Let's hear more about all the walk ons

[ednksu]

Patterson's biggest lesson was that he had to change to an offense that could compete in this league, it had very little to do with recruiting or creating depth in his program. The talent was there; he didn't all of a sudden learn that he was in one of the most talent rich cities in one of the most talent rich states in the country. I mean anyone who knew football could see that his 12 and 13 teams had plenty of talent and that showed up on defense, he just was way too conservative on offense and this year he changed that.

There is definitely an element of this as well.  But, he has slightly altered his team's approach respective of the conference that we've played in over the years.

That being said, our depth and size (in particular OL) was not up to par when we joined the Big 12 and we suffered during the first two years as a result.

Yes, but its clear the new offense has helped. Granted, I'm not sure they would've been as effective as this year, but last year your offense was #95 (nationally) and the year before it was #71 while this year it is #19. Meanwhile your defense this year is #6 after being #12 and #11 the first two years in this league. The biggest change here is hiring Meachum and Cumbie while having a guy with experience at QB that earned his spot back.

I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments.  Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances.  Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots.  Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year.  We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season.  I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.

[bshea85]

THIS!

lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.

This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.

But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.

Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.

IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.

For real though, I've been saying this for years.  I love KSU and think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread.  However, the reality is, KSU is a Midwestern 3-Star Tech School, 10 miles north of the interstate.  If KSU was in the heart of Dallas, you bet your ass Snyder would have at least 10 championship rings.  It's all about perspective IMO.

[meow meow]

THIS!

lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.

This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.

But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.

Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.

IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.

For real though, I've been saying this for years.  I love KSU and think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread.  However, the reality is, KSU is a Midwestern 3-Star Tech School, 10 miles north of the interstate.  If KSU was in the heart of Dallas, you bet your ass Snyder would have at least 10 championship rings.  It's all about perspective IMO.

you've never said it once

[kso_FAN]

I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments.  Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances.  Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots.  Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year.  We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season.  I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.

You really don't think proximity to talent makes a difference? Maybe their "energetic staff" is helping, but having talent literally in your backyard helps a lot. That combined with moving to the Big 12 makes it hard to believe they aren't recruiting even better. Even when they were in the Mountain West, they were outrecruiting us.

Recruiting rankings the past 6 years:
KSU: 47, 66, 59, 69, 63, 93
TCU: 50, 30, 37, 26, 46, 46

If anything, its nice to see K-State finally recruit at the same level as TCU last year for the first time in the last 6 years.

[Mixed-Nutz]

I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments.  Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances.  Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots.  Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year.  We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season.  I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.

You really don't think proximity to talent makes a difference? Maybe their "energetic staff" is helping, but having talent literally in your backyard helps a lot. That combined with moving to the Big 12 makes it hard to believe they aren't recruiting even better. Even when they were in the Mountain West, they were outrecruiting us.

Recruiting rankings the past 6 years:
KSU: 47, 66, 59, 69, 63, 93
TCU: 50, 30, 37, 26, 46, 46

If anything, its nice to see K-State finally recruit at the same level as TCU last year for the first time in the last 6 years.

Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.

[kso_FAN]

Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.

I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.

[Mixed-Nutz]

Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.

I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.

Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.

[kso_FAN]

Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.

Good points and that's where most of our and TCU's recruits are rated.

[TCUHornedFrog]

Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.

I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.

Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.

Yes, GMFP and company have been excellent at recruiting 3 star kids at one position, changing their position, and making them impactful college players.

[ednksu]

I really think you're under playing Patterson's comments.  Changing offenses is one thing, but having quality depth is something Patterson specifically pointed out for underwhelming performances.  Noting that they could win in the Mountain West and they thought even in the Big East with fewer guys in the 2nd and 3rd spots.  Similarly look at K-State where we are down to Schellenberg at safety instead of having a credible back up last year.  We both recognize that K-State's depth has destroyed our hopes at long term success in season.  I don't think the argument about recruiting liabilities holds much water when you look at how quickly energetic staffs, like Patterson, have been able to fill in talent.

You really don't think proximity to talent makes a difference? Maybe their "energetic staff" is helping, but having talent literally in your backyard helps a lot. That combined with moving to the Big 12 makes it hard to believe they aren't recruiting even better. Even when they were in the Mountain West, they were outrecruiting us.

