I think we should just recruit QB/WR/RB combo athletes. Line 5 of them up in the backfield. Could call it the Pentabone Optional Zone.
ISU Football "Pro Style Offense"
- Thread starter 2clones4cy
- Start date
The entire idea of the spread offense is to counter not having the same caliber of athletes. Also, the wishbone/flexbone, is essentially the same thing as the spread. Your last sentence describes the spread offense perfectly. There is no reason it won't work here with the right QB and coaching staff.
Curious, what was/is cpr's plan? Has he had time to implement it? How is the execution going?
Definitely agree with this. Since Rhoads came and brought Herman with him, we've been all about the spread with terrible results. That doesn't mean the spread stinks - it's been very successful in many places. But, running a spread when you don't have top-shelf speed at the skill positions, including QB, is a recipe for what we've gotten in this regime.
I'd like to see a coach hired that will run a system that blends with what he can recruit. Here in IA, I think our best bet is to emphasize local guys (IA & Midwest) for the OL & DL and the several skill players that come along each year. Bulk them up, COACH them up (!!!), and get the best speed you can from TX, FL, CA... If it's not top-shelf, let's not try the spread. I'd guess that more of a pro set will work better, but as was said, whatever wins.
First, I keep seeing the bolded in a lot of arguments. The spread came about because coaches at non-blue chip schools realized they couldn't get the talent to run Pro Style offenses against the blue chip school. So they concluded if they spread the field and used it both vertically and horizonally they could get an advantage. So I find it ironic when people say you need a certain kind of athlete to run it.
Two, Troy Calhoun's S&C guy was let go from ISU as part of Mac's staff. All TC will have to do is ask Getty about what JP did and his name would be off the table.
It doesn't matter what you call it or what you run for offense the key is to run it well and score points. There are some players that no matter what system you put them in they will not do well. There are others that can do well in any system.
I do think ISU needs to tweek what they are doing now. Problem is most coaches are so set in their ways they are not going to make the changes need to fix the problems. The good coaches are always making changes and don't always do things the same way year after year.
I do think ISU needs to tweek what they are doing now. Problem is most coaches are so set in their ways they are not going to make the changes need to fix the problems. The good coaches are always making changes and don't always do things the same way year after year.
A lot of you are saying that everyone in the Big 12 runs the spread now, but you do realize that at least half the Big 12 was running it when we changed to it right? It's not like we were an early-adopter.
Also, wins are a terrible metric with so few games played per year. Binary data requires HUGE sample sizes (pro basketball or MLB type seasons) to be an effective measure for determining which teams are better than others. The 90% confidence interval for winning percentage for a team that is 1-2 through 3 games is 0.010 - 0.750. So through 3 games so far, based just on wins and losses, we can't say that this isn't a 0.500+ team. If we expand that to the 6-21 mark, the 90% confidence interval is 0.124 - 0.380. If we use Rhoads' full record at ISU through today, 30 - 48, the 90% confidence interval is 0.300 - 0.478.
At the 90% confidence level, using wins as the only metric, Paul Rhoads is only statistically significantly different than three coaches - he's worse than Earl Bruce, and better than Chizik and Vince DiFrancesca (who went 6-21-1 from 1954 - 1956). If you want to say anything else about Rhoads' coaching ability, you have to use something beyond wins and losses.
Also, wins are a terrible metric with so few games played per year. Binary data requires HUGE sample sizes (pro basketball or MLB type seasons) to be an effective measure for determining which teams are better than others. The 90% confidence interval for winning percentage for a team that is 1-2 through 3 games is 0.010 - 0.750. So through 3 games so far, based just on wins and losses, we can't say that this isn't a 0.500+ team. If we expand that to the 6-21 mark, the 90% confidence interval is 0.124 - 0.380. If we use Rhoads' full record at ISU through today, 30 - 48, the 90% confidence interval is 0.300 - 0.478.
At the 90% confidence level, using wins as the only metric, Paul Rhoads is only statistically significantly different than three coaches - he's worse than Earl Bruce, and better than Chizik and Vince DiFrancesca (who went 6-21-1 from 1954 - 1956). If you want to say anything else about Rhoads' coaching ability, you have to use something beyond wins and losses.
Good points. But you can't honestly believe the reason they don't make it in the NFL is because NFL teams don't know how to utilize them.
I think the reason the spread doesn't work in the NFL is because the defenses are too good and too fast... and running QB's are much more susceptible to injury than pocket QBs. It is already a shaky investment to make on a QB out of college let alone an investment on a guy who is very likely to spend considerable time on the IR. Outside of that, spread QB's rely on athleticism more-so than decision making and that catches up with them in the NFL where everyone on the field is a stud athlete and defensive players all have great instincts and play making ability.
