*** Official IOWA STATE vs BYU Game(Day) Thread ***

heitclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 21, 2009
15,543
12,727
113
44
Way up there
A lot has been said about Rocco's demeanor and leadership being an upgrade, but he's flat out a better QB than Dekkers. His physical ability is still underrated by our fanbase. He is very accurate and has plenty of zip. More importantly, he sees the field and understands the game better than Dekkers. He does have the benefit of a better offense under Scheelhaase, but Rocco has P5 ability already. This isn't a Kyle Kempt story.
He's much more polished. Dekkers was a kid who had played QB his entire life because he was the best athlete as his small school. He had great measurables but was still an athlete learning to be a quarterback. Those measurables gave him a lot of potential but coming out of high school, he was more like Joel Lanning than Brock Purdy. Higher ceiling/lower floor type of guy.

Becht had some huge advantages growing up as the son of an NFL player. He received the best coaching, attended football factory private schools and obviously having a professional player/coach/analyst for a father helps. He had a 3 or 4 year head start on being college ready. The game is much slower for Rocco.
 

nrg4isu

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2009
1,893
3,052
113
Springfield, Illinois
I finally re-watched the game...

Does anyone know if there were issues with K. Shackford (kickoffs)? He had zero touchbacks, very unlike him. I know the field conditions weren't great, but it still seemed off.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,861
55,070
113
LA LA Land
Re watching condensed game...

The play call that makes me think we've truly turned the corner on offensive philosophy was that 3rd and 1 where Noel took it 66 yards for a TD. We had been running it successfully so a run wouldn't have been a crazy call, but you could tell they were keyed in on the run. Calling that quick little pass to Noel, relying on your experienced receiver, it was a great call to pick up the one yard but then obviously with the upside of a huge play that running up the middle wouldn't have been.

It was great we kept running the ball because it worked and we didn't have to force it, but we didn't run the ball in such a predictable and boring way like in 3 of our 4 losses.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,861
55,070
113
LA LA Land
Full condensed game:

Sub to this guy!!!!


I've been sharing this channel, whoever is doing it must be a huge Cyclone fan. Pretty great resource. For whatever reason Youtube seems to still be the total wild west for sharing the IP of others so might as well enjoy it in a Cyclone flavor.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
25,720
39,351
113
44
Newton
I finally re-watched the game...

Does anyone know if there were issues with K. Shackford (kickoffs)? He had zero touchbacks, very unlike him. I know the field conditions weren't great, but it still seemed off.

It was the game plan. A player in the post game interview stated the plan was to pooch kick it to the upbacks hoping they would mishandle it
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,861
55,070
113
LA LA Land
It was the game plan. A player in the post game interview stated the plan was to pooch kick it to the upbacks hoping they would mishandle it

I think analytics-wise doing anything creative on a kickoff is probably a big winner. I know that a non-predictable onside kick is a huge analytics winning play and stuff like this probably is too. Obviously you can't do it all the time or it becomes predictable, but just out of nowhere it has a high enough success ratio to overcome the risk. This kind of play is probably a safer version of that and works for same reason.

Basically the one thing you can't do is try to kick a touch back and end up with a kick that is easily returnable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isufbcurt

KidSilverhair

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2010
6,891
12,993
113
Rapids of the Cedar
www.kegofglory.blogspot.com
I think analytics-wise doing anything creative on a kickoff is probably a big winner. I know that a non-predictable onside kick is a huge analytics winning play and stuff like this probably is too. Obviously you can't do it all the time or it becomes predictable, but just out of nowhere it has a high enough success ratio to overcome the risk. This kind of play is probably a safer version of that and works for same reason.

Basically the one thing you can't do is try to kick a touch back and end up with a kick that is easily returnable.
Remember the one time we kicked it into the end zone BYU actually ran it out of there and got past the 35, which is better field position than if we kicked it out of bounds (I know we ended up doing that, too).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HFCS

joefrog

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2008
8,099
2,392
113
Clive, Iowa
Re watching condensed game...

The play call that makes me think we've truly turned the corner on offensive philosophy was that 3rd and 1 where Noel took it 66 yards for a TD. We had been running it successfully so a run wouldn't have been a crazy call, but you could tell they were keyed in on the run. Calling that quick little pass to Noel, relying on your experienced receiver, it was a great call to pick up the one yard but then obviously with the upside of a huge play that running up the middle wouldn't have been.

It was great we kept running the ball because it worked and we didn't have to force it, but we didn't run the ball in such a predictable and boring way like in 3 of our 4 losses.
The playcalling, pace, and tempo were refreshing and productive.

I hope they decide to keep up the pressure going forward.

I absolutely hate watching on your heals, reactive football.