Recruiting rankings the past 6 years:
KSU: 47, 66, 59, 69, 63, 93
TCU: 50, 30, 37, 26, 46, 46

If anything, its nice to see K-State finally recruit at the same level as TCU last year for the first time in the last 6 years.

I'm sure proximity plays a role in deciding between two like programs.  To provide a counter point (which I don't think you were totally making), if proximity was a huge factor in success I'd point to SMU, FAU, FIU, and North Texas. I grant that many of them are mid major schools, but they are all "in" recruiting hot beds with terrible results.  I'd also point to Tech under the Pirate, Us under the good years of Snyder 1.0 as examples where staff created an environment where depth wasn't an issue.  I think Manhattan has grown enough where people can't use the negative recruiting talking points the way they were once used.  I think the staff is elevating their program through their moves whereas you almost make it seem like an organic growth, I'm thinking about how Snyder 1.0 helped to push Manhattan and K-State out of the doldrums although not an extreme comparison with Patterson having it much easier than Snyder. 

I think we're pretty close in ideas here, I think we'd both agree that Snyder 2.0 has done *better* in recruiting over the last few years, but they are still significantly under achieving, especially based on our success recently.  But we are still lacking quality depth, especially depth generated by generational evolvement, ie freshmen developing into good upper classmen but are still serviceable if they are pressed into service.  Right now we have upper classmen who are playing who aren't Big 12 caliber with no one behind them (Schellenberg is the best example).   

[Mixed-Nutz]

Should compare players drafted (rounds) and players that signed with NFL teams to compare talent levels, but that is a lot more work.

I agree, but lots of people put a lot of stock into recruiting rankings. That's not necessarily a bad thing, 4 and 5 star players are a lot more likely to end up being really good college players, but I think it has some limitations too.

Gets really muddy with 3 stars and 2 stars can be code for incomplete evaluation. Also you get points for number of players signed and in the long run that can be a bad sign because it can signal a lot of roster turnover. Rivals isn't designed to rank classes for non traditional powerhouse schools, imo.

Yes, GMFP and company have been excellent at recruiting 3 star kids at one position, changing their position, and making them impactful college players.

Yes both KSU & TCU have demonstrated to be some of the better evaluators of talent in the country. Yet both programs are completely different.  TCU recruits a small distinct area and K-State has a pretty wide spread. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

[Katpappy]

Just saw Lefty's "ksu can't win the must win game" thread.  I see all the valid arguments.  For me, it's not that we can't beat a team ranked 10 spots above us on the road so much as we often play like crap.  We tend to display an inability to dictate game tempo, style, etc.,  or adjust to what the other team is exploiting.  I'm talking "0-10 when both teams ranked in top 10, and 7 times by double digits" type stuff.  These aren't exactly David/Goliath type odds.  Our 5 hearts and lack of depth are what got us there, and what eventually get us killed.

The '03 CCG is calling.

[Katpappy]

lack of depth. we are beat up and worn out.

This is the biggest issue with Snyder 2. And it was highlighted this past Saturday.

But overall I can't complain. This staff has put together teams that have finished 2nd, 1st, 5th, and (at worst) 3rd over the last 4 seasons. We have been in the national conversation for 3 of the past 4 seasons. We are back to the mid-90s style team, one that beats almost every team we "should" and occasionally gets whipped by teams with superior talent.

Yes, having so many walk ons and grey shirts that become major contributors is a mixed bag; it highlights the ability of this staff to find and develop players no one else wants (especially local/KS talent). But it also shows that recruiting isn't great and even among what "should" be decent 3 star talent, we are missing often. JUCOs are a mixed bag, and often guys we hope to be stars take a year to develop, or they never develop at all. That said, I think the mentality that we are playing inferior players to teach more talented guys lessons is stupid at best. This staff is paid to win games and they are flat out playing the best possibly 22 guys they can. If guys that recruiting services (and our fans) think are super talented really were better options, they would be on the field.

IMO this staff has done a fantastic job putting together game plans and personnel to compete at a very high level, but when a guy goes down or can't play (see Dakorey) or gets dinged (see Waters) it shows up in how we play and our ability to compete. We simply don't have a 2nd guy at most positions that can step in and make up the difference and often there is a pretty big gap. Still, we keep plugging away and winning games at a high rate (75% the last 4 seasons) and this is what K-State football is right now. As long as Snyder is here, this will continue to be what K-State football is. Perhaps some day we'll have a dynamic staff that is better at recruiting (I have no delusions that we'll ever be Texas or Oklahoma) and still manage to win games at a high rate, but I'll gladly take what we have right now. In fact, I'm sure there will be a point in the next 10-15 years where I'll want to go back to this era of football for K-State.

