2012 Offense

[westnodak93bison]

Is there any chance we will have a little more creativity? I'm not saying we should abandon our base offense but it would be nice to see some new wrinkles. Does Vigen have it in him?
IMHO, we could be much deeper at WR and RB around week 4 once the younger/new players get up to speed. I'd like to see on occasion 5 WR. Maybe throw Esley in at WR, run a reverse with option to throw or run etc. Or sneak Lange in at FB a time or two and run a quick hitter etc. How about some old fashioned pic plays like the old 49ners used to do or the current Pats? Time to add a little flavor to the vanilla.

[SDbison]

Is there any chance we will have a little more creativity? I'm not saying we should abandon our base offense but it would be nice to see some new wrinkles. Does Vigen have it in him?
IMHO, we could be much deeper at WR and RB around week 4 once the younger/new players get up to speed. I'd like to see on occasion 5 WR. Maybe throw Esley in at WR, run a reverse with option to throw or run etc. Or sneak Lange in at FB a time or two and run a quick hitter etc. How about some old fashioned pic plays like the old 49ners used to do or the current Pats? Time to add a little flavor to the vanilla. To me this is the million dollar question. The Bison offense has to be a bit more effective and efficient (i.e. more scoring). The Bison can't always rely on high turnover margin seasons in their favor as some of that is related to luck. Also can't keep expecting the defense to shutdown great teams for most of a game. I sincerely hope the defense can continue with another excellent season, but the offense has to do more if the Bison expect to go deep into the playoffs next year. Having an experienced Brock Jensen at QB is a plus, and a very good Sam Ojuri returning at RB will go a long ways. Need other to players to step up including a more vibrant game plan from Vigen.

[BisonNeil]

I agree with SD on this.

No one has been more critical of Vigen's playcalling than I have, but with that said, I do think the offense will continue to develop.

There was marked improvement in offensive production from the 2010 season to the 2011 season, primarily because of the development of Brock Jensen at QB. I expect him to continue that development and to improve, barring an injury more significant than a turf toe (i.e., broken collarbone he suffered in '10).

The key will be the WRs I think, and the replacements for Cornick and Richard. It was unfortunate that Vraa and Gebhardt had such a injury-riddled season. I think the two of them along with Holloway and Smith would have made some very difficult match ups for a lot of teams in 4 WR sets. But, can any of them, or Wahlo, Moody or any of the rookies replace Holloway's 1000 yds? Can Hinz step in and be as good as Richard? Can Jerve get healthy and replace Cornick to some degree, or whomever?

Those are the questions, and it will likely take 4-5 games before we have a clue to the answer.

[stevdock]

It's all going to depend on how many actual weapons we have and how reliable they are. If Cornick and Richard are not replaced well then it's going to be a very conservative offense. If our WR/TE's are not healthy then the same thing. The healthier and more experienced we are, the more wide open the offense will become. Vigen has shown that the last couple of years.

[HerdBot]

Turner, Lund, and Gimmestad should see some dramatic improvement. Not concerned about the guard spot at all because against 34 defenses, Lund did just fine at guard and we have a ton of guys who can fill the spot plus Heinz can play center. My biggest concern is RT. Weve alwaya filled it with giant men like Buckman, Cornick and guys who are 6-5 to 6-6, 310 to 320. Obviously Bohl marked his future tackles with the current class but we only have a few guys on the roster who fit the size. Pomerenke, Haaeg, and Lesar. 2 of those guys are walkons and will only be redshirts. Pomerenke is key and possibility the most important replacement. If he doesnt work out we may be smaller than normal at tackle but its pribably not the end of the world to have a 6_4 tackle.

Receiver will be better than it was late in the year. Vraa won the job until injury and we all know how good ryan smith was

[344Johnson]

Carey Woods...

[DjKyRo]

I thought Vigen did a great job of throwing in some new things as the season went on, particularly in the playoffs. The reverse call vs. GSU was brilliant, and obviously the team was much more comfortable with a vertical passing game this year as opposed to last season. I think a more seasoned receiving corps is going to be pivotal to opening up the plas even more, but I'm very comfortable with the kind of stuff we worked in in the playoffs.

[westnodak93bison]

Turner, Lund, and Gimmestad should see some dramatic improvement. Not concerned about the guard spot at all because against 34 defenses, Lund did just fine at guard and we have a ton of guys who can fill the spot plus Heinz can play center. My biggest concern is RT. Weve alwaya filled it with giant men like Buckman, Cornick and guys who are 6-5 to 6-6, 310 to 320. Obviously Bohl marked his future tackles with the current class but we only have a few guys on the roster who fit the size. Pomerenke, Haaeg, and Lesar. 2 of those guys are walkons and will only be redshirts. Pomerenke is key and possibility the most important replacement. If he doesnt work out we may be smaller than normal at tackle but its pribably not the end of the world to have a 6_4 tackle.

Receiver will be better than it was late in the year. Vraa won the job until injury and we all know how good ryan smith was

How can you say Pomerenke is the key when Jerve was deemed a starter at RT before he got injured? I'd say the starting lineup will be Turner LT, Hinz LG/C, Lund LG/C, Gimmestad RG, Jerve RT until somebody else earns a spot. Maybe you know something I don't know about Pomerenke. Maybe he really came on in practice last fall?

[BadlandsBison]

Whether Jerve starts or not, I hope he's healthy. We need the depth.

