what I would like to see offensively...

[OU_Sooners75]

I would love to see an offense that isn't spread oriented. One that lines up and says this is what we are running, dare you to stop it!

An offense that does away with zone blocking schemes. One that makes all blockers responsible for a particular defender, not an area.

I want to see an offense that will line up under center. One that will use a real tight end, not a FB that acts like one.

An offense that doesn't try to out think a defense. One that will out execute one. One that will game plan with an identity to perfection.

An offense that will smash your teeth in. One that will be able to throw because you are sucked in with 9+ guys in the box.

I would like to have an offense that will utilize the TE as a decoy to disrupt zones. One that uses the TB and FB to pass protect or to flare out for safety routes.

In other words, I want an offense that knows what they are! One that says where we are come get us!

True a power rushing offense isn't flashy in today's game. But it is effective and it is good at controlling the game.

True it will have games where scoring is at a premium, but right now scoring is at a premium anyways.

Punish the defenses! Make it where opposing defenses have their hands on their knees wishing they could get enough oxygen!

Help our defense out by allowing them to be off the field!

[BoulderSooner79]

Wake-up, Walter Mitty!

:surprise:

[OU_Sooners75]

Wake-up, Walter Mitty!

:surprise:

Lol

[cyclonesooner]

I completely agree with you philosophy on zone blocking schemes. As an off. line coach, I always refused to use that scheme. Hate it. Too much margin for error. Coaching shortcut imo.

[cherokeebrewer]

Better hit the recruiting trails, flush 'em out & sign 'em up...

[OU_Sooners75]

I completely agree with you philosophy on zone blocking schemes. As an off. line coach, I always refused to use that scheme. Hate it. Too much margin for error. Coaching shortcut imo.

As an OL growing up and playing, and now coaching, I agree.

Zone blocking makes your OL vulnerable to run blitzes and it creates a softer OL overall.

[OU_Sooners75]

Better hit the recruiting trails, flush 'em out & sign 'em up...

Hell OU can pay me 500k to do what Heupel is doing! And I am in no way claiming to be a better OC (never been one) or even a better coach than him!

[SoonerorLater]

I would love to see an offense that isn't spread oriented. One that lines up and says this is what we are running, dare you to stop it!

An offense that does away with zone blocking schemes. One that makes all blockers responsible for a particular defender, not an area.

I want to see an offense that will line up under center. One that will use a real tight end, not a FB that acts like one.

An offense that doesn't try to out think a defense. One that will out execute one. One that will game plan with an identity to perfection.

An offense that will smash your teeth in. One that will be able to throw because you are sucked in with 9+ guys in the box.

I would like to have an offense that will utilize the TE as a decoy to disrupt zones. One that uses the TB and FB to pass protect or to flare out for safety routes.

In other words, I want an offense that knows what they are! One that says where we are come get us!

True a power rushing offense isn't flashy in today's game. But it is effective and it is good at controlling the game.

True it will have games where scoring is at a premium, but right now scoring is at a premium anyways.

Punish the defenses! Make it where opposing defenses have their hands on their knees wishing they could get enough oxygen!

Help our defense out by allowing them to be off the field!

Yes, Yes, Yes ! Me too! ........and you won't have to wait long. You can see the team you described this weekend. They will be playing Mississippi St on ESPN Saturday night.

[8timechamps]

Zone blocking isn't always a bad thing, but it should never be the only thing. OU has done less zone blocking this year than I've seen in recent year, but the problem is we really don't have the guys to do it consistently.

[yermom]

part of the thing with the spread is that it doesn't take the athletes that the offense you are talking about does

as for the TE, i like the idea of the TE/FB being able to move around. that was part of the killer 2008 offense. you can motion from two tight ends, to a single back, or the I or whatever without the defense being able to sub guys and wear them out or catch them when they try to cycle guys in

i do agree that they seem to get ahead of themselves on offense, and make it too complex. it's like Josh thinks there 11 of him out there

[Scott D]

What you should like to see offensively is oh I don't know...an offense with a gameplan that isn't from a cracker jack box ;)

[JiminyChristmas]

Offensive schemes have come and gone for many years. Most worked to varying degrees for a period of time before evolving into the next new thing.

When Bob came to OU, he hired a guy named Leach from Kentucky because as a DC at Florida, he said that was the toughest offense he had to prepare for. Why was it difficult? Partly, and I would suggest largely, because it was still fairly unique at the time. You didn't play against it very often. The spread, like most other schemes, was developed to help lesser teams try to even the playing field somewhat against more talented teams.

