54 plays for 1 yard or less

[knapplc]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

Disagree. See last year.

You mean last year where we were one half of solid football by the defense away from the Big XII Championship and a BCS berth? That last year?

No, I'm talking about the last year where we couldn't sustain long td drives. It was either long td, turnover, or three and out.

I said it last year,.and I'll say it this year, if it doesn't change, if we can't sustain 8 to 12 play touchdown drives, it will look like the last two years

"Sustaining drives" wouldn't have improved our results either of the last two years. We were a last-second field goal and a second-half defensive collapse away from back-to-back Big XII Championships/BCS Bowl games.

 

[Joe_5700]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

Beck-The fans are not questioning the home runs, it's all of the damn strike outs. Count me as concerned whether our line gels in time for conference play.

 

[deedsker]

About 25 of em are incomplete passes.

Yep. Not worried.

:yeah

 

[The Dude]

We don't have enough data to draw any conclusions at this juncture.

 

[3rd and long]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

Disagree. See last year.

You mean last year where we were one half of solid football by the defense away from the Big XII Championship and a BCS berth? That last year?

No, he means the one last year where we were one half of solid play by the offense (the one where we scored 0 points) away from the Big XII Championship.

I'm sorry Knapplc, I'm just being a smartass, both sides of the ball obviously let us down hugely in that game.

But put me in the camp that is worried about us being such a hit or miss offense. I hope you're right, that opening up the playbook loosens up opposing defenses. Those big plays are exciting, but I could use a couple of 10-12 play time consuming drives. This should be a really interesting weekend.

By the way, what time is kickoff (CST)?

 

[Hercules]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

Disagree. See last year.

You mean last year where we were one half of solid football by the defense away from the Big XII Championship and a BCS berth? That last year?

No, I'm talking about the last year where we couldn't sustain long td drives. It was either long td, turnover, or three and out.

I said it last year,.and I'll say it this year, if it doesn't change, if we can't sustain 8 to 12 play touchdown drives, it will look like the last two years

"Sustaining drives" wouldn't have improved our results either of the last two years. We were a last-second field goal and a second-half defensive collapse away from back-to-back Big XII Championships/BCS Bowl games.

To be fair, the defensive collapse you're talking about was in the second quarter. Oklahoma only kicked two field goals in the second half, and Nebraska couldn't even get Henery on the field for an attempt.

 

[knapplc]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

 

[3rd and long]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.

 

[krc1995]

so much for three yards and a cloud of dust-

 

[knapplc]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.

Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points?

 

[Hunter94]

it is a huge problem, in the sense that out of 66 plays, 54 were for virtually no gain. that should tell you, there is no rythm or consistency in your offensive attack. you are constantly probing for a weakness or running, calling plays right into the teeth of their defense and stubbornly repeating the same calls. if you do hit a big play, back you go again, doing more of the same that does not yield results......although i think Beck called a pretty good 2nd half, i am not sure why he waited that long to make some needed changes. i would like to know how many of the 54 losers were run in the first half of play.....also without long drives, the D stays on the field a long time with no rest....hmmm, didn't we see this movie last season?

 

[Hunter94]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.

that is exactly correct. anytime, in any game, the defense is spending a lot of time on the field, the harder it is to win and do so consistently through out the year....fatigue also leads to injuries as well...this is a big deal.

 

[knapplc]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.

that is exactly correct. anytime, in any game, the defense is spending a lot of time on the field, the harder it is to win and do so consistently through out the year....fatigue also leads to injuries as well...this is a big deal.

Oregon says "Hello!" from the BCS Championship last year. Oregon ranked 115th in the nation in Time of Possession last year, averaging 24 minutes of possession a game. That means their defense was on the field 66% of the time, every game. And they still won their conference and went to the National Championship Game. This is a completely false premise.

And Hunter, regarding your post above, we have not run 66 plays this year, we've run 124. Not sure where you got that 66 number.

 

[kchusker_chris]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

The big plays aren't the worrisome part. Its the 54 plays for 1 yard or less that is most alarming. And thats against Fresno and an FCS school.

And eight and nine in the box, and zero attempts whatsoever to throw over the top to break that up, and yadda yadda yadda.

I disagree with the apparent philosophy of not showing all of our cards in the first two games, of using them as overgrown practices (until Fresno showed they were here to win, at which point we opened it up), but that's what they did. We saw, maybe, 1/3 to 1/2 of the offense in the first two games. Kyler Reed figures to be one of our biggest weapons and he was targeted maybe four times in the first two games. There are several plays we have in the bag that we didn't even hint at, some that would definitely make a defense pay for stacking the box like that.

Should we be able to push the defense around on every play? Absolutely. But it's early, we have a very young line, and they need time to get used to the game at this level. I'm just not going to be concerned about this two games into the season.

Kind of like McNeil was for us last year? We all were saying the same thing back then.

W. Kentucky - 0 catches

Idaho - 2

Washington - 1

SD - 1 (albeit a big one)

about this time I was ready for them to "open" up this multiple offense since conference play was about to start....

KState - 2

Texas - 0

Oklahoma State - 5 (finally! - oh wait everyone caught a pass that game)

Mizzou - 0

ISU - 0

Kansas - 1

A&M - 1

CU - 1

hmmm...I sure hope we don't waste Reed this year - but at this point I'm doubtful his production will match last years.

 

[knapplc]

Kind of like McNeil was for us last year? We all were saying the same thing back then.

W. Kentucky - 0 catches

Idaho - 2

Washington - 1

SD - 1 (albeit a big one)

about this time I was ready for them to "open" up this multiple offense since conference play was about to start....

KState - 2

Texas - 0

Oklahoma State - 5 (finally! - oh wait everyone caught a pass that game)

Mizzou - 0

ISU - 0

Kansas - 1

A&M - 1

CU - 1

hmmm...I sure hope we don't waste Reed this year - but at this point I'm doubtful his production will match last years.

There are a lot of reasons behind why McNeill wasn't targeted last year. I certainly agree with you that I hope we don't ignore Reed this year, though. He's a tremendous weapon that we cannot ignore.