Offensive pace vs Offensive possession

[GoClones123]

I was listening to one of the local pundits tonight, T Hines from the Ames Tribune. He had some fairly obvious layup answers about ISU's defensive performance and about the offensive difficulties against NDSU last Saturday.

He felt that ISU was terrible on defense, and the offense needed to find a quicker pace to be productive. He stated that in the past ISU was better when they kept up a quick pace.

While I don't disagree with much of that, I would think the best thing the offense could do for the team as a whole is to obviously score points, but with a down defense it may be just as important to play TOP with the ball as well. I feel a lot of the time we are too impatient which leads to a lot of .45 second offensive possessions and turnovers.

In an ideal world you could have both, but with this team this year and with a fairly young/inexperienced Defense it may be smarter to have points and take 5-6 minutes than always having the mentality of we gotta score 50 to hang with this team. I also understand we probably aren't capable of this feat every possession.

I wondered if anyone else has a thought on this?

 

[ThatllDoCy]

Well, if you take your time and have three plays versus speeding up a bit and running 12 plays. You can kill more time. I can see his point. our offense may be more effective at a faster pace. This could have something to do with poor blocking and moving faster you don't allow the D as much time to set up and create a little extra time for the QB to hand off or throw.

 

[Skidoosh]

I was listening to one of the local pundits tonight, T Hines from the Ames Tribune. He had some fairly obvious layup answers about ISU's defensive performance and about the offensive difficulties against NDSU last Saturday.

He felt that ISU was terrible on defense, and the offense needed to find a quicker pace to be productive. He stated that in the past ISU was better when they kept up a quick pace.

While I don't disagree with much of that, I would think the best thing the offense could do for the team as a whole is to obviously score points, but with a down defense it may be just as important to play TOP with the ball as well. I feel a lot of the time we are too impatient which leads to a lot of .45 second offensive possessions and turnovers.

In an ideal world you could have both, but with this team this year and with a fairly young/inexperienced Defense it may be smarter to have points and take 5-6 minutes than always having the mentality of we gotta score 50 to hang with this team. I also understand we probably aren't capable of this feat every possession.

I wondered if anyone else has a thought on this?

With all the inexperience I would rather we take the full clock to make sure everybody has their big big boy panties on rather than try to confuse the defense. Chances are any defense we face is a hell of a lot more prepared than our offense ever will be to begin with.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Problem is we aren't really built to pound the ball, and that is not what Mangino does. You can try to play time of possession and spread, but you are losing the biggest assets to that modern style of offense. Going faster to prevent recovery and substitution.

These guys just need to grow up, they got punched in the mouth by an older, more experienced and WINNING program. They came out like a rocket, and fell like a rock. That's a young team for you. They will learn to push on, for now though, they just need to focus on limiting mistakes.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

TOP is overrated, but imo our program should be built on having an offense that limits possessions in a game (and thus plays). Over the course of a year, the less depth and talent you have, the less iterations you want to run.

This often means physical, running based offenses. You know, the way KSU and NDSU beat teams above them. In 5 years I have yet to see anything that gives me hope that a "horizontal pass is a run", delayed hand-off, QB read offense will work at ISU. It magnifies needing superior QB and WR play and missed assignments on the OL.

 

[Wesley]

I was listening to one of the local pundits tonight, T Hines from the Ames Tribune. He had some fairly obvious layup answers about ISU's defensive performance and about the offensive difficulties against NDSU last Saturday.

He felt that ISU was terrible on defense, and the offense needed to find a quicker pace to be productive. He stated that in the past ISU was better when they kept up a quick pace.

While I don't disagree with much of that, I would think the best thing the offense could do for the team as a whole is to obviously score points, but with a down defense it may be just as important to play TOP with the ball as well. I feel a lot of the time we are too impatient which leads to a lot of .45 second offensive possessions and turnovers.

In an ideal world you could have both, but with this team this year and with a fairly young/inexperienced Defense it may be smarter to have points and take 5-6 minutes than always having the mentality of we gotta score 50 to hang with this team. I also understand we probably aren't capable of this feat every possession.

I wondered if anyone else has a thought on this?

Thought we played faster than last year as we did not normally stare down the sidelines. The NDSU linebackers covered the middle like a blanket so Sam had to play the game outside. Our defense was not that bad until the two long runs. Even with three backers shoulder to shoulder, we looked like a sieve. And NDSU played slow. So, I do not think speed of play would change the game. We were just beat in the linebacking corp.