Why did they need to try and level the playing field? Because they did not have the ability, talent, or bodies to compete with "the big boys" at the LOS. There are not nearly as many talented bigs to go around as there are smaller athletes. So they had to come up with something that would use what talent they did have and try to put that talent in a position to be successful. That meant they had to "spread" the field. Somewhat be design unfortunately, we have schemed our way into not being a dominant OL team, even while putting several OL guys into the NFL.

Bottom line, the solution is simple. You have to get superior athletes to play the OL and DL. If you have that, you can put the other pieces together. You have to be able to run the ball and stop the run. That's one "fad" that will never change.

I hope the hires of Bedenbaugh and Montgomery were the first steps to OU getting back to being dominant at the LOS. It may take a little time. I hope they can get it done sooner rather than later.

[Temujin]

I would love to see an offense that isn't spread oriented. One that lines up and says this is what we are running, dare you to stop it!

An offense that does away with zone blocking schemes. One that makes all blockers responsible for a particular defender, not an area.

I want to see an offense that will line up under center. One that will use a real tight end, not a FB that acts like one.

An offense that doesn't try to out think a defense. One that will out execute one. One that will game plan with an identity to perfection.

An offense that will smash your teeth in. One that will be able to throw because you are sucked in with 9+ guys in the box.

I would like to have an offense that will utilize the TE as a decoy to disrupt zones. One that uses the TB and FB to pass protect or to flare out for safety routes.

In other words, I want an offense that knows what they are! One that says where we are come get us!

True a power rushing offense isn't flashy in today's game. But it is effective and it is good at controlling the game.

True it will have games where scoring is at a premium, but right now scoring is at a premium anyways.

Punish the defenses! Make it where opposing defenses have their hands on their knees wishing they could get enough oxygen!

Help our defense out by allowing them to be off the field!

Amen.

[Temujin]

Zone blocking isn't always a bad thing, but it should never be the only thing. OU has done less zone blocking this year than I've seen in recent year, but the problem is we really don't have the guys to do it consistently.

The interesting thing about zone-anything, especially in football, is that it's almost always a compensatory tactic designed to disguise weaknesses. For instance, when the Broncos couldn't put together a decent OL, they put together a zone-blocking scheme and sent a single-cutback runner at the designed cutback hole. It worked brilliantly until the NFL figured it out...and granted it took a few years (Terrell Davis, Clinton Portis, Mike Anderson etc.). Now it's all but out of style and instead of Shanahan being a genius, he's just a flash-in-the-pan offensive semi-guru who got lucky and won a SB with a great QB and a running game that took a while to figure out.

The Steelers put together zone-blitzes to cover secondary and DL weaknesses. The 2-3 zone in BBall is designed to cover defensive weaknesses on the inside. And so on and so on...I'm a MUCH bigger fan of man/man on the defensive side because the only REAL counter to it is having better/equal players or flat-out cheating. See: Baylor pick play to score TD in first half.

But, it's the same with the spread, and other gimmick-y offenses. We got lucky in 2000 that the spread wasn't widely deployed...and that we didn't stray TOO far from the basics. Ultimately every game is boiled down to blocking/tackling. When you get too far away from that, then you've got problems. And these days, we've strayed WAY too far from the basics, specifically on offense.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

the triple option

[Scott D]

the triple option

oh yeah, we could be a middle of the pack ACC team with that!!!

[sooneron]

I realize that Millard has been out for a while now, but what happened with the diamond formation? I seem to remember it working ok earlier this year. Am I wrong on this?

[PrideMom]

The main problem with OU's offense is: TOO SLOW!! By the time a play is ready to run, everyone has lost interest, so they line up wrong, etc. CALL THE PLAY AND GO!!!!!

[SoonerMachine]

Heck, I've just wanted the standard pro-set since '82...

[FlatLander]

All for about anything suggested here. QB under center with 2-3 FB/RB behind, TE. Much better play-action out those sets. Go to the line snap it and go and see who beats who.

[dwarthog]

Execution, just plain simple execution would be nice to see. Surely this o-line can do that...

[Okie35]

Execution, just plain simple execution would be nice to see. Surely this o-line can do that...

