A lot of this has already been said in other posts but I was supposed to type this up on Saturday evening and never got around to it...
Good:
Penalties (or lack there of): I thought the team played a very clean game. Even the PI penalties that were called seemed relatively ticky tacky to me. There was even one where the TV announcers couldn't really find the contact.
Downfield Pass Defense: I realize we weren't playing a top notch QB but I think the defense did a good job of matching up with the big WRs down the field and making plays on the ball (even while face guarding)
2nd Half Defense: I think the defense really stepped up in the 2nd half and gave the offense an opportunity to come back. I think the INT kind of broke their will but they stayed involved and played hard.
Tre King: This kid reminds me so much of Taurean Henderson. The way he cuts, the way he catches, his vision, all of it. If the coaches can get him to step up his pass protection this summer, he will be a complete, every down back for us.
1st Half Offensive Gameplan:
I know its frustrating to see short runs and what seems like doing the same failed plays over and over but it was definitely the right counter to what the ISU defense was doing based on the tools you have to work with. We faced a very similar albeit less aggressive defense in ISU that we played the week before at WVa. There were a couple of noticeable differences that I feel really impacted the effectiveness of Saturday's strategy:
Bad:
Defensive line pressure/defensive pressure in general:
I don't know if this was scheme or ability but I was really frustrated with the lack of pressure in critical situations by the defense. When we have them at 3rd and 7+, we need to bring pressure to force a quick decision and then make a tackle in space. Dropping 5 back into Nickel and giving the QB time to dissect or (even worse) run is a terrible idea IMO. Even if you don't get to him, make him decide early. With a QB like ISU had, you have an 80+% chance that he either dumps the ball off to the flats, throws an incompletion, or throws an INT IMO.
Ball Carrier Tackling:
I saw a lot of arm tackles in this game. It was very reminiscent of the last couple of Gibbs years which I had thought we were really moving past. I don't know if those tackles were a result of the lack of energy, poor angles, or just a stud RB in Montgomery but it was really frustrating to see the DL do their job and force him to commit to a lane and the LBs to try to tackle with their hands.
Running after the catch:
It seemed like (especially in the first half) our WR's, with the exception of Cantrell, are not inclined to go North/South with their running. Batson is especially susceptible to this. There were times where a single cut and 3-4 positive yards were ignored in lieu of a footrace to the sideline or a bunch of stationary jukes.
Horizontal routes/long sweeping plays:
You cannot run these plays against a team like ISU. Yes, you may be able to out athlete them to the edge but that doesn't helpyou when there are 2-3 safeties crashing down on you. If you are going to pass, you have to do it with play action and you have to attack the seams between the zones or settle into the short zones like they did a bit in the 2nd half. You can't do that all the time but with a healthy mix of effective running, those plays should be good for 7-12 yards a pop.
Shimonek Awareness:
As we saw last week, Nic has a really bad tendency to try to roll right when he "senses" the pocket is collapsing. The problem is, more often than not, its not collapsing and he simply needs to step forward to buy a couple more seconds. On top of that, Nic seems to be unaware of what the defense is doing mid-play, especially if the play isn't set up for him to make a read. As we saw on the back breaking INT play in the 2nd half, Nic is running a timing play where he fakes to the right side of the field and then pivots 180 degrees and throws to his running back for a "counter screen" type of play. In Nic's defense, there isn't really a way that he could see the guy who made the INT fast enough to change his decision and still complete the pass. Against an aggressive defense (WVa, TCU, OU, UT) this play has a high probability of working for a decent gain. However, when the defense is as neutral as ISU's and nobody moves, you have guys just watching everything happen in front of them. And since the play included a fake that nobody bit on, the defenders had plenty of time to watch the OL leak over and identify the screen play before Nic even turns around. Even if the INT didn't happen and King caught the ball, he was screwed from a numbers perspective. The funny thing is, if Nic had just thrown the ball to the decoy, they had 2 guys blocked and were a 1 on 1 missed tackle away from a easy TD because EVERYONE else followed the screen to the other side of the field.
No Change of Pace Personnel by Coaches:
If you are hell bent on running the FB, you need to make sure you have multiple ways to do it. Keeping Shimonek in on what were certainly going to be running plays was a bad decision IMO. I liked the fact that they threw out some designed runs for him but those are one trick ponies. The defense will recognize it if you ever try it more than once. What I feel they needed to do was to mix in some Carter or Duffy into our standard 10/single back formations. Have them throw a couple of passes, and have them run some bootlegs, QB draws, read options and standard run plays. A mobile QB who can throw a short-mid range ball with accuracy absolutely destroys that defense.
Ugly:
Ball security:
Nisby needs to have the ball duck taped to his hands. There isn't a running back at any level of football that hasn't been coached to cover the ball with two hands when running into the teeth of the D like that. I think the Stockton fumble was a result of the knock to the head and not ball security itself but I still feel that he should know when to lower his head/shoulder and when to head towards the sideline. Tough call, I know but for someone with his injury history, self preservation needs to take some priority on a routine play like that.