[HerdBot]

How can you say Pomerenke is the key when Jerve was deemed a starter at RT before he got injured? I'd say the starting lineup will be Turner LT, Hinz LG/C, Lund LG/C, Gimmestad RG, Jerve RT until somebody else earns a spot. Maybe you know something I don't know about Pomerenke. Maybe he really came on in practice last fall?

Jerve was projected as a starter at right guard, not tackle. After he was injured, Gimmestad won the spot and played well as a first year starter.

[westnodak93bison]

Jerve was projected as a starter at right guard, not tackle. After he was injured, Gimmestad won the spot and played well as a first year starter.

News to me. I thought Bohl had him tabbed as RT starter and Cornick at RG then Jerve got injured. Also, Jerve was listed at backup LT in the game day program https://admin.xosn.com/pdf8/787855.pdf?SPSID=11850&SPID=695&DB_LANG=C&KEY=YXWKVYHXLAEPRCD.20110927015053&DB_OEM_ID=2400

[HerdBot]

News to me. I thought Bohl had him tabbed as RT starter and Cornick at RG then Jerve got injured. Also, Jerve was listed at backup LT in the game day program https://admin.xosn.com/pdf8/787855.pdf?SPSID=11850&SPID=695&DB_LANG=C&KEY=YXWKVYHXLAEPRCD.20110927015053&DB_OEM_ID=2400

Pomerenke is also listed as the backup RT. You were correct about Cornick moving to rt but according to the bison media blog entry, jerve was listed as guard before injury. Perhaps left guard with Richard at center
http://bisonmedia.areavoices.com/2011/04/11/jerve-out-until-august-line-shuffles-around/

[Kermit]

News to me. I thought Bohl had him tabbed as RT starter and Cornick at RG then Jerve got injured. Also, Jerve was listed at backup LT in the game day program https://admin.xosn.com/pdf8/787855.pdf?SPSID=11850&SPID=695&DB_LANG=C&KEY=YXWKVYHXLAEPRCD.20110927015053&DB_OEM_ID=2400

You are absolutely correct.

[HerdBot]

You are absolutely correct.

The cornick to right tackle is correct but Jerve was a left guard. http://bisonmedia.areavoices.com/2011/04/11/jerve-out-until-august-line-shuffles-around/
Edit: now thinking back i am confused.

[westnodak93bison]

Well, it looks like we have some versatile offensive lineman. I'm feeling a little more comfortable about our OL situation.

[herdmember]

Is there any chance we will have a little more creativity? I'm not saying we should abandon our base offense but it would be nice to see some new wrinkles. Does Vigen have it in him?
IMHO, we could be much deeper at WR and RB around week 4 once the younger/new players get up to speed. I'd like to see on occasion 5 WR. Maybe throw Esley in at WR, run a reverse with option to throw or run etc. Or sneak Lange in at FB a time or two and run a quick hitter etc. How about some old fashioned pic plays like the old 49ners used to do or the current Pats? Time to add a little flavor to the vanilla.

After last year's playoffs and this full season, I'm starting to think Vigen is extremely underrated. In last year's playoffs, he POUNDED the ball with a 'vanilla' offense. It dang near worked as we lost to the eventual champ in OT on their field when all our D needed to do was stop the offense from going 90 yards for a td at the end of the game. Our QB situation in the playoffs last year was sketchy at best. (freshman that couldn't stay healthy and Jose) This year our offense did exactly what it needed to do to win. It opened up the offense in games they knew they'd need to (U of Minnesota is the best example I can think of), and played it closer to the vest when it made sense (James Madison and Sam Houston stick out as the two games that are the best examples.) Our balance this year was fantastic even though we struggled having a healthy 2nd WR and never had a healthy 3rd/4th WR the entire year.

It's glaringly obvious to me that we don't have an offensive game plan and a defensive game plan, as much as we have an entire team game plan. Vigen is working within the boundaries of that team game plan. This is what Bison football is all about. It's great that we were able to be way more balanced this year even with the WR injuries (thanks to having a stud at QB) and good play calling. However, our team is built to grind you down so the 4th quarter is ours. It's a thing of beauty to watch IMO. If anything, I'm hoping with Brock's toe better next year that he can play under center way more often. When he's in shotgun I just think it makes us way too one dimensional.

PS - It also amazes me how few 'kudos to our coaches threads' there are considering the playoff run we had last year, the title we had this year virtually walking through the regular season and playoffs, and the excellent recruiting we seem to be doing. Dang we are lucky to have this staff and it all starts at the top with Coach Bohl.

[HerdBot]

Well, it looks like we have some versatile offensive lineman. I'm feeling a little more comfortable about our OL situation.

Especially if they plugged in Jerve to the backup left tackle spot, the toughest spot. You need elite pass blocking skills there.

[Bison03]

Brock will only get better. He is only a junior. The fact that he had Holloway and Smith (when healthy) as his only "go to" guys this year and to still have good passing yards is pretty amazing. We were never a one dementional team. For all the Vigen bashers out there, please stop. His game plans and play calling won 14 games and a national title. Every year is different. Next year's team will be different from this one. I have no doubt the coaching staff will work with what we got to gameplan for wins. Thank God that what we got is pretty damn good.