Mainly in the redzone. A power running game that opens up play action. I wouldn't mind a pro style offense.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Okay so lets take the hypothetical that we can do this (which I don't think we can).

In order to be a power running team, you need to have a predominantly JR/SR OL every year, that is versatile and deep enough to handle any kind of front (4-3, 3-4, 46) and any injury situation. This means that you'd need at least 9 JR/SR OL. Further extrapolating this down, given our injury attrition at OL, this means we'd have to recruit at least 8 OL per year and dedicate roughly 30 of the 85 man roster to OL. Given our needs on defense, that means we'd have roughly 13 total scholarships for TEs, FBs, RBs, WRs, and QB. In other words, if we can't figure out a way to understand why we lose so many OL to back injuries I think this isn't a feasible option.

Secondarily, while I think a power offense would be good for our defense, I'm not convinced it can make it through our conference undefeated. Just way too many teams that can explode on you. A good example is the 2004 team - we had that late mid stretch where we gave up 35 points in back to back games. JW had to take those games over without play action and just light up the scoreboard. He was used to doing it with all the spread we'd ran, a QB who depends on play action for success is not going to be successful in a fling it around scenario (see Luck, Andrew) to give you an undefeated season.

[BoulderSooner79]

Okay so lets take the hypothetical that we can do this (which I don't think we can).

In order to be a power running team, you need to have a predominantly JR/SR OL every year, that is versatile and deep enough to handle any kind of front (4-3, 3-4, 46) and any injury situation. This means that you'd need at least 9 JR/SR OL. Further extrapolating this down, given our injury attrition at OL, this means we'd have to recruit at least 8 OL per year and dedicate roughly 30 of the 85 man roster to OL. Given our needs on defense, that means we'd have roughly 13 total scholarships for TEs, FBs, RBs, WRs, and QB. In other words, if we can't figure out a way to understand why we lose so many OL to back injuries I think this isn't a feasible option.

Secondarily, while I think a power offense would be good for our defense, I'm not convinced it can make it through our conference undefeated. Just way too many teams that can explode on you. A good example is the 2004 team - we had that late mid stretch where we gave up 35 points in back to back games. JW had to take those games over without play action and just light up the scoreboard. He was used to doing it with all the spread we'd ran, a QB who depends on play action for success is not going to be successful in a fling it around scenario (see Luck, Andrew) to give you an undefeated season.

Stop it! You're making something so simple that a moron could do it seem hard. We blanket city.

[OU_Sooners75]

JKM you can be a power running team and still be a very effective passing team.

Had OU been able to put together a game plan, much like they did against ND, against Baylor, or even Texas, they control the clock. Give the defense ample rest. And perhaps even win the games.

And your idea if having to have 30+ OL on scholarship to have a power rushing team is absurd!

Yes you would need more than we have now. But more in line with 12-15.

Believe it or not one of the least injuries areas of a team is on the lines.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

2009 - 4 OL Recruited - 0 on the roster (should be RS SR)
2010 - 5 OL Recruited - 5 on the roster (mix of RS JR/SR)
2011 - 3 OL Recruited - 2 on the roster
2012 - 3 OL Recruited - 2 on the roster
2013 - 4 OL Recruited - 4 on the roster

We have 13 on the roster right now with most of our starters being upper classmen. You can't have a consistently good power running game unless you have a mix of 4-5 Jrs/Srs replacing a mix of 4-5 Jrs/Srs. I said this back in 2004 when Barnett's Buffalos were falling apart because they didn't replace 3 huge OL classes in a row. They just couldn't sustain a good defense and the power running game at the same time with 85 scholarships. The SEC has gotten around this by artificially extending their scholarship limit by running people off. If we adopted that policy and recruited 25 every year then yes we could sustain that kind of O.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the spread (running or passing) IF you make elusiveness your #1 trait. Our problem is that we value speed over elusiveness and vision.

[PrideMom]

More scoring!