I just think we need to be more flexible. I mean, let's throw an offset I formation in there with a 2 TE set or something. This shotgun zone read crap on 3rd and short is for the birds.
Watching our offense isn't all that exciting. We don't put up the 40+ points that would make it exciting to watch.
The spread was about trying to neutralize the advantage the blue bloods had in the defensive front seven - the idea being, 20 years ago, they had stud defensive lineman and LB's who would always beat you if you tried to run into them, because they were built to stop run first. The spread made defenses adapt to where blue bloods were forced to run smaller LB's and play more dime/nickel, but that adjustment has been made at this point. There aren't many programs in the country who don't know how to defend the spread now.
Today, nearly every program in the country has a "spread package" in their playbook somewhere and defenses are much better at stopping it, which dramatically neutralizes its effectiveness compared to 20 years ago. In order for it to be effective today, you do need to recruit a "certain type of athlete", IMO.
To get a "spread advantage" today, you almost need to revert to running a heavy set against defenses that are small/quick and built to stop the pass.
Regarding Calhoun's S&C coach, I'm guessing if he really wanted to triple his salary, his S&C coaches opinion of JP would be the last thing that would stop him from taking the job. That is an interesting connection that I was unaware of though. If TC didn't take the job, I suspect it would have a lot more to do with being an Air Force Alum than it would have to due with JP's handling of Dan Mac.
EDIT: Unless I misread your post and JP had bad blood toward the S & C coach - I'm obviously not highly familiar with what happened there.
Last edited:
Nailed it. The genius of the spread isn't the spread itself, it was how the spread matches up against the players and schemes that were in place to stop a pro-style offense. Now everyone is running it, and everyone is built to defend it. And once again, the blue bloods have better players for this task, negating the value of the system to a school like ISU.
We need to be different, because we will always be at a talent disadvantage. When you look at an ISU team and see us doing something that looks a lot like what the rest of the league is doing, losses will follow. We need to find a way that we can differentiate and create some sort of advantages that can be sustained over time.
How many games have Russell Wilson and Kaepernick missed? A combined zero? I suppose it helps that they had coaches who actually knew how to use them. You don't just run them into the ground. you run them enouh to let the defense know they have to defend it.
That's all not to mention the NFL lacks innovation. They are a copycat league with a few exceptions. If teams want to sit around and wait for a guy like Rodgers or Manning to appear, they can have at it and in the meantime try to squeeze Andy Dalton into your system just to make the playoffs. Meanwhile, I'm going to draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round, use his strengths and be better than you because I don't refuse to use a QBs legs because that's not Footbawl.
The NFL isn't short on QBs any more than it ever has been. You have the tiers of guys just like we always have. There is the establishment, however that wants to make an excuse for their ****** QB play, that colleges aren't producing them. They are, they just look different.
And for the love of football, "spread offense" doesn't mean running QB.
I honestly don't care if we take snaps from under center or the shotgun, but we do need to do something that sets us apart from the rest of the conference. When CPR got here I figured he wanted a spread that was very much a run first system, similar to what K-State runs. Instead he went for skinnier lineman and tried to replicate what Oregon has to some extent which has backfired a lot.
In the end, you don't win at a school like Iowa State with any consistency unless you have really good lines.
Also, I never really understood why spread teams don't take some snaps under center with three or four receivers. Not a lot, but like 20-25% of the time would make a huge difference if you have the line and running backs to do it.
In the end, you don't win at a school like Iowa State with any consistency unless you have really good lines.
Also, I never really understood why spread teams don't take some snaps under center with three or four receivers. Not a lot, but like 20-25% of the time would make a huge difference if you have the line and running backs to do it.
Last edited:
My point is coaches are a close knit group. No doubt TC already knows what went down between JP and Mac and his coaches.
Specific to your last point, I agree. The spread doesn't have to have a running QB, but speed there certainly helps. But, you have to have speed at RB & WR, as well as a QB who can timely/accurately get them the ball.
But without hindsight here and based on what Oregon has been able to do, wouldn't you agree that was a good plan?
At the time I understand what he was thinking, but it's backfired. I kind of wish he would have looked at what Snyder and Ferentz looked for in lineman and gone with that. Smaller lineman can work, but then you need to have effective guys to spread the field, which means speed at all the skill positions and a QB who can complete a good chunk of his passes. CPR never had an offense under Herman that could put that all together. If the o-line was a bit better in the run blocking game with Barnett he may have been the answer at QB.
Half the pro teams do not run the pro offense very well. Still need decent talent.