We got to make do with what we can get.  We're never going to recruit like Texas or OU.  OU is spenting 370 mil on improvements after this season and Texas already said they are willing to pay scholarship recruits $10,000. in stipends.

[wabash909]

20 rushing yards? No worries, d Scott will write a jerkoff piece about heart and the powertards will eat it up

 

And right on cue, D Scott delivers!

d__scott

Post #11006
   
Jonathan Truman chimes in on team speed, etc   
K-State moves on. Enjoy.

Link: Moving forward

To the concern expressed by a segment of K-State loyalists suggesting the Wildcats lack the speed necessary to hang with Top 10 squads, Truman replied, "I read all the time that Kansas State is just a disciplined team with no athleticism and stuff. We all believe we're athletic enough to play with anybody. Every team in this day in age can compete with any other team. It doesn't have anything to do with athleticism and things like that. It goes down to all the little things people consider as little things, and hard work, and how you prepare."

[CNS]

They actually think it doesn't matter.  Bill is such a boss.

[OB_Won]

They actually think it doesn't matter.  Bill is such a boss.

[CHONGS]

I am glad they (the players) think that.  The opposite would be worse. 

[Cire]

In college it works well most of the time to have a lot of guys that are in the right position all most all of the time on defense.  and on offense to have guys that all have a specific assignment that they understand and can execute to put themselves in the right place.

Bill has shown to be pretty successful with inferior athletes doing this.

Kind of the it will work on paper so it should work with the players.

and yes every team tries to do this but bill and staff have been exceptional at delivering the product on the field.

[Panjandrum]

In college it works well most of the time to have a lot of guys that are in the right position all most all of the time on defense.  and on offense to have guys that all have a specific assignment that they understand and can execute to put themselves in the right place.

Bill has shown to be pretty successful with inferior athletes doing this.

Kind of the it will work on paper so it should work with the players.

and yes every team tries to do this but bill and staff have been exceptional at delivering the product on the field.

It's Snyderball.  I'm going to completely give up certain things (risky plays on offense, aggressive defense) in an attempt to not make mistakes, and I'm going to slow the game down.  I'm going to bet that you aren't able to be as mistake free as we are over the course of an entire game, and we're going assume, more often than not, that your mistakes lead to our points, which will lead to us winning.

The OU game was the perfect example of Snyderball.  Just give them rope.  They're college kids; eventually, they'll screw up.

Will it win 13 games in a row?  Probably not.  Will it win 70-80% of the time with our talent level?  Probably.

[Lucas Scoopsalot]

In college it works well most of the time to have a lot of guys that are in the right position all most all of the time on defense.  and on offense to have guys that all have a specific assignment that they understand and can execute to put themselves in the right place.

Bill has shown to be pretty successful with inferior athletes doing this.

Kind of the it will work on paper so it should work with the players.

and yes every team tries to do this but bill and staff have been exceptional at delivering the product on the field.

It's Snyderball.  I'm going to completely give up certain things (risky plays on offense, aggressive defense) in an attempt to not make mistakes, and I'm going to slow the game down.  I'm going to bet that you aren't able to be as mistake free as we are over the course of an entire game, and we're going assume, more often than not, that your mistakes lead to our points, which will lead to us winning.

The OU game was the perfect example of Snyderball.  Just give them rope.  They're college kids; eventually, they'll screw up.

Will it win 13 games in a row?  Probably not.  Will it win 70-80% of the time with our talent level?  Probably.

Well, it is the most frustrating rough ridin' thing in the world when you are down or a quaterback continually dances around in the pocket and takes off running for huge gains. You would think something would change, but it just doesn't seem like it does.

[michigancat]

I don't think people appreciate how badly Snyder got outschemed Saturday. He's the worst coach in the world with a two score deficit.

[CHONGS]

I don't think people appreciate how badly Snyder got outschemed Saturday. He's the worst coach in the world with a two score deficit.

well I dunno about _worst_, but historically I imagine Bill's teams are pretty bad down two scores and pretty good up two scores.  But then against most teams probably are, but I suspect Bill is more extreme in this aspect.