[sooneron]

2009 - 4 OL Recruited - 0 on the roster (should be RS SR)
2010 - 5 OL Recruited - 5 on the roster (mix of RS JR/SR)
2011 - 3 OL Recruited - 2 on the roster
2012 - 3 OL Recruited - 2 on the roster
2013 - 4 OL Recruited - 4 on the roster

We have 13 on the roster right now with most of our starters being upper classmen. You can't have a consistently good power running game unless you have a mix of 4-5 Jrs/Srs replacing a mix of 4-5 Jrs/Srs. I said this back in 2004 when Barnett's Buffalos were falling apart because they didn't replace 3 huge OL classes in a row. They just couldn't sustain a good defense and the power running game at the same time with 85 scholarships. The SEC has gotten around this by artificially extending their scholarship limit by running people off. If we adopted that policy and recruited 25 every year then yes we could sustain that kind of O.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the spread (running or passing) IF you make elusiveness your #1 trait. Our problem is that we value speed over elusiveness and vision.
I think a lot of this points to evaluation and getting what's needed. I think we can do it with 15-18 on the roster. Most well balanced teams that I see have 3 studs (guys that will go in the first 3 rounds of the draft in the following 2 yrs) and solid plug and play guys. We are rarely getting the studs!
We currently have TWENTY TWO DBs! I realize there are (at times) 6 on the field, but that is ridiculous and it points to where the coach came from...

[Position Limit]

you guys are asking way too much. lets just start with getting a play off in a timely manner.

[sooner46]

I would like to see an OL that can actually blocked someone. It does not matter who is calling the plays or what the called play was if the OL does not block so it can be executed.

[dwarthog]

you guys are asking way too much. lets just start with getting a play off in a timely manner.

This... Cut way back on the keystone cops impersonations...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think a lot of this points to evaluation and getting what's needed. I think we can do it with 15-18 on the roster. Most well balanced teams that I see have 3 studs (guys that will go in the first 3 rounds of the draft in the following 2 yrs) and solid plug and play guys. We are rarely getting the studs!
We currently have TWENTY TWO DBs! I realize there are (at times) 6 on the field, but that is ridiculous and it points to where the coach came from...

2009 - 5 signed - 1 on campus (2 graduated last year)
2010 - 5 signed - 3 on campus (1 SR)
2011 - 1 signed - 0 on campus
2012 - 4 signed - 3 on campus
2013 - 5 signed - 5 on campus

+ 1 TR in Cortez Johnson

So we have 13 scholarship DBs with 75% of them underclassmen. Most of the DBs on the roster are walkons btw.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think a lot of this points to evaluation and getting what's needed. I think we can do it with 15-18 on the roster. Most well balanced teams that I see have 3 studs (guys that will go in the first 3 rounds of the draft in the following 2 yrs) and solid plug and play guys. We are rarely getting the studs!
We currently have TWENTY TWO DBs! I realize there are (at times) 6 on the field, but that is ridiculous and it points to where the coach came from...

give me a minute on your OL requirements I have to do some digging

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think a lot of this points to evaluation and getting what's needed. I think we can do it with 15-18 on the roster. Most well balanced teams that I see have 3 studs (guys that will go in the first 3 rounds of the draft in the following 2 yrs) and solid plug and play guys. We are rarely getting the studs!
We currently have TWENTY TWO DBs! I realize there are (at times) 6 on the field, but that is ridiculous and it points to where the coach came from...

In the last 6 years, these are the schools that have had more than 2 OL taken in the 1st 3 rounds of the NFL draft
Total (1st Round)
Alabama 6 (4) - 2 5*, 2 4*, 2 3*
Wisconsin 6 (3) - 1 4*, 5 3*
USC 5 (3) - 2 5*, 2 4*, 1 3*
Oklahoma 4 (2) - 1 4*, 2 3*, 1 0*
Baylor 3 (2) - 1 4*, 2 2*
Florida 3 (2) - 3 4*
Illinois 3 (0) - 1 3*, 2 2*

notes

1. Heh, you don't expect the rankings bias to be this bad but there it is. Teams that are not considered recruiting powers are skewed down regardless of how much talent they sling into the pros.
2. Alabama is kind of weird. They tend to have a lot of guys from the same class go in the 1st round and then have others with none.
3. Wisconsin doesn't take many OL at all. Looking through their classes they take 2 per year with one big 5 recruit class every 4. Near as I could tell, 40% of their recruited OL in this sample ended up in the first 3 rounds.
4. There are several jucos in there that typically have higher rankings than the schools average (our 4* and 1 3* are jucos as well as Baylors 4*)
5. One of USC's 4*s was the lowest rated guy in their class behind 3 5*s (they didn't get drafted)

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

More Notes because I love how you roll your eyes...

Alabama had classes that looked like this:

before Saban - 4, 6, 5 (3 1st rounders)
after Saban - 2, 3, 7 - the other 3 1st rounders were in that class of 7

[OU_Sooners75]

JKM I know you want to believe you are extremely knowledgeable about this.

But let me just say, back when I was playing college ball,with less scholarship restrictions than today, we had a total of 14 offensive linemen.

Guess what type of offense we ran? Oh a pro set offense with a lot of power and counters.

Please don't try telling me something I am actually well versed at.

Also if you are running a power run offense, you have less need for so many WRs. So if a team felt more comfortable with 15-18 OL that is doable.

And yes there are 13-14 on campus right now. How many of those are walk-ons?

The problem with the OL the last couple if years isn't from a set number they wanted. It is the recruiting they have had to endure.

Just two tackles on the roster past Thompson and Williams? Really?

That said, what is OU going to do when they have coaches that can't recruit or get guys to come to OU? Well they are going to give the scholarship to a roster filler. Someone that will add depth, but likely never see the field. And you see those littered all over the OU OL list.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

JKM I know you want to believe you are extremely knowledgeable about this.

But let me just say, back when I was playing college ball,with less scholarship restrictions than today, we had a total of 14 offensive linemen.

Guess what type of offense we ran? Oh a pro set offense with a lot of power and counters.

Please don't try telling me something I am actually well versed at.

Also if you are running a power run offense, you have less need for so many WRs. So if a team felt more comfortable with 15-18 OL that is doable.

And yes there are 13-14 on campus right now. How many of those are walk-ons?

The problem with the OL the last couple if years isn't from a set number they wanted. It is the recruiting they have had to endure.

Just two tackles on the roster past Thompson and Williams? Really?

That said, what is OU going to do when they have coaches that can't recruit or get guys to come to OU? Well they are going to give the scholarship to a roster filler. Someone that will add depth, but likely never see the field. And you see those littered all over the OU OL list.

How many points a game did you score? How many times did you go undefeated? How many times did you have low point totals against an explosive team. How many consecutive 11 win seasons did you have?

As for the "Hey I played" argument, it doesn't float much water. Most of the guys I played with could barely remember the plays much less step back and think of an orchestrated multi-year sustainable strategy. Oklahoma for 60 years has struggled to field the offensive linemen for a power running game. The athletes that we tend to be able to land even in down years correspond to finesse running/passing games and we have been amazingly successful at utilizing them. The Wishbone was a finesse offense that was predicated on quick decision making and taking what the defense gave you. Strange, that sounds exactly like the spread only utilizing the pass and not the run.

I'm going to repeat this yet again. It isn't enough for OU to have a strong offense 2 years out of 4. It is a requirement BY THE FANS that we have an offense that is awesome consistently (see offense, this year). In order for a power running game to be good CONSISTENTLY (and by consistently I mean 7 out of 8 years and by good I mean 35+ points a game and 11 wins a year) you have to have at least 4 RS SR OL every single year.

[Temujin]

I suppose JKM is right to an extent. This isn't the NFL where players can spend all their time training and practicing and studying.

The reality is that almost any offense can be successful enough to win championships, as long as you have the players to make it work and can execute consistently. This is especially true in college, for a number of reasons...but most being related to the aforementioned limited time a player can spend training/practicing as well as the variations in speed, size, strength of the players.

It stands to reason that simpler offenses are more consistent overall, but also tend to demand better players. More complex offenses might be able to put up greater numbers, exploit weaknesses...and do so with lesser talent, but perhaps are more prone to errors and mistakes. And most of us prefer power running teams because football is based on physicality, and having a power running game just FEELS right. I mean, who wouldn't love to see OU out-muscle teams, being physically superior?

Power football would be my preference, too, just because I find it more enjoyable to watch. But as long as we win, I suppose I'd take just about any offense/defense that works consistently.

[OU_Sooners75]

We scored over 30 points a game.

We never made it through a season undefeated but did make it to the semifinals in the playoffs three years in a row.

Our defense averaged less than 15 points given up a game.

Face it man, your idea of what a power rushing team needs it bogus or misinformed.

[sooneron]

More Notes because I love how you roll your eyes...



:rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

How many spread teams have won BCS championships?

2000 OU
2005 Texas
2006 & 2008 Florida
2010 Auburn.

How many pro set run based offenses have won an NC?

Tennessee
Alabama (3 times)
LSU (2 times)
Ohio State
Miami
USC
More and likely another pro set offense in either FSU or Bama is going to win it again.

