast you can drive your car around a corner without killing yourself - you will never truly know until you are dead.

GO CYCLONES!!!

 

[Tre4ISU]

If you want me to grade it out i will but Sam didn't play well at all. He does hold the ball to long and does not recognize coverage quickly. There was one play in particular, actually a successful throw to Bundrage that was thrown incredibly late. He does need to get the ball out faster. Mess isn't good at all but playcalling isn't all of the problem or even most of it. I would say 25% Mess, 25% Sam and 50% Oline for the Tech game.

 

[CycloneWarning]

Count me among those that continue to be baffled why ISU cannot effectively run a screen play against an opponent that is consistently having its DLine blasting up field against us.

And I am equally frustrated with the lack of TE involvement.

Overall, our offense makes me want to puke. Hard to isolate whether Sam contributes to the problems, or mitigates the issues. Currently, I am coming down on the side that his presence/experience/talent is not helping us much, and might be OK to give him a break and see what a healthy Rohach can do.

Thank god Cody Green sucks so bad or we might be 0-5.

 

[Luth4Cy]

If you want me to grade it out i will but Sam didn't play well at all. He does hold the ball to long and does not recognize coverage quickly. There was one play in particular, actually a successful throw to Bundrage that was thrown incredibly late. He does need to get the ball out faster. Mess isn't good at all but playcalling isn't all of the problem or even most of it. I would say 25% Mess, 25% Sam and 50% Oline for the Tech game.

Not trying to disprove your point but could some of that be on Mess for lack of good game prep?

 

[awd4cy]

Just getting rid of it means throwing the ball out of bounds or into the ground near a receiver. Nobody is asking him to throw it up for grabs like Jantz would do. I think at times Sam does take too many sacks.

 

[HitItHard58]

But how do you know we went away from what is working too quickly? You mention we hardly ever ran multiple plays out of the 3 back set. What if we ran it 3 times in a row because it worked the first 2 times and the D blew it up and caused a turnover? This board would light up with rants about being stupid for running the same thing over and over again and having no imagination on offense. It's like trying to see how fast you can drive your car around a corner without killing yourself - you will never truly know until you are dead.

GO CYCLONES!!!

Well when we're getting 10+ running out of the three back set, I personally would like to see us continue until they prove they can stop it. You are obviously very contemplative and like to answer questions with questions but please indulge me and give your opinion on what is wrong with our offense.

 

[Wesley]

I'll neither agree nor disagree with most of your post. However, I can't go along with fans criticizing play calling by a coach. It is easy to watch the game on TV and see a play that doesn't work and say "that was a bad play call" in retrospect. But, how do you know it was a bad play call? Maybe a player missed an assignment. Just because it didn't work, doesn't mean it was a bad call. What would you say if we had called a quick slant while TTU was blitzing the linebackers and they batted it up in the air a got a pick 6? You would say it was a bad play call. My point is it is hard to legitimately criticize a play call when you will never know what would have happened if a different play were called.

Additionally, you say we failed to stick with what was moving the ball down the field. I don't understand that - so we run Wimberly left and he gets 5 yards, it worked so we run it again and he gets no gain. This time it didn't work, so we don't run that play again? You have to have some kind of balance so when you play action they respect the run, you can't just keep running the same plays over and over again because they worked a couple of times, unless you are physically dominant which we know ISU is not.

Your criticism that our coaches are overthinking and making it too complicated is off base. It seems your plan is over simplified. Anybody can say "do what works".

GO CYCLONES!!!

How many times do we have to play against heavy blitzing teams before we figure out what plays work. Rutgers. Tulsa. TT. They will see that we fold our tent more than naught against a heavy dose of blitzing. Our running backs are usually run over trying to block at those times. Can we fix this?

 

[isufbcurt]

How many times do we have to play against heavy blitzing teams before we figure out what plays work. Rutgers. Tulsa. TT. They will see that we fold our tent more than naught against a heavy dose of blitzing. Our running backs are usually run over trying to block at those times. Can we fix this?

So 3 teams in 3 different years huh?

I agree with cyfan. Perfect example: Texas we run Wimberly up the middle for a big gain to the 2 yard line. We run it again and he gets stuffed. We stuck with what worked previously and everyone was in an uproar that we should have done something different. No matter what happens the Sunday Morning OC's will know what we should have done.

 

[Cyclonestate78]

prepare to hold on to your ****

At times Sam does tend to hold on to the ball too long. Honestly he could learn a few lessons from Webb on it. Throwing the ball out of bounds doesn't look pretty but it can be a lot more effective than taking a sack or getting crushed for a 1 yard gain.

I agree that Sam held on to the football a little too long against Tech. Let's face it... When Sam is 100% he has the ability to take off and run with the football when his receivers aren't open or the protection up front breaks down. Sam is a heady QB... he protects the football when he throws it and he doesn't take big risks. In a situation where he can't really take off running the ball it seems like he tries to hang in the pocket longer when receivers aren't open because taking a sack and having to punt in 99% of cases is far better then forcing a ball and getting picked off.

That being said it makes sense that a DC would see that Sam isn't as mobile when he is less then 100% so bringing a lot of blitzes against him makes him more of a sitting duck then a threat to run.

At some point the staff has to realize that it might be beneficial to the offense as a group to take Sam out if that continues to happen. A sitting duck at QB puts more pressure on the receivers to get open quickly, break off routes, and puts a ton of pressure on the O-line to sustain blocks longer then normal (and this line can struggle just to sustain blocks for a "normal" amount of time).

 

[cycfan]

Well when we're getting 10+ running out of the three back set, I personally would like to see us continue until they prove they can stop it. You are obviously very contemplative and like to answer questions with questions but please indulge me and give your opinion on what is wrong with our offense.

I don't know what is wrong with our offense, if there is anything wrong. That is my whole point. We are just spectators who don't have any real knowledge of coaching or what each individual players strengths and weaknesses are or what each player's particular situation is on any given game day. I just think it is ridiculous for fans to question play calling. It's just too easy for fans to criticize when there are no consequences. Sometimes you just have to give the other team credit and understand that if you keep doing "what works", at some point the D is going to figure it out. Who knows when that will be? It might be the second time, it might be the 10th time. Maybe that 3 back set play that we gained 10+ on would have been a -5 had we run it again and they called something else instead and got +4, but fans still criticize because they think we would have gotten 10+ if we had run the 3 back set again. You just don't know.

I'm not trying to whiz on your parade, I just don't think we as fans have the knowledge necessary to legitimately question play calling, that is all.

I suggest for the next home game the 55,000 fans start a chant: DO WHAT WORKS! DO WHAT WORKS! DO WHAT WORKS!

GO CYCLONES!!!