[westnodak93bison]

After last year's playoffs and this full season, I'm starting to think Vigen is extremely underrated. In last year's playoffs, he POUNDED the ball with a 'vanilla' offense. It dang near worked as we lost to the eventual champ in OT on their field when all our D needed to do was stop the offense from going 90 yards for a td at the end of the game. Our QB situation in the playoffs last year was sketchy at best. (freshman that couldn't stay healthy and Jose) This year our offense did exactly what it needed to do to win. It opened up the offense in games they knew they'd need to (U of Minnesota is the best example I can think of), and played it closer to the vest when it made sense (James Madison and Sam Houston stick out as the two games that are the best examples.) Our balance this year was fantastic even though we struggled having a healthy 2nd WR and never had a healthy 3rd/4th WR the entire year.

It's glaringly obvious to me that we don't have an offensive game plan and a defensive game plan, as much as we have an entire team game plan. Vigen is working within the boundaries of that team game plan. This is what Bison football is all about. It's great that we were able to be way more balanced this year even with the WR injuries (thanks to having a stud at QB) and good play calling. However, our team is built to grind you down so the 4th quarter is ours. It's a thing of beauty to watch IMO. If anything, I'm hoping with Brock's toe better next year that he can play under center way more often. When he's in shotgun I just think it makes us way too one dimensional.

PS - It also amazes me how few 'kudos to our coaches threads' there are considering the playoff run we had last year, the title we had this year virtually walking through the regular season and playoffs, and the excellent recruiting we seem to be doing. Dang we are lucky to have this staff and it all starts at the top with Coach Bohl.

I actually agree for the most part. I got in a discussion with a guy after the NC game who said we "lucked out". He didn't go to all the games like I did. IMHO, the staff ran a conservative offense for several reasons. The D was playing lights out and we were short of seasoned receivers in the 2nd half. Also, SHSU defense was pretty damn good and there was no use taking many chances with the passing game. My whole point in starting this thread was to discuss the offense becoming more explosive, less predictable, and using more weapons to keep the defense on their heals and from stacking the box.

[GOB1SON]

173 and 173.

That is balance, and I am pretty sure it isn't a coincidence (although to be spot on is pretty cool).

[Bison06]

I once had a conversation with a Coach at NDSU while we were watching film and he said to me, it's amazing how small the amount of people there are who actually understand how the "game" of football is played. By that he meant the strategy of football. See most fans only see the score and the statistics, they don't understand the strategy in coming up with a game plan for a football game. To quote Herm Edwards "You play to win the game".

I think so many get caught up in the "Madden Mentality" of statistics. Football teams are built as a whole, not the offense and defense separately. You make decisions that win you the game, not decisions that get the most offensive productivity.

We had a dominating defense, which lends itself well to a conservative, ball control offense. Are we really naive enough to think that Brent Vigen's conservative play calling isn't a direct result of the way Coach Bohl strategizes his football game plan?

If you are constantly putting your defense in bad situations eventually they will break, doesn't matter how good they are. Coach Bohl knew how good our defense was, so he built his gameplan around the constant.

As long as Coach Bohl is our head coach you will continue to see the same type of defense and the same type of offense. And we will continue to see the "uninitiated" blame it on Coach Vigen. Hilarious.

[344Johnson]

Like Bison06 said...with a good defense, your offense is going to be more conservative. I think we showed in the Minnesota game that we were capable of playing a more wide-open game. Our passing game was working very well and we were very balanced. I think it will be interesting to see how the WR Corps does next season. Will the freshmen step up and contribute if they are needed? Big question mark there. Hopefully we don't have to find out.

[Bisonwinagn]

I once had a conversation with a Coach at NDSU while we were watching film and he said to me, it's amazing how small the amount of people there are who actually understand how the "game" of football is played. By that he meant the strategy of football. See most fans only see the score and the statistics, they don't understand the strategy in coming up with a game plan for a football game. To quote Herm Edwards "You play to win the game".

I think so many get caught up in the "Madden Mentality" of statistics. Football teams are built as a whole, not the offense and defense separately. You make decisions that win you the game, not decisions that get the most offensive productivity.

We had a dominating defense, which lends itself well to a conservative, ball control offense. Are we really naive enough to think that Brent Vigen's conservative play calling isn't a direct result of the way Coach Bohl strategizes his football game plan?

If you are constantly putting your defense in bad situations eventually they will break, doesn't matter how good they are. Coach Bohl knew how good our defense was, so he built his gameplan around the constant.

As long as Coach Bohl is our head coach you will continue to see the same type of defense and the same type of offense. And we will continue to see the "uninitiated" blame it on Coach Vigen. Hilarious.

I disagree with some of this. The job of the offense is to score points....I don't think three plays and punting helps the defense very much.

[Bison06]

I disagree with some of this. The job of the offense is to score points....I don't think three plays and punting helps the defense very much.

You're welcome to disagree, the job of the offense is to score, but not on every drive. I disagree with you when you say that three plays and punting doesn't help the defense. This shows you aren't thinking about the overall strategy that takes place in the game of football. Field position is the most important thing in the game and three and outs are part of that game.

Being able to turn the field over with good special teams play after a three and out is infinitely better than a turnover because the fans want to see a more exciting offense.

Maybe taking it to both extremes would help you understand my point.

Would you rather have an extremely conservative offense that never turns the ball over but only scores 10-14 points per game or a wide open offense that scores 28-35 points per game, but averages 2-3 turnovers a game?

When you understand that most turnovers are going to leave the other team with great field position, chances are most teams will outscore you. I would much rather have a conservative offense that puts a premium on possession of the ball than an exciting offense that leaves the chances of turnovers and short fields much higher.