What does this tell us? Yeah, you can have that spread and win it if you strike gold along the way. But it suggests that the more traditional pro set offenses with a dose of power running actually wins more often than not.

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm going to repeat this yet again. It isn't enough for OU to have a strong offense 2 years out of 4. It is a requirement BY THE FANS that we have an offense that is awesome consistently (see offense, this year). In order for a power running game to be good CONSISTENTLY (and by consistently I mean 7 out of 8 years and by good I mean 35+ points a game and 11 wins a year) you have to have at least 4 RS SR OL every single year.

Again no you don't.

You need 5-10 very good OL. With enough behind to fill for injuries.

Alabama doesn't have 4 RS seniors starting for them each year. So they blow your opinions out of the water!

[sooneron]

More Notes because I love how you roll your eyes...

Alabama had classes that looked like this:

before Saban - 4, 6, 5 (3 1st rounders)
after Saban - 2, 3, 7 - the other 3 1st rounders were in that class of 7

The last four years, we have landed a total of 14. I think that should be closer to 16-17.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Question about going to more run oriented offense... If you have OL's who have been historically more pass blockers, is there a learning curve to switch to power running? Is it a different type of OL to recruit?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Again no you don't.

You need 5-10 very good OL. With enough behind to fill for injuries.

Alabama doesn't have 4 RS seniors starting for them each year. So they blow your opinions out of the water!

You just don't understand, you can't arbitrarily pick any teams across the country to compare us too. Alabama gets most of their OL from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Places that we just can't regularly get kids from. We get kids from Texas. So what you have to think about is GIVEN OUR RECRUITING TERRITORY what offenses have produced the most national championships?

Texas - Spread 1, Wishbone 2
Oklahoma - Wing T 3, Wishbone 3, Spread 1
LSU - Power 2

Where does LSU get most of their OL? Louisiana and Georgia. But more importantly what are their OL class sizes?

2006 - 6
2007 - 4
2008 - 6
2009 - 4
2010 - 2
2011 - 4
2012 - 5
2013 - 5

When you brought this up, this was the team I was basing our projections on since they are the closest to our own recruiting grounds. Here are their final totals:
Year points per game/rank/record
2012 - 30/58/10-3
2011 - 35/17/13-1
2010 - 30/45/11-2
2009 - 24/76/9-4
2008 - 31/30/8-5
2007 - 39/11/12-2

[Johnny Utah]

Since a power running offense is evidently out of the question, I would like to see a run based spread like Auburn or Oregon. Ditch the meerkat, line up under center at times, and run to set up the pass. Quit trying to be "cute" and ultimately outsmart yourself. And if something works stick with it until it's stopped.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Since a power running offense is evidently out of the question, I would like to see a run based spread like Auburn or Oregon. Ditch the meerkat, line up under center at times, and run to set up the pass. Quit trying to be "cute" and ultimately outsmart yourself. And if something works stick with it until it's stopped.

Isn't that what we did on Saturday? Yes, the long runs helped the perception of our play calling, but in general I thought it was a nice mix.

[yermom]

yeah, let's see how it works against not-Cyclones

i do feel a lot better about playing @K-State next week than i did last week though

[Johnny Utah]

Isn't that what we did on Saturday? Yes, the long runs helped the perception of our play calling, but in general I thought it was a nice mix.

That's what I thought as well. I just hope it's what the coaches commit to.

[Johnny Utah]

yeah, let's see how it works against not-Cyclones

What offense would you propose?

[yermom]

i think what we were doing looked great. i just don't think i'm willing to claim we have solved all of our problems.

are we going to have holes like that next week?

[Johnny Utah]

i think what we were doing looked great. i just don't think i'm willing to claim we have solved all of our problems.

are we going to have holes like that next week?

Agree, agree and agree :-)

[Scott D]

i think what we were doing looked great. i just don't think i'm willing to claim we have solved all of our problems.

are we going to have holes like that next week?

look at the bright side, when Knight was in there wasn't staring at the sidelines with 6 seconds left in the play clock forcing everyone to wonder if the ball would be snapped prior to 0

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

yeah, let's see how it works against not-Cyclones

i do feel a lot better about playing @K-State next week than i did last week though

ISU was outmanned (thus the long runs comment), but I thought it was a much better flow than what we've seen thus far this year. As a matter of a fact, it was about the first time this year that I've seen our coaches not trying to micromanage everything and letting Knight run the game.