Special Teams:
Not a lot to say here that isn't painfully obvious. How is this possible? It's obviously in the kids head but still, how can it happen? I'm not really sure what the solution is here either. I'm pretty underwhelmed by Panazzolo as well.
Red Zone Offense:
It wasn't just this game but for the whole season Tech has been near the bottom of the NCAA in red zone efficiency. I don't understand why that is given what our offense does well at. If I'm a team playing tech and its tied near the end of the game, I play for overtime. You have a much better likelihood of beating Tech if the game is played inside the 20's IMO.
Lack of a Winning Attitude
It sucks to say it but this team does not have a winners mentality. It doesn't mean you have to win to have a winners mentality either. We don't have anyone that seems to keep fighting when things get bad. We have a QB who sobs and hates himself so much when things go wrong that he can never pick himself back up. That whole game yesterday was lost on a missed XP with 45 mintues of game time left IMO. The team just packed it up mentally it seemed. That simply can't happen and that starts with coaches and team leaders. You have to maintain a killer instinct for 48 minutes or at least until the other guy mails it in.
I don't think this season is over. You are never as good as you think and you are never as bad as you think. I think that ISU team is a 8 or 9 win program. I think you probably would win 60 out of 100 games against them. I think there are other teams on the schedule who match up better what what you do well. I think you are going to spoil some people's seasons but I also think the frustration points will continue to add up at times. I see the team finishing at 6-6 or 7-5 and I see Kliff back again next year. I just hope we see what this team is fully capable of at least once before the end of the year. Let them give themselves a bar to measure against that they know is achievable because they've done it before.
Good:
Penalties (or lack there of): I thought the team played a very clean game. Even the PI penalties that were called seemed relatively ticky tacky to me. There was even one where the TV announcers couldn't really find the contact.
Downfield Pass Defense: I realize we weren't playing a top notch QB but I think the defense did a good job of matching up with the big WRs down the field and making plays on the ball (even while face guarding)
2nd Half Defense: I think the defense really stepped up in the 2nd half and gave the offense an opportunity to come back. I think the INT kind of broke their will but they stayed involved and played hard.
Tre King: This kid reminds me so much of Taurean Henderson. The way he cuts, the way he catches, his vision, all of it. If the coaches can get him to step up his pass protection this summer, he will be a complete, every down back for us.
1st Half Offensive Gameplan:
I know its frustrating to see short runs and what seems like doing the same failed plays over and over but it was definitely the right counter to what the ISU defense was doing based on the tools you have to work with. We faced a very similar albeit less aggressive defense in ISU that we played the week before at WVa. There were a couple of noticeable differences that I feel really impacted the effectiveness of Saturday's strategy:
- The loss of Stockton: Up to that game, Stockton had really turned himself into a very good all around RB IMO. He has much more of a burst on those stretch and pulling plays than anyone else on the roster. When you watch the WVa game, Stockton is excellent on a regular basis at picking up solid 5-7 yard gains after making his cut past the first line. As I mentioned earlier, Tre King is a solid back but he isn't complete yet and I don't think he is in near the physical condition that Stockton is. On top of his running abilities, Stockton is also a very good receiving back and can be leveraged in a lot of play types including end-arounds (and fakes), screens (and fakes), wheel routes, etc. In the 2017 TTU offense, playing without Stockton is kind of like playing chess without the Queen. He's so versatile that his loss affects everything you do.
- Lack of blitz pressure from ISU: TTU isn't built to play best vs best football right now, especially not when we run the ball. The TTU offense is built to catch opponents when they make a mistake with either their blitz or defensive alignment. ISU didn't really change anything defensively all game and I don't think they blitzed once at least I can't remember when they did.
- The loss of Mason Reed: I think the loss of Reed hurt us much more in this game than in WVA because the lack of ISU blitzing really forced our team to execute hat on hat blocks really well. When you have a team that blitzes, you can audible away from the blitz and effectively eliminate at least the blitzing player from the play. With ISU's defense, you force your team to know and understand their blocking assignments across the board. Without Reed, that really takes out a lot of the lead blocking and even edge running play effectiveness since there is a much higher chance of failed block execution by his replacement who simply hasn't done it as along as Mason has.
- I know a lot of people will point to us throwing the ball successfully in the 2nd half as proof that we could have/should have done it in the 1st half but I can tell you that the 2nd half throwing was more of an act of desperation than it was smart football strategy. Those passes in the 2nd half were, for the most part, well defended and played right into the hands of what ISU wants you to do. If just one of those passes gets tipped, is over thrown, batted, etc. it's virtually a guaranteed INT at some point because there are 3-4 players closing in on the WR before he catches the ball due to how that zone is constructed. The right play was to run. Unfortunately, the team execution wasn't there and we were missing a couple big pieces (Stockton & Reed) who could have helped significantly.
Bad:
Defensive line pressure/defensive pressure in general:
I don't know if this was scheme or ability but I was really frustrated with the lack of pressure in critical situations by the defense. When we have them at 3rd and 7+, we need to bring pressure to force a quick decision and then make a tackle in space. Dropping 5 back into Nickel and giving the QB time to dissect or (even worse) run is a terrible idea IMO. Even if you don't get to him, make him decide early. With a QB like ISU had, you have an 80+% chance that he either dumps the ball off to the flats, throws an incompletion, or throws an INT IMO.
