Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Offensive Style - CJR

Cyinthenorth said:
My biggest fear so far with Jimmy is a return to the 4- man defensive front and introduction of whatever this new offensive system is going to be. The last time we saw a 4- man front in Ames, we regularly had bottom 3rd of the big 12 defenses. Those end of the Paul Rhoads era offenses were bad enough to make Brian Ferentz blush. I don't expect to revert back that badly on both sides of the football, but there's a still small voice inside me that says be prepared to on at least one side of the football. There is a reason Campbell didn't run 4- man fronts at Iowa State, and i hope Rogers doesn't have to find out the hard way why. Maybe it can work with him. Hopefully.
Click to expand...
Go watch the Wazzu game AT Ole Miss this past fall!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyclonehomer, Chitowncy, Cyinthenorth and 1 other person
It is amazing how college football is shifting back to run game. When Campbell took over it was a lot of spread offense and finesse run games. So getting more speed on the field was big for Heacock.

Stoops/Riley
Gundy
Art Briles 1 yr removed
Patterson (spread but balanced)
Kingsbury
Strong/Herman
Holgorsen
Beaty
Snyder

The reality is Campbell's success with ball control probably led to a shift in Big 12 offenses.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cyinthenorth
AuH2O said:
It wasn’t really the air raid. By that time a lot of teams were running run-heavy offenses out of the spread, which the 3-3-5 helps as well.

Even by 2017 it wasn’t really an air raid conference. OU and OSU threw for a ton of yards jut also had guys with well over 1000 yds rushing. It was a bit more pass oriented but balanced.

By 2021 it was a run heavy league. There were two passers over 3000 with Purdy leading with like 3100 yards. Meanwhile there were 7 1000 yard rushers in a 10 team league. Compare that to this year when there were three 1000 yard rushers in a 16 team league.

ISUs success with the 3-3-5 came mostly in an era of balanced offenses and more run-heavy offenses than the league has now.

The difference is more teams using bigger formations rather than running a ton out of smaller and more spread formations. It certainly is going to have challenges there, but you’re trading off that challenge for another. What the 3-3-5 allows a team to do is have the best chance to get a body in a gap and outside. Albeit smaller bodies.

Good DTs and elite edge guys cost a lot. While a stud NT in a 3 man front is really hard to find, at least you only need to find one. It also lets you find good guys that are tweeners between DTs and edge guys and play the DE in a 3 man front.

I don’t really care what D they run. Every one has pros and cons. Just run what their staff knows, likes and feels like they can recruit to.
Click to expand...
Who was that guy several years ago who would post very technical analysis before and after the games? Former player IIRC
 
I had to break out the laptop to do this, but Heacock's defenses at ISU were traditionally good against the run. I used the official Defensive Yards Per Carry to help normalize against teams that run a lot vs a little. In his 10 seasons as DC:
  • Nationally:
    • We were in the top half nationally seven times.
    • We were in the Top 25 four times.
    • We were in the Top 10 three times.
  • Big 12:
    • We were in the Top 3 six times.
    • We were the Top Big 12 Defensive YPC team three times.
1767390056895.png

1767390078102.png

I don't think you can argue that the 3-3-5 is "inherently flawed" against the run. Even though some of the Big 12 was "air-raid-ish" during that period, a lot of those teams were still good at running the ball and counted on explosive plays from the running game. Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU all had good running games during this period. K-State is K-State. OSU had some really good running backs during that span.

Looking at these trends, you could argue that people had "figured it out" the last couple years, but then you'd also have to argue that the crazy injury rates the last couple years didn't have an impact.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: cyclonehomer and isucy86
besserheimerphat said:
I had to break out the laptop to do this, but Heacock's defenses at ISU were traditionally good against the run. I used the official Defensive Yards Per Carry to help normalize against teams that run a lot vs a little. In his 10 seasons as DC:
  • Nationally:
    • We were in the top half nationally seven times.
    • We were in the Top 25 four times.
    • We were in the Top 10 three times.
  • Big 12:
    • We were in the Top 3 six times.
    • We were the Top Big 12 Defensive YPC team three times.
View attachment 165020

View attachment 165021

I don't think you can argue that the 3-3-5 is "inherently flawed" against the run. Even though some of the Big 12 was "air-raid-ish" during that period, a lot of those teams were still good at running the ball and counted on explosive plays from the running game. Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU all had good running games during this period. K-State is K-State. OSU had some really good running backs during that span.

Looking at these trends, you could argue that people had "figured it out" the last couple years, but then you'd also have to argue that the crazy injury rates the last couple years didn't have an impact.
Click to expand...

IMO early years, opposing teams thought the way to attack the 3-3-5 was to run right at it. But with strong safety support, they might have just been running into the teeth of the defense.

The last few years, it felt like opposing teams figured out the best way to attack the 3-3-5 was to run wide and outflank pursuit. And seemed like RPO QB's had a lot of success because of a tendency to over pursue to get bodies to the perceived point of attack (RB) based on OL movement.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: cyclonehomer and Die4Cy
Covenant Clone said:
The reason Heacock/Campbell changed to a 3-3-5 was because of the air raid and up tempo offenses in the Big 12. A few years after that change everyone started going back to an offense that put a big emphasis on running the ball. We didn’t switch from the 3 man front and at time we struggled to stop the run. I think switching back to a 4 man front is the right move going forward. The air raid offenses that the 3 man front was designed to stop just don’t exist any more.
Click to expand...
I think you base your scheme on the type of player you think you can consistently recruit. I'm surprised we were able to bring guys in to ISU and effectively use 3 man fronts for so long.
 
deadeyededric said:
I think you base your scheme on the type of player you think you can consistently recruit. I'm surprised we were able to bring guys in to ISU and effectively use 3 man fronts for so long.
Click to expand...
For sure…Heacock was a wizard. I think he the only one that could make the scheme work. I am excited to see what Rogers and staff can do with there philosophy/scheme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyChitwood
The 4 man will hopefully produce more NFL style talent. Which should get attention of recruits. I hope we get some players after these supposed loyal “clones” ran for the hills and !
 
There was someone else who ran the 4-2-5 in the B12 and had a lot of success vs all kinds of offenses.
 
CycloneBob said:
What type of offense is coach Jimmy Rogers bringing or wanting to implement? How do the players once on our roster fit into those plans, especially QB? I recall seeing that CJR likes a mobile QB - is that correct?
Click to expand...
What type of offense? Line up, bully, batter, bruise and demoralize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom