I've been posting the offensive schemes and gifs on Twitter that I posted here at KSO last December. Several people have asked if the schemes at NDSU are what Messingham ran in the past, specifically at Iowa State. That meant I needed to go see what those offenses actually looked like, so I watched and charted a game from 2012 (ISU vs WVU), 2 from 2013 (UT and TCU), and went back watched a little bit of our game with ISU from 2013. Then I found 2 games from 2016 Montana State (his next stop before NDSU) and did the same. Here are some of the pre-NDSU Messingham staples.
1. His offenses were mostly spread with the QB almost always in a shotgun alignment. In fact, every snap of every ISU game I watched was in shotgun. At Montana State, the QB was in shotgun every snap for the first game and 90% in the 2nd game toward the end of the season. In terms of spread formations (3 WRs or more), ISU was spread over 90% in the game I watched in 2012, then about 80% in 2013. The 2 games from Montana State were also about 80% spread, all much higher than just 1/3 of the snaps at NDSU.
2. His use of the TE has evolved and increased at every location he's been the OC. In the 2012 game a TE was used on about a quarter of ISU's snaps, in 2013 that rose to about nearly 50%. At Montana State the TE was used on about 2/3 of the snaps while at NDSU the TE was used on over 80% of the snaps I watched. In 2013, a TE was Iowa State's 2nd leading receiver with 39 catches and at MSU, the TE was the 4th leading receiver, but only with 16 catches. The TE spot is often aligned as an H back and his most common formation was 1 RB, a TE at the H back spot, and 3 WRs with twins to one side and a single WR to the other. This set was used around 1/3 of the time at ISU and probably closer to 40% or more in the games from MSU. Also, the TE was often left in the game in 4 WRs formations as a split out, usually in the slot.
3. The RBs are the feature of the running game, but the schemes were much more zone based. I didn't see nearly the number of power schemes that I've broken out from NDSU. At ISU, RB runs were nearly 40% of the offense and at MSU over 45%. At both stops around 10% of the total offense was RB power, the rest was zone or (usually) zone read option. His Montana State offense featured 2 guys that both got nearly 200 carries and had over 1000 yards each and the run game was 60% of the snaps. At ISU the run game was less than 45% and not nearly as effective.
4. The passing game was quite a bit different at both spots. At ISU, over 1/3 of the offense was drop back passes with some play action mixed in. Also, the QB was definitely taught to tuck and run if lanes opened up in the passing game. At ISU, QBs ran the ball quite a bit, but the offense featured less than 5% called QB runs or options where the QB kept it. However, ISU QBs often tucked and ran for good yardage on scrambles. At MSU, the QB by the end of the season (they used both in the first game) was more of a runner, and play action passes were used on over 15% of the snaps and were half of the pass play calls. Play action was also the biggest part of NDSU's passing game. Messingham really liked to get his QB at MSU on the move with boot action. At both spots the routes were mainly short to intermediate routes with a few deep balls mixed in.
5. Both places were (from what I can tell) exclusively no huddle. You can't always tell the pace, but at times they played very quickly at ISU and in all 3 games I tracked they got 75 offensive snaps. At MSU, the first game was over 70 snaps, but the 2nd was only just over 60 snaps.
6. We will see the diamond formation. While he didn't use it at ISU, it was a big part of the offense by the end of the year at MSU and they really liked it at NDSU.
7. You can see some glimpses of schemes he brought to NDSU and infused into their power running game. The use of motions and shifts wasn't as common, but still used on about 10% of snaps at both ISU and MSU. He really liked to a) motion the H back to gain a numbers advantage, b) motion a slot WR (or split RB) to the backfield to run off tackle leads/sweeps the opposite direction, or c) motion across and fake a jet sweep in front of an inside zone run (especially at MSU). There was no A-gap power, but some G scheme power, and zone power concepts similar to what we've seen at K-State in 2.0.
What does this mean for this year at K-State?
I think we will likely see more of the ISU/MSU concepts than perhaps fans anticipate and a bit less of the NDSU offense here at K-State, especially in terms of spread (3 WR) formations. I'm certain they know the advantages they had at NDSU, especially up front, that won't necessarily be here at K-State. Those 3 seasons at ISU and MSU are a big part of who Messingham is as an OC and I don't think he completely reinvented himself at NDSU. Plus, its going to be much easier to recruit athletes, especially WRs, if they show they are going to be in spread more than 30% of the time.
Granted, Messingham probably learned a lot from his 2 years at ISU (and their struggles on offense) and knows that adjustments need to be made to remain viable at the P5 level, plus what has been successful at K-State in the past. I still firmly believe players win games and not plays, so the recruiting aspect will still be paramount as long as the scheme is simply sound, which I believe it can be.
Much of what we've heard about FBs, TEs, and H backs learning all those spots and being interchangeable makes a lot more sense after watching ISU and MSU. Messingham likes to have a big athlete at that spot that can block and catch. They need to be able to line up as a traditional TE with a hand on the ground, as an H back often going in motion, and also the ability to split out as a WR.
This year will be a year of evolution for Messingham. Rarely do you get a chance to come back to P5 as quickly as he is after getting fired like he did at ISU. He certainly shares a big share of the responsibility for that and its a legit reason for concern, but those ISU teams also weren't that talented. He got a reboot at MSU, then a shot to infuse his own identity into a successful offense/program at NDSU and I think he did it really well.