[Bison06]

By the way, all of these things I am talking about, are staples of the Craig Bohl philosophy on the game of football. So, as long as he is the coach here, we should get used to being upset with the conservative ball control offense with a great running game and a stifling defense that is designed to not give up the big play.

[westnodak93bison]

By the way, all of these things I am talking about, are staples of the Craig Bohl philosophy on the game of football. So, as long as he is the coach here, we should get used to being upset with the conservative ball control offense with a great running game and a stifling defense that is designed to not give up the big play.

How conservative do you think the staff wants the offense to be? I think Bohl said last year he wanted a more explosive and more efficient offense. Creativity and unpredictability can help.
I think that is what most of us are saying. We understand the ball control deal.

[56BISON73]

How conservative do you think the staff wants the offense to be? I think Bohl said last year he wanted a more explosive and more efficient offense. Creativity and unpredictability can help.
I think that is what most of us are saying. We understand the ball control deal.

The style of offense, game situations and coaching philosopy dictates on how conservative we play.

[CAS4127]

U don't turn the field over if u don't move the ball 06!! I will join this conversation when I get on a computer in the next day or two, but will say now that ur offense must
Move the ball or eventually ur opponent turns the field over on u!!

[Bison06]

How conservative do you think the staff wants the offense to be? I think Bohl said last year he wanted a more explosive and more efficient offense. Creativity and unpredictability can help.
I think that is what most of us are saying. We understand the ball control deal.

I agree, conservative doesn't have to be boring and lack creativity. But, when you can line up and physically pound the other team with the run game, why change it up?

I think what we saw this year, is a pretty good example of where the coaching staff has wanted our offense to be all along, but didn't have the personnel to make it happen.

We now have a QB who can make most of the throws needed and is accurate with the deep ball. We also have a few different types of athletes on offense that we haven't had in the past that were utilized this year.

I feel at times offensive coordinators run different and unique plays just to show that they can. If it were up to me, if we ran a running play that they couldn't stop I would run that play 10 times in a row until they stopped it.

Complete disclosure though, I don't really watch NDSU football to be entertained the way some people do. I just want them to win and if that means we win 2-0 every game I would be happier than a pig in sh#t.

[westnodak93bison]

U don't turn the field over if u don't move the ball 06!! I will join this conversation when I get on a computer in the next day or two, but will say now that ur offense must
Move the ball or eventually ur opponent turns the field over on u!!

Exactly! Eventually the opponent will stop the offense if it is not proficient. You will never convince me the staff is A-ok with where the offense is at. Sure they will take a 17-6 win any Saturday. Don't kid yourself they want 40-6.

[Bison06]

U don't turn the field over if u don't move the ball 06!! I will join this conversation when I get on a computer in the next day or two, but will say now that ur offense must
Move the ball or eventually ur opponent turns the field over on u!!

Tell that to our punter this year in the championship game :).

Of course I am not saying they don't need to move the ball at all, I just don't think that moving the ball requires you to completely open up the playbook and get extremely creative to make that happen.

[Bison06]

Exactly! Eventually the opponent will stop the offense if it is not proficient. You will never convince me the staff is A-ok with where the offense is at. Sure they will take a 17-6 win any Saturday. Don't kid yourself they want 40-6.

I have to ask why you think our staff isn't happy with our offense when it has been the same for the last 10 years and just brought us a national championship?

[CAS4127]

Tell that to our punter this year in the championship game :).

Of course I am not saying they don't need to move the ball at all, I just don't think that moving the ball requires you to completely open up the playbook and get extremely creative to make that happen.

See desperation flee-flicker v. SIU. Nope, no need to open up playbook when u can punt to turn field over!!

Bottom-line , our offense needs to improve-->me thinks u know that.

Oh, and ask our punter about that fake punt that changed the game!!

[Bison06]

See desperation flee-flicker v. SIU. Nope, no need to open up playbook when u can punt to turn field over!!

Bottom-line , our offense needs to improve-->me thinks u know that.

Oh, and ask our punter about that fake punt that changed the game!!

When you say the offense needs to improve to me that just means you want the outcome to be different. I can get on board with that, but why does that mean we should completely change our offensive philosophy?

Maybe the players just need to execute better?

Don't get me wrong here guys, I am not saying that all we need to do is make sure we don't turn the ball over and we will win, not at all. I am fully aware the offense needs to be productive and score points.

On the continuum of an offense, I lean toward a pounding, punishing run game and then mix in some high percentage passes. Especially in the college game when execution on defense can be sketchy. If you hang on to the ball long enough and keep moving it forward, eventually the defense will make a mistake and the offense will break a big play.

This is exactly what I see from our offense and I like it. Are there times when I am slightly frustrated with the play calling? Of course, but my job isn't on the line calling plays and I trust that the man who's job is on the line will make the play call that he feels will give his team the best chance at winning the game.

[CAS4127]

When you say the offense needs to improve to me that just means you want the outcome to be different. I can get on board with that, but why does that mean we should completely change our offensive philosophy?

Maybe the players just need to execute better?

Never said we need to change philosophy. We need better play calling.

And the "player" comment has been VIGEN's bail line ever since he took over as the OC!!

[Bisonwinagn]

When you say the offense needs to improve to me that just means you want the outcome to be different. I can get on board with that, but why does that mean we should completely change our offensive philosophy?

