Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Oregon-angle Fiesta Bowl Analysis

inCyteful said:
What an opening line:

"Oregon was 0-5 on turnovers, otherwise we played fine."

You know it is a worthless analysis at this point. Similar to "We went 1-10 this year but other than that it was a pretty good football team.

A good football team makes it a game losing that many turnovers and a big reason for those turnovers was the physical difference between ISU and Oregon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wonder how many games ISU has lost over the years when losing the TO battle badly? Probably almost all of them. Most of the time those turnovers are the result of someone trying to make a play that is not there or is very hard. IE Purdy trying to make a play against OU.
 
LarryISU said:
Speaking of Breece, when I rewatch our games I swear that most of his runs are improvised. It's like our line just engages the defense and then Breece just looks for an opening. Many times the opening is out around the end. But I'm sure there's more to it than that. It's just that he changes direction on most of his runs, like " I'm gonna go.... oops, not there. Ah! This looks better.... "
Click to expand...
Maybe a product of zone blocking, but I don't really know anything. Breece has really good vision. The scary thing for opponents is that he still has room to get better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyputz
OnlyCyclones said:
Maybe a product of zone blocking, but I don't really know anything. Breece has really good vision. The scary thing for opponents is that he still has room to get better.
Click to expand...
Breece shows exceptional patience. If the hole isn't where it is supposed to be, he doesn't panic but hesitates and looks for it to develop or find an alternative.

He also understands how to set up blocks well beyond his years. A good back can make an average line look much better in run blocking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyputz
Reading that analysis you'd think we lost and not kicked the **** out of Oregon as CMC so eloquently put it
 
He made some good points, but lots of homerism in the article. Two thins that stood out to me:

1) "The pass rush forced 10 sacks, scrambles, or throwaways, which is 30% of all ISU dropbacks and a very high number."

Did he just lump Purdy's scrambles into the same bucket as sacks and throwaways? Purdy running for a first down is a big part of what makes our passing game tough. He did have 39 yards on the day, and was 20/29.

2) " The rush defense had the hardest lift against ISU’s unanimous first-team All-American running back, and they did their job well enough..."

He obviously does realize that Breece was a unanimous choice All-American, and while they held him below average per play, he still racked up 139 yards (8 over his average) and the team ran for ~230. We kept pounding it because we could and they couldn't stop it, and when they were better against the run, then they didn't have an answer for the TE or the scramble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heitclone
Cyvilian said:
Didn't see this anywhere else...

SB Nation Duck Tape

One comment, he talks about how ISU had fewer deep passes/long plays as Oregon...well, we didn't need to do that.
Click to expand...
The ducks didn't die quickly like a lion mauling. They died a slow agonizing death being squeezed to death like an anaconda attack and being virtually helpless at the end.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: aauummm
Not going to bother to read the article, but I'm curious if any Duck fans called the author on his faulty reasoning?
 
It must be nice to be Campbell and be able to game plan knowing that Jon Heacock's defense will smother your opponent from the start of the second quarter on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cycsk
This was a Great win for Iowa State, and I do NOT care one iota what Oregon fans think or say. Let's put this in perspective. Iowa State was the third highest rated team in the Final AP Poll West of the Mississippi behind #4 Texas A&M and #6 Oklahoma.
 
mj4cy said:
I think the guy is pretty knowledgeable and he's right. Oregon did look pretty even with us minus the turnovers. However, we knew our game plan just had to be run and manage the clock once we took advantage of turnovers. Had it been tied, I think you would have seen ISU take more chances.
Click to expand...

I thought Oregon won the line of scrimmage battle pretty handily until their defensive lineman got tired in the 2nd half. They also showed the ability to go deep which I thought would be a problem if their QB had pocket time.

Where Oregon got smoked was on the sideline (coaching was TERRIBLE) and on STs. For ISU to be be +2 on TOs off STs alone was huge and possibly provided the first game all year where the STs edge was decisively in our favor. I'm also perplexed at why the Cristobal felt it was necessary to make the QB change when his guy was playing pretty well (we had trouble on his designed runs). Slough was TERRIBLE and basically, along with the TOs, took them out of the game.

We did a lot of good things and deserved the win, but it also illustrated how much stronger we need to get on the LOS. Off the whistle we went backward more than we went forward and that's something that can't happen if we are to (consistently) beat the likes of Iowa and Oklahoma, teams that usually have good lines and that we've historically had problems against. That's the difference between 8-4/9-3 and 10-2/11-1.

But yeah, I think this was a pretty good article from a guy who's knows what he's talking about.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 83cy
inCyteful said:
What an opening line:

"Oregon was 0-5 on turnovers, otherwise we played fine."

You know it is a worthless analysis at this point. Similar to "We went 1-10 this year but other than that it was a pretty good football team.

A good football team makes it a game losing that many turnovers and a big reason for those turnovers was the physical difference between ISU and Oregon.
Click to expand...

They didn't play "bad" but between the TOs, drops, sideline miscuues, and QB carousel it's like Oregon wanted to lose the game. In general, they got really good push on the LOS and gave Brown all kinds of time. We also had issues defending the draw/option when he was on the field. I think if they'd just stuck with him through the entirety the outcome would have been much, much, closer.

It was when they went with Shough when the wheels completely fell off. Oregon looked and played like a speedboat without a rudder and as a result they wandered aimlessly at sea. On our side we didn't make a lot of mistakes and once TOP got up over 30+ minutes we ground Oregon down.

With that said, we didn't exactly 'beat them into submission'. They gave us a lot of help, help which we might not of needed in the first place.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 83cy
ZRF said:
They didn't play "bad" but between the TOs, drops, sideline miscuues, and QB carousel it's like Oregon wanted to lose the game. In general, they got really good push on the LOS and gave Brown all kinds of time. We also had issues defending the draw/option when he was on the field. I think if they'd just stuck with him through the entirety the outcome would have been much, much, closer.

It was when they went with Shough when the wheels completely fell off. Oregon looked and played like a speedboat without a rudder and as a result they wandered aimlessly at sea. On our side we didn't make a lot of mistakes and once TOP got up over 30+ minutes we ground Oregon down.

With that said, we didn't exactly 'beat them into submission'. They gave us a lot of help, help which we might not of needed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Agree with it all but we did beat them into submission. Physically we beat them up. It was similar to what ND did to us last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back