It's Senior day in Waco as Baylor hosts the recently ranked Iowa State Cyclones who are formidable and beat both Oklahoma and TCU. The Cyclones are led by Head Coach Matt Campbell who turned around Toledo but developed much of his ethos during his time as both a player and assistant coach for Mount Union- the Division III dynasty program that won three national titles with him as a player, two titles with him as an assistant, and has won 12 national titles since 1993 and is a case study in developing a sustained program. Campbell has taken ISU to bowl eligibility in just his second season in Ames and has already shown a willingness to adapt his schemes to the talent on hand. He seems to embody the following:
They do not adhere to any sort of fixed orthodoxy at Mount. The key philosophy Kehres uses, and that at least four people echoed back to me, is PLAYERS, FORMATIONS, PLAYS — one leads to the next, which leads to the next.
Taken from HERE
This season the Cyclones have been a solid offense that has averaged roughly what their P5 opponents generate against other P5 teams but this total is skewed slightly by a Kansas game played in conditions that favored both defenses. Without this game ISU averaged around 6% more yards per drive than expected. Since they made a QB change against OU, they have averaged 11% more. In the Red Zone they score 72.3% of available points against P5 teams that otherwise give up 68.7% to other P5 teams.
The Cyclones are a team that averages decent production in non-sack yards per carry but is still generating less than their opponents give up to other P5 teams. Even when you omit the KU rainstorm game you end up with ISU averaging 4.44 compared to an expectation of 4.81.
In the air they average 61% completions against teams that typically allow 59%. They are slightly below what is expected on yards per attempt, yards per pass play (attempts and sacks), and two yards less on yards per completion with 11.8. They also do a good job preventing sacks allowing 2% fewer sacks than expected. They give up about a half of a turnover less per game than expected.
The Cyclones will use a good amount of spread formations and personnel but will mix them up. They want to run the football enough to open the rest of the offense up. They do a good job mixing in run/pass options and absolutely killed Oklahoma on simple bubble screens and tailback screens. These plays absolutely haunted the Sooners for over 170 yards on just a handful of plays. This offense will run the typical power and zone variations that Big 12 teams usually see along with concepts like buck sweep and variations on trap. Additionally they will add speed option, quarterback read, and inverted read looks to these base schemes along with different tight end blocking wrinkles.
Their passing game is well designed and somewhat straightforward but allows their Quarterbacks to play fast and make quick decisions. This offense impressed me with it's design.
The Cyclones have been rolling ever since #17 Kyle Kempt (6-5 210, R-Sr.) was inserted as the starter prior to the Oklahoma game. The journeyman started off at Oregon State and then went to a Junior College program before transferring to ISU. He has thrown for 1,209 yards with 67% completions and an 11-3 touchdown to interception ratio. He's not going to wow you with mobility or arm strength despite being adequate in both. He's simply a guy who knows where to go with the ball and does a solid job delivering it on time with accuracy. He may or may not be out this week with an injury.
If Kempt can't go they will likely start big arm #4 Zeb Noland (6-2 222, R-Fr.) who has thrown for 353 yards on the season and was forced into action against Oklahoma State. Also don't be surprised if former QB and current linebacker #7 Joel Lanning (6-2 230, R-Sr.) comes in and runs some designed QB carries like this to help ISU on the ground. Tailback Montgomery and slot receiver Jones are former prep QB's so that will be something to keep an eye on if Noland were to get hurt.
At tailback the Cyclones have one of the very best in the league in #32 David Montgomery (5-11 219, So.) who combines a very good ability to make people miss with a powerful running style. He averages 4.6 per carry and is just under 1,000 yards on the season. He really makes the line look better than it is. You see a great example of it in the first play of this video as well as a couple dynamic runs he made.
His backups are 2015 standout #2 Mike Warren (6-1 211, R-Jr.) and #25 Sheldon Croney Jr. (5-11 201, R-So.) Their Tight Ends and blocking backs are typical for the position.