Maybe the players just need to execute better?

You're really jumping to conclusions now thinking we want to change philisophy to a spread or something like that. I'm only saying they need to get better and find ways to be more explosive. Maybe the new receivers coming in will make a difference and they don't need to change much. Also in response to your previous post the defense won the championship and the offense survived it.

[Bison06]

Never said we need to change philosophy. We need better play calling.

And the "player" comment has been VIGEN's bail line ever since he took over as the OC!!

Better play calling isn't what most people on this thread are talking about though. They are talking about wanting to see different, more exciting plays.

Good play calling is about making the right call at the right time, you will get no argument from me that this needs to improve.

[Bison06]

You're really jumping to conclusions now thinking we want to change philisophy to a spread or something like that. I'm only saying they need to get better and find ways to be more explosive. Maybe the new receivers coming in will make a difference and they don't need to change much. Also in response to your previous post the defense won the championship and the offense survived it.

Bolded part, NDSU won the national championship, not our defense.

Being more explosive can be a complete change in philosophy depending on how you intend they do that. How do you propose the offense becomes more explosive, please provide a couple example of plays you would like to see happen more often.

[CAS4127]

Better play calling isn't what most people on this thread are talking about though. They are talking about wanting to see different, more exciting plays.

Good play calling is about making the right call at the right time, you will get no argument from me that this needs to improve.

Don't think it is a secret that I am just not
Vigen fan. I think he is in over his head.

We have plenty of plays. It's just a matter of having the ability and balls to be creative and set things up. I don't think Vigen has what ti takes.

[stevdock]

You're welcome to disagree, the job of the offense is to score, but not on every drive. I disagree with you when you say that three plays and punting doesn't help the defense. This shows you aren't thinking about the overall strategy that takes place in the game of football. Field position is the most important thing in the game and three and outs are part of that game.

Being able to turn the field over with good special teams play after a three and out is infinitely better than a turnover because the fans want to see a more exciting offense.

Maybe taking it to both extremes would help you understand my point.

Would you rather have an extremely conservative offense that never turns the ball over but only scores 10-14 points per game or a wide open offense that scores 28-35 points per game, but averages 2-3 turnovers a game?

When you understand that most turnovers are going to leave the other team with great field position, chances are most teams will outscore you. I would much rather have a conservative offense that puts a premium on possession of the ball than an exciting offense that leaves the chances of turnovers and short fields much higher.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement at all. The offenses ultimate goal for each and every drive is to put the ball in the end zone. Could other results happen besides a TD that could benefit the team?? Absolutely but if the offense is not trying to score 7 points every time they touch the ball then in my opinion that is the wrong philosophy. Did we have a dominant defense that we didn't want to put on a short field?? Yes but that doesn't mean the offense can't put together a safe and secure drive and score a touchdown every time out.

[Bison06]

Don't think it is a secret that I am just not
Vigen fan. I think he is in over his head.

We have plenty of plays. It's just a matter of having the ability and balls to be creative and set things up. I don't think Vigen has what ti takes.

That's what I am saying, we don't need different plays. A great offensive coordinator can make any plays work for him, because being great is about the timing and flow of when plays are called. To get better on offense doesn't mean we have to be less conservative.

I am very happy with how often our offense takes risks and other types of explosive plays. The only problem that has ever existed with our offense is we occasionally fall into weird lulls of odd play calling. I remember during the Youngstown game we were running the ball at will and then inexplicably we completely abandoned the run game.

The problem wasn't that we needed to be more explosive like people are asking for in this thread.

[westnodak93bison]

I have to ask why you think our staff isn't happy with our offense when it has been the same for the last 10 years and just brought us a national championship?

Come on man! No coach is ever completely satisfied with their performance. That is human nature! That is why they try and recruit the most talented, fast, explosive, elusive skill players possible. I'll speculate that if you asked Bohl before the NC game if 17 pts would win it he would have said NO.

[HerdBot]

Our offense and defense was good enough to win the national championship. Give the coaches credits. I could care less if we win 2-0 or 70-0 with style points. Coaches rock. Vigen rocks. With that he can still improve. He did.

[Bison06]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement at all. The offenses ultimate goal for each and every drive is to put the ball in the end zone. Could other results happen besides a TD that could benefit the team?? Absolutely but if the offense is not trying to score 7 points every time they touch the ball then in my opinion that is the wrong philosophy. Did we have a dominant defense that we didn't want to put on a short field?? Yes but that doesn't mean the offense can't put together a safe and secure drive and score a touchdown every time out.

So when a drive starts on your own 1 yard line, do you think the play calling should reflect a drive that is trying to score points? If that were the case the offense wouldn't run 3 times in a row just to get enough room to have the full room to punt.

There are plenty of situations in a game when the goal of the offense during the course of the drive dictates that the goal is no longer to score.

What your saying is similar to saying that in chess the goal of every move is to take an opponent piece, this isn't the case. Many moves are made to set up moves later in the game.

A great example of this is how many offensive coordinators will script the first couple of drives to find out how the defense is going to react to certain types of plays. Then use this information later in the game to score points.

The goal isn't to score at all on these drives, but to learn. If they can score on these drives it is just icing on the cake in most cases.

[Bison06]

Come on man! No coach is ever completely satisfied with their performance. That is human nature! That is why they try and recruit the most talented, fast, explosive, elusive skill players possible. I'll speculate that if you asked Bohl before the NC game if 17 pts would win it he would have said NO.