Ball Carrier Tackling:
I saw a lot of arm tackles in this game. It was very reminiscent of the last couple of Gibbs years which I had thought we were really moving past. I don't know if those tackles were a result of the lack of energy, poor angles, or just a stud RB in Montgomery but it was really frustrating to see the DL do their job and force him to commit to a lane and the LBs to try to tackle with their hands.
Running after the catch:
It seemed like (especially in the first half) our WR's, with the exception of Cantrell, are not inclined to go North/South with their running. Batson is especially susceptible to this. There were times where a single cut and 3-4 positive yards were ignored in lieu of a footrace to the sideline or a bunch of stationary jukes.
Horizontal routes/long sweeping plays:
You cannot run these plays against a team like ISU. Yes, you may be able to out athlete them to the edge but that doesn't helpyou when there are 2-3 safeties crashing down on you. If you are going to pass, you have to do it with play action and you have to attack the seams between the zones or settle into the short zones like they did a bit in the 2nd half. You can't do that all the time but with a healthy mix of effective running, those plays should be good for 7-12 yards a pop.
Shimonek Awareness:
As we saw last week, Nic has a really bad tendency to try to roll right when he "senses" the pocket is collapsing. The problem is, more often than not, its not collapsing and he simply needs to step forward to buy a couple more seconds. On top of that, Nic seems to be unaware of what the defense is doing mid-play, especially if the play isn't set up for him to make a read. As we saw on the back breaking INT play in the 2nd half, Nic is running a timing play where he fakes to the right side of the field and then pivots 180 degrees and throws to his running back for a "counter screen" type of play. In Nic's defense, there isn't really a way that he could see the guy who made the INT fast enough to change his decision and still complete the pass. Against an aggressive defense (WVa, TCU, OU, UT) this play has a high probability of working for a decent gain. However, when the defense is as neutral as ISU's and nobody moves, you have guys just watching everything happen in front of them. And since the play included a fake that nobody bit on, the defenders had plenty of time to watch the OL leak over and identify the screen play before Nic even turns around. Even if the INT didn't happen and King caught the ball, he was screwed from a numbers perspective. The funny thing is, if Nic had just thrown the ball to the decoy, they had 2 guys blocked and were a 1 on 1 missed tackle away from a easy TD because EVERYONE else followed the screen to the other side of the field.
No Change of Pace Personnel by Coaches:
If you are hell bent on running the FB, you need to make sure you have multiple ways to do it. Keeping Shimonek in on what were certainly going to be running plays was a bad decision IMO. I liked the fact that they threw out some designed runs for him but those are one trick ponies. The defense will recognize it if you ever try it more than once. What I feel they needed to do was to mix in some Carter or Duffy into our standard 10/single back formations. Have them throw a couple of passes, and have them run some bootlegs, QB draws, read options and standard run plays. A mobile QB who can throw a short-mid range ball with accuracy absolutely destroys that defense.
Ugly:
Ball security:
Nisby needs to have the ball duck taped to his hands. There isn't a running back at any level of football that hasn't been coached to cover the ball with two hands when running into the teeth of the D like that. I think the Stockton fumble was a result of the knock to the head and not ball security itself but I still feel that he should know when to lower his head/shoulder and when to head towards the sideline. Tough call, I know but for someone with his injury history, self preservation needs to take some priority on a routine play like that.
Special Teams:
Not a lot to say here that isn't painfully obvious. How is this possible? It's obviously in the kids head but still, how can it happen? I'm not really sure what the solution is here either. I'm pretty underwhelmed by Panazzolo as well.
Red Zone Offense:
It wasn't just this game but for the whole season Tech has been near the bottom of the NCAA in red zone efficiency. I don't understand why that is given what our offense does well at. If I'm a team playing tech and its tied near the end of the game, I play for overtime. You have a much better likelihood of beating Tech if the game is played inside the 20's IMO.
Lack of a Winning Attitude
It sucks to say it but this team does not have a winners mentality. It doesn't mean you have to win to have a winners mentality either. We don't have anyone that seems to keep fighting when things get bad. We have a QB who sobs and hates himself so much when things go wrong that he can never pick himself back up. That whole game yesterday was lost on a missed XP with 45 mintues of game time left IMO. The team just packed it up mentally it seemed. That simply can't happen and that starts with coaches and team leaders. You have to maintain a killer instinct for 48 minutes or at least until the other guy mails it in.
I don't think this season is over. You are never as good as you think and you are never as bad as you think. I think that ISU team is a 8 or 9 win program. I think you probably would win 60 out of 100 games against them. I think there are other teams on the schedule who match up better what what you do well. I think you are going to spoil some people's seasons but I also think the frustration points will continue to add up at times. I see the team finishing at 6-6 or 7-5 and I see Kliff back again next year. I just hope we see what this team is fully capable of at least once before the end of the year. Let them give themselves a bar to measure against that they know is achievable because they've done it before.