 

[Wesley]

TOP is overrated, but imo our program should be built on having an offense that limits possessions in a game (and thus plays). Over the course of a year, the less depth and talent you have, the less iterations you want to run.

This often means physical, running based offenses. You know, the way KSU and NDSU beat teams above them. In 5 years I have yet to see anything that gives me hope that a "horizontal pass is a run", delayed hand-off, QB read offense will work at ISU. It magnifies needing superior QB and WR play and missed assignments on the OL.

True if you cannot make that first first down on a drive. The advantage comes on longer drives. Until we figure out how to get open our receivers, many of our drives will be quick.

 

[khaal53]

Yes, often. I'm glad you correctly sorted out pace and possession. I mostly agree with where swarthmore is headed but I will say (especially for Iowa State) your offense has to do whatever it can to be successful. If you score more points playing fast then play fast. If you score more with methodical and slow drives, then do that.

Look at 2006 where McCarney had an experienced offense with a lot of weapons but a very young defense. He tried to eat up clock on offense to limit TOP for his defense. Ultimately both sides of the ball struggled.

 

[dirtyninety]

TOP is overrated, but imo our program should be built on having an offense that limits possessions in a game (and thus plays). Over the course of a year, the less depth and talent you have, the less iterations you want to run.

This often means physical, running based offenses. You know, the way KSU and NDSU beat teams above them. In 5 years I have yet to see anything that gives me hope that a "horizontal pass is a run", delayed hand-off, QB read offense will work at ISU. It magnifies needing superior QB and WR play and missed assignments on the OL.

You
You get it!!! Thank you. You can throw 25 yard wide reciever screens and have them work when you are PLAYING Iowa State....NOT when you ARE Iowa State. The spread offense is made for teams with superior talent to exploit that on the edges against inferior or poorly-coached teams (us). Ug. With our present position in the talent food chain the weather in the North in November....I just don't get it. Herman was an AWFUL hire in hindsite and Rhoads is absolutely guilty for carrying on with Messingham and keeping him after the Liberty Bowl was a sin.

 

[Tre4ISU]

TOP is overrated, but imo our program should be built on having an offense that limits possessions in a game (and thus plays). Over the course of a year, the less depth and talent you have, the less iterations you want to run.

This often means physical, running based offenses. You know, the way KSU and NDSU beat teams above them. In 5 years I have yet to see anything that gives me hope that a "horizontal pass is a run", delayed hand-off, QB read offense will work at ISU. It magnifies needing superior QB and WR play and missed assignments on the OL.

You realize that KSU has had NFL talent at multiple skill positions throughout their successful periods right? Those two teams are exceptions. Appalachian St beat Michigan with a spread offense and a QB that got a little NFL run as a WR. System doesn't matter. Hell, last year, Michigan took a top ten OT, a mid round OT, and a bunch of highly rated recruits, tried to run a slow system with two elite college receivers, an incredibly talented QB and couldn't run the ball to save their life. They were the worst running team in the nation.

 

[Tre4ISU]

You
You get it!!! Thank you. You can throw 25 yard wide reciever screens and have them work when you are PLAYING Iowa State....NOT when you ARE Iowa State. The spread offense is made for teams with superior talent to exploit that on the edges against inferior or poorly-coached teams (us). Ug. With our present position in the talent food chain the weather in the North in November....I just don't get it. Herman was an AWFUL hire in hindsite and Rhoads is absolutely guilty for carrying on with Messingham and keeping him after the Liberty Bowl was a sin.

lol. Arizona, Indiana, WVU, etc.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Yes, often. I'm glad you correctly sorted out pace and possession. I mostly agree with where swarthmore is headed but I will say (especially for Iowa State) your offense has to do whatever it can to be successful. If you score more points playing fast then play fast. If you score more with methodical and slow drives, then do that.

Look at 2006 where McCarney had an experienced offense with a lot of weapons but a very young defense. He tried to eat up clock on offense to limit TOP for his defense. Ultimately both sides of the ball struggled.

Absolutely, one must not be careful to not lose the forest through the trees.

IF you are appreciably better at a faster pace, you do not want to limit your success rate just for the sake of keeping your possession count down. Possession count is clearly inputting defense considerations into the offense question, so at ISU I'll gladly give up a little success on offense if it means a significant decrease in possession count (plays in a game). I have no data, but imo for teams with lower ranked recruiting classes, I would guess "overall success rate" goes up when possession count is low.

 

[khaal53]

Absolutely, one must not be careful to not lose the forest through the trees.