Also, watching all three of those ISU games reminded me of the perils of being an ISU fan; all three were close games that ISU found a way to lose late in the 4th quarter. None were quite as bad as the loss in Manhattan that ultimately got Rhoads fired, but they definitely had their moments.
1. His offenses were mostly spread with the QB almost always in a shotgun alignment. In fact, every snap of every ISU game I watched was in shotgun. At Montana State, the QB was in shotgun every snap for the first game and 90% in the 2nd game toward the end of the season. In terms of spread formations (3 WRs or more), ISU was spread over 90% in the game I watched in 2012, then about 80% in 2013. The 2 games from Montana State were also about 80% spread, all much higher than just 1/3 of the snaps at NDSU.
2. His use of the TE has evolved and increased at every location he's been the OC. In the 2012 game a TE was used on about a quarter of ISU's snaps, in 2013 that rose to about nearly 50%. At Montana State the TE was used on about 2/3 of the snaps while at NDSU the TE was used on over 80% of the snaps I watched. In 2013, a TE was Iowa State's 2nd leading receiver with 39 catches and at MSU, the TE was the 4th leading receiver, but only with 16 catches. The TE spot is often aligned as an H back and his most common formation was 1 RB, a TE at the H back spot, and 3 WRs with twins to one side and a single WR to the other. This set was used around 1/3 of the time at ISU and probably closer to 40% or more in the games from MSU. Also, the TE was often left in the game in 4 WRs formations as a split out, usually in the slot.
3. The RBs are the feature of the running game, but the schemes were much more zone based. I didn't see nearly the number of power schemes that I've broken out from NDSU. At ISU, RB runs were nearly 40% of the offense and at MSU over 45%. At both stops around 10% of the total offense was RB power, the rest was zone or (usually) zone read option. His Montana State offense featured 2 guys that both got nearly 200 carries and had over 1000 yards each and the run game was 60% of the snaps. At ISU the run game was less than 45% and not nearly as effective.
4. The passing game was quite a bit different at both spots. At ISU, over 1/3 of the offense was drop back passes with some play action mixed in. Also, the QB was definitely taught to tuck and run if lanes opened up in the passing game. At ISU, QBs ran the ball quite a bit, but the offense featured less than 5% called QB runs or options where the QB kept it. However, ISU QBs often tucked and ran for good yardage on scrambles. At MSU, the QB by the end of the season (they used both in the first game) was more of a runner, and play action passes were used on over 15% of the snaps and were half of the pass play calls. Play action was also the biggest part of NDSU's passing game. Messingham really liked to get his QB at MSU on the move with boot action. At both spots the routes were mainly short to intermediate routes with a few deep balls mixed in.
5. Both places were (from what I can tell) exclusively no huddle. You can't always tell the pace, but at times they played very quickly at ISU and in all 3 games I tracked they got 75 offensive snaps. At MSU, the first game was over 70 snaps, but the 2nd was only just over 60 snaps.
6. We will see the diamond formation. While he didn't use it at ISU, it was a big part of the offense by the end of the year at MSU and they really liked it at NDSU.
7. You can see some glimpses of schemes he brought to NDSU and infused into their power running game. The use of motions and shifts wasn't as common, but still used on about 10% of snaps at both ISU and MSU. He really liked to a) motion the H back to gain a numbers advantage, b) motion a slot WR (or split RB) to the backfield to run off tackle leads/sweeps the opposite direction, or c) motion across and fake a jet sweep in front of an inside zone run (especially at MSU). There was no A-gap power, but some G scheme power, and zone power concepts similar to what we've seen at K-State in 2.0.
What does this mean for this year at K-State?
I think we will likely see more of the ISU/MSU concepts than perhaps fans anticipate and a bit less of the NDSU offense here at K-State, especially in terms of spread (3 WR) formations. I'm certain they know the advantages they had at NDSU, especially up front, that won't necessarily be here at K-State. Those 3 seasons at ISU and MSU are a big part of who Messingham is as an OC and I don't think he completely reinvented himself at NDSU. Plus, its going to be much easier to recruit athletes, especially WRs, if they show they are going to be in spread more than 30% of the time.
Granted, Messingham probably learned a lot from his 2 years at ISU (and their struggles on offense) and knows that adjustments need to be made to remain viable at the P5 level, plus what has been successful at K-State in the past. I still firmly believe players win games and not plays, so the recruiting aspect will still be paramount as long as the scheme is simply sound, which I believe it can be.
Much of what we've heard about FBs, TEs, and H backs learning all those spots and being interchangeable makes a lot more sense after watching ISU and MSU. Messingham likes to have a big athlete at that spot that can block and catch. They need to be able to line up as a traditional TE with a hand on the ground, as an H back often going in motion, and also the ability to split out as a WR.
This year will be a year of evolution for Messingham. Rarely do you get a chance to come back to P5 as quickly as he is after getting fired like he did at ISU. He certainly shares a big share of the responsibility for that and its a legit reason for concern, but those ISU teams also weren't that talented. He got a reboot at MSU, then a shot to infuse his own identity into a successful offense/program at NDSU and I think he did it really well.
Also, watching all three of those ISU games reminded me of the perils of being an ISU fan; all three were close games that ISU found a way to lose late in the 4th quarter. None were quite as bad as the loss in Manhattan that ultimately got Rhoads fired, but they definitely had their moments.