Iowa State also may have the best size matchup in the league at Wide Receiver. X Receiver #5 Allen Lazard (6-5 222, Sr.) is a four year starter with over 3,000 receiving yards and 24 touchdowns during his time in Ames. He has a very large wingspan and can be quite the matchup problem for corners. At the other outside spot (Z) they will use either athletic #16 Marchie Murdock (6-1 205, R-Sr.) or another ridiculously tall receiver in #18 Hakeem Butler (6-6 219, R-So.) who has almost 500 yards this year and hauled in a 74 yard reception against Iowa. Their backup at X is another giant receiver #23 Matthew Eaton (6-4 209, R-Jr.) who also sees a lot of time.
Their two primary slot guys are #19 Trever Ryen (5-11 193, R-Sr.) and #8 Deshaunte Jones (5-10 179, So.). Ryen anchors ISU's 4x100 relay team and took a bubble screen 57 yards against OU. Jones was honorable mention freshman All-America last year and hauled in over 500 yards.
On the Offensive Line the Cyclones aren't what they were a year ago. They have a lot of youth and inexperience up front that isn't quite as depleted as Baylor but still struggles to open holes in the running game. Advanced statistics has them at 93rd in adjusted line yards and 86th in stuff rate. This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. They do a good job protecting the passer though.
The Cyclone defense is what has carried this team on their recent hot streak in conference play. Against Power 5 teams they give up an average of 89% of the yards per drive that those teams get against other P5 teams. Even if you omit their domination of KU's offense in extremly rainy conditions (4.94 per drive!) they hold opponents to 99%. However yards per drive is only part of the story with them as they do a better job than anyone Baylor has faced of giving up yards but not points. They give up 89% of what an opponent usually gets in yards per drive but only gives up 76% of the points that an opponent usually gets. That is textbook bend but don't break and the Cyclones have an experienced defense that has finally clicked in year two of this system. Their raw talent won't be anything Baylor hasn't seen from a handful of opponents but they play well together and do a good job knowing where their help is and funneling the offense to them.
This team bases out of two primary personnel groupings, a 4-3 and a 3-3-5. Their defense is technically listed with four linemen and three linebackers like Baylor typically would see from KSU. The Cyclones used this look a lot against Oklahoma who has the best running game in the Big 12. However Iowa State has largely used what amounts to a 3-3-5 in the majority of their Big 12 games. They will have three linemen up front, three linebackers, and five defensive backs. However unlike many 3-3-5 teams this team is very conservative in what looks they give an offense. A lot of the time they have dropped eight men into coverage and only rushed the passer with three guys. They want to force you to execute over and over again and make clutch plays to get you off the field. Their game against Tech was a great example in that ISU consistently gave up shorter throws and numbers to run against but Tech was too impatient and ISU was able to hold them to half the points per drive that they usually get.
In coverage ISU uses a good amount of different cover three variations with some quarters and Cover Two variations thrown in. They don't run a whole lot of man coverage despite having four guys in their back five that can cover really well.
Up front they will mix up what they give you. I have seen them align their defensive tackles in a tight alignment with both ends in the B gaps, over fronts, under fronts, or a standard three man front with both ends in 5 techniques. When they are in an over or under front, the gap that a fourth lineman (END) would have is given to one of the linebackers or DB's.
Despite their conservative philosophy they do a good job disrupting stuff and generate a lot more tackles for loss than the KSU defense who also uses a bend but don't break mantra does. They are more than willing to mix things up with blitzes.
Up front Iowa State benefits in a big way from #76 Ray Lima (6-3 306, R-So.) emerging as a very capable run stopper at the Nose Tackle spot. Veteran Tackle #99 Vernell Trent (6-3 282, R-Sr.) also sees time alongside experienced and physical #58 J.D. Waggoner (6-3 248, R-Sr.) and high upside youngster #19 JaQuan Bailey (6-2 260, So.) who are the primary ends.
Their Linebackers are smaller and quicker than most. At the boundary OLB spot they start #42 Marcel Spears Jr. (6-1 215, R-So.) who plays a similar role on this defense to how Baylor used Patrick Levels a year ago. Their two main stack linebackers are MLB and former Quarterback #7 Joel Lanning (6-2 230, R-Sr.) and field LB #2 Willie Harvey (6-1 222, R-Jr.) who runs very well. Their Nickel player is #4 Evrett Edwards (6-1 188, R-Sr.) who plays the equivalent of the Travon Blanchard position on this defense.
In the secondary they return a really good corner tandem in #1 D'Andre Payne (5-10 180, R-Jr.) and #10 Brian Peavy (5-9 190, R-Jr.) who are one of the best duo's in the conference. At Safety their bell cow is #5 Kamari Cotton-Moya (6-2 198, R-Sr.) who is a four year starter and capable run defender. Their other starter is #3 Reggie Wilkerson (5-11 180, R-Sr.) who is more of a coverage guy.
ISU is 111th in opponent kick return average but forces touchbacks over half the time. They do better covering punts as they are 8th in opposing punt return average. Placekicker
#17 Garrett Owens (5-8 180, R-Sr.) is 12 of 14 on the year and two of the misses are from outside of 40 yards. ISU is 21st in punt return average and 76th in kickoff return average.
Who is a bigger threat that Baylor needs to key on defensively; Montgomery or Lazard? How do you think Snow will scheme to limit their big WRs? Is there a defensive lineup or specific players that you think limit their advantage?
I think Montgomery is the better dynamic threat but Lazard is the guy you have to gameplan for as most gameplans take away the run reasonably well. I think Snow will keep things largely in his existing framework but may try to stick Hand, Black, Hall, or possibly Lynch on Lazard, Butler, and Eaton if he can. I do think Arnold can hold up well though.
What would be the main differences in their offense if Noland has to start due to Kempt's injury? How could we take advantage of this?
He's less experienced and has the arm to zip passes in tighter windows. He doesn't change it on the macro sense but he shifts some of the smaller details. I think making this kid see a lot of looks he hasn't seen before and possibly blitzing him when they are in 10 personnel will be good ideas. He played very mature against OSU, let's see what happens when he sees ten new looks he hasn't seen yet and has to do it under durress. I liked what I saw from him, doesn't play like a third or fourth string guy at all.
On offense, what is likely to be the most successful part of the scheme (e.g. deep throws over the top, screen game, QB run, etc.) against their D?
This team will always benefit from the long pass play as it lets the biggest strength of this team (speed on the outside) go win it for you. However ISU will likely give the Bears the looks they gave Tech and dare Baylor to execute 10 play drives. Therefore finding a way to be at least serviceable on inside runs and use RPO's and play action to get some intermediate windows open will likely be successful if Baylor can set it up with some threat of the run.
What is our best chance to make them one dimensional? Take away the run or take away the pass?
Take away the run and roll coverage to Lazard. Don't let those two beat you, which admittedly is easier said than done.
Baylor has really struggled in the red zone, what are some concepts you think can work?
I think you need to take some of the pressure off of the depleted line by allowing Brewer to option read a defender a little bit. I could see the Diamond formation being a good idea as it gives a different look while allowing him to still account for a defender and create extra gaps on either side of the formation at the last minute.
I also think splitting Ish Wainwright out as a split receiver opposite either a heavy formation or the Diamond formation where he's guaranteed to get a 1 on 1 matchup is a great idea. It's easy to protect Brewer for a second and let Ish win on a slant or a fade. ISU has good corners but they aren't all that tall so a former basketball forward on a route that resembles posting up or getting a rebound should be a win most of the time.
Similarly I think designing run/pass options like this one that give you the chance of a lightly contested throw are good ideas.
Should you go to this game and send off a very loyal group of Seniors?
Yes
Baylor puts up a strong fight against a really good team but the healthier team and more consistent team wins.
Iowa State 34, Baylor 20
Follow @Baylor_S11 on Twitter!
Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
ColomboLQ said:Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
I respect your opinion quite a bit, going back to the Baylorfan days (I hope you remember that), so in your opinion, what is the end goal of this offense? Meaning, when we have the depth, players and everything in place, what is this offense supposed to look like/ want to do? I (admittedly) have much less knowledge on this that you do, but I have found myself frustrated at the lack of, what looks like to me, a lack of direction for the offense.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
Baylor has done a lot of the same things ISU has but a revolving door of skill guys as well as a significantly more difficult OL situation limits what tactics work best and what the OC would be willing to call. Having a 5th year QB with a healthy RB and WR corps featuring the arguably the best RB in the league and one of the best WR's is easier to plan with than having to play 3 QBs, having every tailback and TE miss time, and at one point being down to four scholarship WR. The fact that the YPD is similar with that as a backdrop really surprised me.
A good example was the UT game, they had a great set of plays using Brewer to counter UT's tight front that stuffed OSU on a lot of the base run plays BU also uses but had to scrap it when a kid gets hurt.
ColomboLQ said:I respect your opinion quite a bit, going back to the Baylorfan days (I hope you remember that), so in your opinion, what is the end goal of this offense? Meaning, when we have the depth, players and everything in place, what is this offense supposed to look like/ want to do? I (admittedly) have much less knowledge on this that you do, but I have found myself frustrated at the lack of, what looks like to me, a lack of direction for the offense.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
Baylor has done a lot of the same things ISU has but a revolving door of skill guys as well as a significantly more difficult OL situation limits what tactics work best and what the OC would be willing to call. Having a 5th year QB with a healthy RB and WR corps featuring the arguably the best RB in the league and one of the best WR's is easier to plan with than having to play 3 QBs, having every tailback and TE miss time, and at one point being down to four scholarship WR. The fact that the YPD is similar with that as a backdrop really surprised me.
A good example was the UT game, they had a great set of plays using Brewer to counter UT's tight front that stuffed OSU on a lot of the base run plays BU also uses but had to scrap it when a kid gets hurt.
Thank you for the answer. If that's the case, I'm hoping we can have that level of success on offense. I know that Stewart and Blount were there before some of their faster dudes, but it seemed to me that Chip Kelly and their offense really really took off to the elite level once they were able to have that elite speed at RB in James, Thomas, etc. The elite speed along with the fast tempo they played with were, in my opinion, 2 of the biggest factors in their success. I don't believe we'll ever play at that tempo here with this group of coaches, but I do hope that at some point they are able to get that elite speed caliber guys at RB.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:I respect your opinion quite a bit, going back to the Baylorfan days (I hope you remember that), so in your opinion, what is the end goal of this offense? Meaning, when we have the depth, players and everything in place, what is this offense supposed to look like/ want to do? I (admittedly) have much less knowledge on this that you do, but I have found myself frustrated at the lack of, what looks like to me, a lack of direction for the offense.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
Baylor has done a lot of the same things ISU has but a revolving door of skill guys as well as a significantly more difficult OL situation limits what tactics work best and what the OC would be willing to call. Having a 5th year QB with a healthy RB and WR corps featuring the arguably the best RB in the league and one of the best WR's is easier to plan with than having to play 3 QBs, having every tailback and TE miss time, and at one point being down to four scholarship WR. The fact that the YPD is similar with that as a backdrop really surprised me.
A good example was the UT game, they had a great set of plays using Brewer to counter UT's tight front that stuffed OSU on a lot of the base run plays BU also uses but had to scrap it when a kid gets hurt.
I did a premium series on what the offense was trying to be prior to the season but I will try to give a quick answer here.
The ultimate goal is a Spread to run offense build mostly like Oregon while getting into heavy sets in short yardage. Oregon used far more 2 TE sets than many remember (surprised me during my research honestly) and had success with a wide variety of tailback styles like Stewart & Blount as big backs and James and Barner as more the scatback type.
Plenty wide open but also has a structured NFL style pass progression that isn't quite as boom or bust as the old scheme against the best defenses.