IF you are appreciably better at a faster pace, you do not want to limit your success rate just for the sake of keeping your possession count down. Possession count is clearly inputting defense considerations into the offense question, so at ISU I'll gladly give up a little success on offense if it means a significant decrease in possession count (plays in a game). I have no data, but imo for teams with lower ranked recruiting classes, I would guess "overall success rate" goes up when possession count is low.

Not just possessions but plays as well. It is a delicate balance. But yeah, I'm not really disagreeing.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

You realize that KSU has had NFL talent at multiple skill positions throughout their successful periods right? Those two teams are exceptions. Appalachian St beat Michigan with a spread offense and a QB that got a little NFL run as a WR. System doesn't matter. Hell, last year, Michigan took a top ten OT, a mid round OT, and a bunch of highly rated recruits, tried to run a slow system with two elite college receivers, an incredibly talented QB and couldn't run the ball to save their life. They were the worst running team in the nation.

You think this is proof systems do not matter? Good grief. Of course those two teams are exceptions- that way of doing things is a way to do more with less, but you are still making do with less.


As long as execution matters, there is an optimal system for different rosters. And yes, bad coaching with a great fit of personnel to system can lose to great coaching with a poorer fit.

You are surprised KSU, playing a system that optimally utilizes the talents of their resources and thus results in good performances, puts out NFL talent? A system that matches its personnel will develop players. BTW, NFL talent like Colin Klein, Michael Bishop, Roberson combined may have 10 more NFL completions than AA, Meyer, and Jantz. BTW, KSU only has 3 skill position NFL players, one of which had a total of 3 carries while at KSU.

You are surprised a team with elite talent at almost every unit and superior depth had a disappointing season? Like I said, in general the more talent you have the more iterations you want in a game. I also agreed with Khal, do what you do well- there are exceptions.

If you do not get the same quality of recruits as your opponents, you are best to get a different type of player.

 

[Tre4ISU]

You think this is proof systems do not matter? Good grief. Of course those two teams are exceptions- that way of doing things is a way to do more with less, but you are still making do with less.


As long as execution matters, there is an optimal system for different rosters. And yes, bad coaching with a great fit of personnel to system can lose to great coaching with a poorer fit.

You are surprised KSU, playing a system that optimally utilizes the talents of their resources and thus results in good performances, puts out NFL talent? A system that matches its personnel will develop players. BTW, NFL talent like Colin Klein, Michael Bishop, Roberson combined may have 10 more NFL completions than AA, Meyer, and Jantz.

You are surprised a team with elite talent at almost every unit and superior depth had a disappointing season? Like I said, in general the more talent you have the more iterations you want in a game. I also agreed with Khal, do what you do well- there are exceptions.

If you do not get the same quality of recruits as your opponents, you are best to get a different type of player.

We have maybe 3 NFL players on our offense right now and none are the college equivalent of Trent Lockette or Colin Klein. I was talking more about positions other than QB as well. QB is a position where you can be elite in college and not even be thought of as an NFL player. I do not believe systems matter. If you go three and out, it doesn't matter how quickly you did it. If we look at Indiana, we find talent similar to ours with a much more productive offense. Why? Because they they go incredibly fast adding another aspect to the game than a slower pace will not include. You get chunks because the defense isn't aligned or ready or whatever. It's a cheap way to move the ball but it's effective. Northwestern is another example. They have sustained some level of success running a spread system with similar talent. OkSt didn't just all of a sudden grab top recruiting classes, they started off similar to us. My point is that any system can win games if it's coached well. You can take all the talent in the world, organize it poorly, and have a **** offense like Florida or Michigan last year.

In our case, it doesn't matter as long as the defense is where it is.

 

[iowa_wildcat]

Who is Trent Lockette? Where does he play and what position?

 

[SyracuseCyclone]

Yeah in theory I think ISU has to attempt to run as many plays per game as it can in Kelly/Leach fashion.

But the wrong coach is running the show for it the current coach is a milk the clock kind of guy you need someone else incharge to have that offensive mentality. Speedy running backs like Wimberley become far more effective once the pace picks up and the short passing along with zone read both are far more effective when the D doesn't have time to set.

You lose time of possession playing like this however and need a deeper defensive rotation.

 

[GoClones123]

I think ultimately it comes down to our O-line as well. Are they built to be leaner and quicker for the pass or hurry-up or are they built to slug it out and run. It goes to what you recruit and how you train. I believe we have been training and recruiting for the hurry-up style lineman. Don't know if it has translated yet though.