I would argue that if they were really that unhappy with the offense they would have changed it. Please realize that they are well aware that their asses are on the line if they don't do their job. Do you really think they wouldn't make dramatic changes if they thought it gave them a better chance of winning?

[ndsubison1]

Is there any chance we will have a little more creativity? I'm not saying we should abandon our base offense but it would be nice to see some new wrinkles. Does Vigen have it in him?
IMHO, we could be much deeper at WR and RB around week 4 once the younger/new players get up to speed. I'd like to see on occasion 5 WR. Maybe throw Esley in at WR, run a reverse with option to throw or run etc. Or sneak Lange in at FB a time or two and run a quick hitter etc. How about some old fashioned pic plays like the old 49ners used to do or the current Pats? Time to add a little flavor to the vanilla.

weve run reverses/end arounds with holloway, wahlo and smith

[CAS4127]

06: some changes were made during our PO run, but now it is time to move on and hope for a better offense next year. I really think we can make another NC run if that happens. I like our chances.

[Bison06]

06: some changes were made during our PO run, but now it is time to move on and hope for a better offense next year. I really think we can make another NC run if that happens. I like our chances.

I like our chances as well. Coming off a national championship run is NOT the time to make dramatic changes to anything.

[CAS4127]

weve run reverses/end arounds with holloway, wahlo and smith

Timing and setting these. Plays up with earlier plays out of same formation is what I mean by creativity and thinking ability.

[Bison06]

Timing and setting these. Plays up with earlier plays out of same formation is what I mean by creativity and thinking ability.

If this is what you mean by being more creative than I agree with you 100%.

What I am understanding from others on this thread is that they are asking us to be more explosive. I disagree with that assessment as it changes what we are trying to accomplish on offense.

[ndsubison1]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement at all. The offenses ultimate goal for each and every drive is to put the ball in the end zone. Could other results happen besides a TD that could benefit the team?? Absolutely but if the offense is not trying to score 7 points every time they touch the ball then in my opinion that is the wrong philosophy. Did we have a dominant defense that we didn't want to put on a short field?? Yes but that doesn't mean the offense can't put together a safe and secure drive and score a touchdown every time out.

completely untrue.

[CAS4127]

If this is what you mean by being more creative than I agree with you 100%.

What I am understanding from others on this thread is that they are asking us to be more explosive. I disagree with that assessment as it changes what we are trying to accomplish on offense.

It's exactly what I mean. We have recruited players for the last many years who fit into our O & D schemes. To change now would likely spell disaster.

The WC offense allows u to run a myriad of plays. We r just fine in that respect, just need to do it properly!!

Can u imagine if we switched to the veer right now with the players we have?!

BTW, I think VIGEN's best game this year was the Minnie game.
We actually went 5 wide on occasion-->Goofs never saw that comin'.

[344Johnson]

Can u imagine if we switched to the veer right now with the players we have?!.

Go to the 5:30 mark. Maybe we'd see more of that!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgNySavqueM

[stevdock]

So when a drive starts on your own 1 yard line, do you think the play calling should reflect a drive that is trying to score points? If that were the case the offense wouldn't run 3 times in a row just to get enough room to have the full room to punt.

There are plenty of situations in a game when the goal of the offense during the course of the drive dictates that the goal is no longer to score.

What your saying is similar to saying that in chess the goal of every move is to take an opponent piece, this isn't the case. Many moves are made to set up moves later in the game.

A great example of this is how many offensive coordinators will script the first couple of drives to find out how the defense is going to react to certain types of plays. Then use this information later in the game to score points.

The goal isn't to score at all on these drives, but to learn. If they can score on these drives it is just icing on the cake in most cases.

Immediate goals and ultimate goals are two different things. Yes when you are on the 1, your immediate goal is to get out to the 5. Then the next goal is to get a first down and so on. You can absolutely script plays to learn things and set things up for later in the game. Sometimes a goal is also to make sure you get at least a couple first downs to get the defense off the field. Those are all immediate goals.

But in the end the ultimate goal of each possession is still to score.

[BadlandsBison]

Go to the 5:30 mark. Maybe we'd see more of that!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgNySavqueM

Wait a minute. Did Brandon Jemison just bring the flat top back into style at the 6:45 mark?

[Bison06]

Immediate goals and ultimate goals are two different things. Yes when you are on the 1, your immediate goal is to get out to the 5. Then the next goal is to get a first down and so on. You can absolutely script plays to learn things and set things up for later in the game. Sometimes a goal is also to make sure you get at least a couple first downs to get the defense off the field. Those are all immediate goals.

But in the end the ultimate goal of each possession is still to score.

Ok, if you say the ultimate goal is to score points, I would say above and beyond that the real ultimate goal is to win the game. And a decision to win the game will supercede any decision to put points on the board. This is why drives at the end of the game if you are in the lead aren't designed to score at all. They are designed to take time off the clock, in this example the goal isn't to score at all.

A very recent example of this would be what happened Sunday night in the Superbowl. At the end of the game, the best move Bradshaw could have made would have been to fall down at the 1 yard line. Giants would have sealed a victory if he didn't score, instead they were forced to put the football back in the hands of Tom Brady with a full minute left and a timeout. Plenty of time for TB to win the game.