Oregon fingerprints are everywhere with this scheme. For example, the TD to Feurbacher against KU was a variation on the play Mariota broke down for Gruden on the QB camp special.
Now it's hard to be spread to run when two of your three OL who are ready physically are hobbled and a combo of TEs and freshman occasionally get bulldozed.
I don't blame anyone for frustration. I often left the stadium with a lot of it only to turn on the tape and see a lot more detail and planning that I had missed.
I don't pretend to know if Nixon is the answer but I do think even if he was this injury setup wouldn't allow that to be visible. Much like 2009 didn't mean Briles couldn't coach offense this year is not going to be an honest barometer of what we've got whether good or bad. I can't remember a team more snakebit injury wise than this one and I have followed this a long time.
ColomboLQ said:Thank you for the answer. If that's the case, I'm hoping we can have that level of success on offense. I know that Stewart and Blount were there before some of their faster dudes, but it seemed to me that Chip Kelly and their offense really really took off to the elite level once they were able to have that elite speed at RB in James, Thomas, etc. The elite speed along with the fast tempo they played with were, in my opinion, 2 of the biggest factors in their success. I don't believe we'll ever play at that tempo here with this group of coaches, but I do hope that at some point they are able to get that elite speed caliber guys at RB.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:I respect your opinion quite a bit, going back to the Baylorfan days (I hope you remember that), so in your opinion, what is the end goal of this offense? Meaning, when we have the depth, players and everything in place, what is this offense supposed to look like/ want to do? I (admittedly) have much less knowledge on this that you do, but I have found myself frustrated at the lack of, what looks like to me, a lack of direction for the offense.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
Baylor has done a lot of the same things ISU has but a revolving door of skill guys as well as a significantly more difficult OL situation limits what tactics work best and what the OC would be willing to call. Having a 5th year QB with a healthy RB and WR corps featuring the arguably the best RB in the league and one of the best WR's is easier to plan with than having to play 3 QBs, having every tailback and TE miss time, and at one point being down to four scholarship WR. The fact that the YPD is similar with that as a backdrop really surprised me.
A good example was the UT game, they had a great set of plays using Brewer to counter UT's tight front that stuffed OSU on a lot of the base run plays BU also uses but had to scrap it when a kid gets hurt.
I did a premium series on what the offense was trying to be prior to the season but I will try to give a quick answer here.
The ultimate goal is a Spread to run offense build mostly like Oregon while getting into heavy sets in short yardage. Oregon used far more 2 TE sets than many remember (surprised me during my research honestly) and had success with a wide variety of tailback styles like Stewart & Blount as big backs and James and Barner as more the scatback type.
Plenty wide open but also has a structured NFL style pass progression that isn't quite as boom or bust as the old scheme against the best defenses.
Oregon fingerprints are everywhere with this scheme. For example, the TD to Feurbacher against KU was a variation on the play Mariota broke down for Gruden on the QB camp special.
Now it's hard to be spread to run when two of your three OL who are ready physically are hobbled and a combo of TEs and freshman occasionally get bulldozed.
I don't blame anyone for frustration. I often left the stadium with a lot of it only to turn on the tape and see a lot more detail and planning that I had missed.
I don't pretend to know if Nixon is the answer but I do think even if he was this injury setup wouldn't allow that to be visible. Much like 2009 didn't mean Briles couldn't coach offense this year is not going to be an honest barometer of what we've got whether good or bad. I can't remember a team more snakebit injury wise than this one and I have followed this a long time.
I don't worry about getting good skill guys either, I worry about getting great ones. I'm not sure what being fine long-term means to you or others on this board, but I do not believe our ceiling with this staff is as high as it was with our previous staff. But time will tell one way or another.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:Thank you for the answer. If that's the case, I'm hoping we can have that level of success on offense. I know that Stewart and Blount were there before some of their faster dudes, but it seemed to me that Chip Kelly and their offense really really took off to the elite level once they were able to have that elite speed at RB in James, Thomas, etc. The elite speed along with the fast tempo they played with were, in my opinion, 2 of the biggest factors in their success. I don't believe we'll ever play at that tempo here with this group of coaches, but I do hope that at some point they are able to get that elite speed caliber guys at RB.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:I respect your opinion quite a bit, going back to the Baylorfan days (I hope you remember that), so in your opinion, what is the end goal of this offense? Meaning, when we have the depth, players and everything in place, what is this offense supposed to look like/ want to do? I (admittedly) have much less knowledge on this that you do, but I have found myself frustrated at the lack of, what looks like to me, a lack of direction for the offense.S11 said:ColomboLQ said:Does what you post change in anyway "some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would" as it applies to Iowa St? Or if somehow we wouldn't have all the injuries, would somehow the Baylor scheme magically be better designed? My belief is that your statement about scheme design applies or doesn't apply regardless of injury. Now when you consider and talk about scheme execution, injuries absolutely come into play. But that is not what I was quoting nor talking about.S11 said:Well it helps thatColomboLQ said:
About the OL: "This line's ability to open running lanes is a closer comparison to Texas, Kansas, and Baylor than it is to Oklahoma, KSU, or TCU. Montgomery and some well designed schemes make them look much better than they otherwise would. "
I wish the same could be said for Baylor.
1- They aren't great but are much healthier and have more depth without having to move Tight Ends or play true Freshmen.
2- Other than maybe one or two guys missing very little time their skill guys are all healthy. Other than maybe Mims, Atkinson, and Lynch (who spent most of the year on D) which Baylor RB, TE, or WR players haven't missed at least a little time for Baylor?
The Bears average a very similar yards per drive against 6 common opponents (35.3 vs 34.3 for BU) on offense but struggle more in the red zone where the line's issues really took a toll.
Baylor has done a lot of the same things ISU has but a revolving door of skill guys as well as a significantly more difficult OL situation limits what tactics work best and what the OC would be willing to call. Having a 5th year QB with a healthy RB and WR corps featuring the arguably the best RB in the league and one of the best WR's is easier to plan with than having to play 3 QBs, having every tailback and TE miss time, and at one point being down to four scholarship WR. The fact that the YPD is similar with that as a backdrop really surprised me.
A good example was the UT game, they had a great set of plays using Brewer to counter UT's tight front that stuffed OSU on a lot of the base run plays BU also uses but had to scrap it when a kid gets hurt.
I did a premium series on what the offense was trying to be prior to the season but I will try to give a quick answer here.
The ultimate goal is a Spread to run offense build mostly like Oregon while getting into heavy sets in short yardage. Oregon used far more 2 TE sets than many remember (surprised me during my research honestly) and had success with a wide variety of tailback styles like Stewart & Blount as big backs and James and Barner as more the scatback type.
Plenty wide open but also has a structured NFL style pass progression that isn't quite as boom or bust as the old scheme against the best defenses.
Oregon fingerprints are everywhere with this scheme. For example, the TD to Feurbacher against KU was a variation on the play Mariota broke down for Gruden on the QB camp special.
Now it's hard to be spread to run when two of your three OL who are ready physically are hobbled and a combo of TEs and freshman occasionally get bulldozed.
I don't blame anyone for frustration. I often left the stadium with a lot of it only to turn on the tape and see a lot more detail and planning that I had missed.
I don't pretend to know if Nixon is the answer but I do think even if he was this injury setup wouldn't allow that to be visible. Much like 2009 didn't mean Briles couldn't coach offense this year is not going to be an honest barometer of what we've got whether good or bad. I can't remember a team more snakebit injury wise than this one and I have followed this a long time.
I don't worry about getting good skill guys. I also think that Rhule will use tempo situationally. Fast when warranted but slow it down when up to grind the clock out.
I think long-term the Bears will be fine but right now it's a depleted offensive roster that's trying to continually rework all their stuff for which players happen to be available in a given week.