The point is this, a decision to win the game will always trump a decision to put points on the board. The way NDSU is designed calls for conservative offensive play calling, minimal exposure to turnovers because of the high percentage nature of the pass plays we call and a defense that hopes to not give up the big play and makes the offense go the long hard way to score points. Does it always work out that way, No. But you have to have a plan going into the game and that is our plan and also the way we recruit.

It isn't always the most exciting to watch, but who cares if you are winning games.

IMO, how you score can be just as important as if you score in a lot of situations.

[TransAmBison]

Ok, if you say the ultimate goal is to score points, I would say above and beyond that the real ultimate goal is to win the game. And a decision to win the game will supercede any decision to put points on the board. This is why drives at the end of the game if you are in the lead aren't designed to score at all. They are designed to take time off the clock, in this example the goal isn't to score at all.

A very recent example of this would be what happened Sunday night in the Superbowl. At the end of the game, the best move Bradshaw could have made would have been to fall down at the 1 yard line. Giants would have sealed a victory if he didn't score, instead they were forced to put the football back in the hands of Tom Brady with a full minute left and a timeout. Plenty of time for TB to win the game.

The point is this, a decision to win the game will always trump a decision to put points on the board. The way NDSU is designed calls for conservative offensive play calling, minimal exposure to turnovers because of the high percentage nature of the pass plays we call and a defense that hopes to not give up the big play and makes the offense go the long hard way to score points. Does it always work out that way, No. But you have to have a plan going into the game and that is our plan and also the way we recruit.

It isn't always the most exciting to watch, but who cares if you are winning games.

IMO, how you score can be just as important as if you score in a lot of situations.Ummm...wrong. The ultimate goal was to score points. If they didn't they would have lost. BOOYAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bison06]

Ummm...wrong. The ultimate goal was to score points. If they didn't they would have lost. BOOYAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ummm..wrong dude. They just needed a field goal and the better decision would have been to take more time off the clock, it worked out for them, but I can guarantee you that the coaches told him to not score if he can help it and his instincts just took over. Do you think Coach Coughlin liked that he had to give the ball back to Tom Brady with a full minute left? He would have much rather given him 15 seconds. Do people still say BOOYAH? :)

[TransAmBison]

Ummm..wrong dude. They just needed a field goal and the better decision would have been to take more time off the clock, it worked out for them, but I can guarantee you that the coaches told him to not score if he can help it and his instincts just took over. Do you think Coach Coughlin liked that he had to give the ball back to Tom Brady with a full minute left? He would have much rather given him 15 seconds. Do people still say BOOYAH? :)I didn't say score a touchdown...I said score points. You walked into that one...

[Bison06]

I didn't say score a touchdown...I said score points. You walked into that one...

Weak :)

Ten Char

[TransAmBison]

Weak :)

Ten Char
Sore loser=Bison06 :D Booyah!

[CAS4127]

To win games, you have to score--pretty obvious right. That said, and having read some of the above posts, the theme of this thread has been stood on its head a bit. We talking initially about whether the O's goal is to score points on every possession. There are obvious times when there is no need to do so-->like when you have the game well in hand or other, similar situations. The bottom line, however, is that over 90% of the time you want your offense to score, whether quickly, with a sustained drive or with a methodical drive. When the game is tight, you want to score well over 90% of the time, whether you are ahead or not.

My comments on this thread were directed at how and why I think our offense needs to improve. To expect our D to hold consistently high-powered offensive to very few points is just, well, to high of an expectation. Get the effin ball in the endzone early and often, and then put the ball back in the bag and focus on "winning the game".

[Bison06]

To win games, you have to score--pretty obvious right. That said, and having read some of the above posts, the theme of this thread has been stood on its head a bit. We talking initially about whether the O's goal is to score points on every possession. There are obvious times when there is no need to do so-->like when you have the game well in hand or other, similar situations. The bottom line, however, is that over 90% of the time you want your offense to score, whether quickly, with a sustained drive or with a methodical drive. When the game is tight, you want to score well over 90% of the time, whether you are ahead or not.

My comments on this thread were directed at how and why I think our offense needs to improve. To expect our D to hold consistently high-powered offensive to very few points is just, well, to high of an expectation. Get the effin ball in the endzone early and often, and then put the ball back in the bag and focus on "winning the game".

I hate to be the guy that keeps rehashing the same conversation, but if by needing to improve people say that we need to be more wide open and take more risks I would disagree. Call the plays that you feel based on your trust of our personnel can be executed at a high percentage. Yes the deep ball is exciting and the fans love it, but the facts are it is a very low percentage throw and will consistently get our offense off schedule and F up our whole game plan.

[TransAmBison]

I hate to be the guy that keeps rehashing the same conversation, but if by needing to improve people say that we need to be more wide open and take more risks I would disagree. Call the plays that you feel based on your trust of our personnel can be executed at a high percentage. Yes the deep ball is exciting and the fans love it, but the facts are it is a very low percentage throw and will consistently get our offense off schedule and F up our whole game plan.Who is saying more risks need to be taken? Who is calling for the deep ball all the time?

[344Johnson]

Wait a minute. Did Brandon Jemison just bring the flat top back into style at the 6:45 mark?

Do you think he can do the fresh-prince rap now after bringing the flat top back. By the way....this video is the FULL version.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVbQo3IOC_A

[Bison06]

Who is saying more risks need to be taken? Who is calling for the deep ball all the time?

How do you define being more creative and explosive? What plays or types of plays would you like to see more often? To me when someone says we need to be more explosive, that says we need more plays over 20 yards and there are only a few ways to accomplish that. The main one is throwing the ball deeper so I went with that one.

[CAS4127]

I hate to be the guy that keeps rehashing the same conversation, but if by needing to improve people say that we need to be more wide open and take more risks I would disagree. Call the plays that you feel based on your trust of our personnel can be executed at a high percentage. Yes the deep ball is exciting and the fans love it, but the facts are it is a very low percentage throw and will consistently get our offense off schedule and F up our whole game plan.

Like I posted last evening, we have plenty of plays to run in our WC offense, including long balls, reverses, flee-flickers, QB keeps, and, of course our base running and passing plays. I just think Vigen has to be more creative in terms of setting plays up, realizing when an opportune time presents itself for a certain play that could go big, and not getting cute when the base offense (especially the running game) is working. Watching him choke when "his" plan, whatever it is, is not working, just gets old. He needs to be able to think on his feet more in general, and certainly more quickly, and he also needs to be able to make adjustments on the fly better. I am just still not convinced he has the intellect or thinking ability to do these latter things I mention-->I just haven't seen it.

[Bison06]

Like I posted last evening, we have plenty of plays to run in our WC offense, including long balls, reverses, flee-flickers, QB keeps, and, of course our base running and passing plays. I just think Vigen has to be more creative in terms of setting plays up, realizing when an opportune time presents itself for a certain play that could go big, and not getting cute when the base offense (especially the running game) is working. Watching him choke when "his" plan, whatever it is, is not working, just gets old. He needs to be able to think on his feet more in general, and certainly more quickly, and he also needs to be able to make adjustments on the fly better. I am just still not convinced he has the intellect or thinking ability to do these latter things I mention-->I just haven't seen it.

I agree, play calling is an art and a skill that he has yet to master and may never master. There are games that he seems to be right on with his play calling and other games when he is lost.

My only point is and has been that the answer to this is not to change the gameplan, but to work on better play calling within that game plan without changing our identity. I think we can all agree on that.

[TransAmBison]

How do you define being more creative and explosive? What plays or types of plays would you like to see more often? To me when someone says we need to be more explosive, that says we need more plays over 20 yards and there are only a few ways to accomplish that. The main one is throwing the ball deeper so I went with that one.
You are making a lot of assumptions. Creative and explosive. One example, in I believe the game against GS we ran a toss sweep that set up the QB run....that was a creative play that became explosive yet was not high risk. Follow me? For me, I'm looking for the offense to tell a story rather than just plays called. Have a reason. At times Vigen does this...but plenty of time there just seems to be no reason for the plays called.

[Bison06]

You are making a lot of assumptions. Creative and explosive. One example, in I believe the game against GS we ran a toss sweep that set up the QB run....that was a creative play that became explosive yet was not high risk. Follow me? For me, I'm looking for the offense to tell a story rather than just plays called. Have a reason. At times Vigen does this...but plenty of time there just seems to be no reason for the plays called.

Great, I am with you on all of this. Maybe I concluded wrongly that people wanted a more wide open offense when they say creative.

Completely agree with everything you just said.

[HerdBot]

I hate to be the guy that keeps rehashing the same conversation, but if by needing to improve people say that we need to be more wide open and take more risks I would disagree. Call the plays that you feel based on your trust of our personnel can be executed at a high percentage. Yes the deep ball is exciting and the fans love it, but the facts are it is a very low percentage throw and will consistently get our offense off schedule and F up our whole game plan.

I agree. We dont have to be the 98 Vikings version of 3 deep to be effective. I think we need to be more like the 09 Vikings team with Favre. We resembled them early in the season when we were putting up crazy points. West coast. Throwing more on 1st down. Lots of passes to the tight ends. More short passes with a few bombs sprinkled in. At the end of the year we looked different. Not sure if that was by design or if it had more to do with Brocks foot and injuries to receivers but we weren't as good. I do know if we are going to pound the ball we have to keep the defense honest by throwing some more deep passes. Seems like our playoff offense was more conservative.

[CAS4127]

You are making a lot of assumptions. Creative and explosive. One example, in I believe the game against GS we ran a toss sweep that set up the QB run....that was a creative play that became explosive yet was not high risk. Follow me? For me, I'm looking for the offense to tell a story rather than just plays called. Have a reason. At times Vigen does this...but plenty of time there just seems to be no reason for the plays called.

Exactly, Tranny. There are just too many times where it seems like Vigen just randomly calls a play to see if or hope that it does work. The plays that you just mentioned are what I am talking about-->set things up a bit. Oftentimes we run some play that I haven't seen much of before for zero or minus yardage, and I think to myself, OK, we must be trying to set something, but then never see that particular formation or play-flow again, which leave me scatching my head and saying WTF was that??!!!

[BISONBRI53]

Ummm..wrong dude. They just needed a field goal and the better decision would have been to take more time off the clock, it worked out for them, but I can guarantee you that the coaches told him to not score if he can help it and his instincts just took over. Do you think Coach Coughlin liked that he had to give the ball back to Tom Brady with a full minute left? He would have much rather given him 15 seconds. Do people still say BOOYAH? :)

Bradshaw was on Mike and Mike on Monday morning and said he was never told to down it. The only person who said anything was Eli as he was handing it off to him. Should have let the Giants score on the pass play before that when they had 2 TO and a lot more time on the clock. TB would have won the game then!