SI's Andy Staples on Husker's National Perception

[Husker from Kansas]

I think you guys arguments are both fairly valid. But lets consider a few things.

 

1. Tommy Scrambling instead of throwing the ball away had to have jacked the rushing attempts numbers up some.

 

2. Langs came to Nebraska from the NFL where it is very common to pass the ball more than you run it.

 

3. Langs has "his guy" in Tanner Lee. A true pocket passer who will hopefully be able to make the defense pay for being out of position.

 

I honestly don't think we will pass it more than we run, but it will be VERY close imo. IF Tanner Lee is able to live up to the hype surrounding him then why in the hell wouldn't we pass more than we run. Tommy Armstrong struggled to read a defense before the snap and make adjustments on the fly. How often did the defense come out in a pretty base defense and not worry about having to disguise its coverage because they felt TA could read what they were doing, and they could pin their ears back and rush 7 because he wouldn't hit the hole in the zone, or see the mismatch in man coverage? If Lee is able to make the defense have to think and try to constantly adjust from play to play it makes it much tougher on them because they now have to do a lot more thinking and can't just go out and play football. A great QB makes defensive coordinators overthink their calls, and DB's second guess their reads. That is what we are all hoping we get out of Lee. And if we do then we very easily could win our division and play with the teams a program like Nebraska feels it should be

[Mavric]

I think you guys arguments are both fairly valid. But lets consider a few things.

 

1. Tommy Scrambling instead of throwing the ball away had to have jacked the rushing attempts numbers up some.

 

2. Langs came to Nebraska from the NFL where it is very common to pass the ball more than you run it.

 

3. Langs has "his guy" in Tanner Lee. A true pocket passer who will hopefully be able to make the defense pay for being out of position.

 

I honestly don't think we will pass it more than we run, but it will be VERY close imo. IF Tanner Lee is able to live up to the hype surrounding him then why in the hell wouldn't we pass more than we run. Tommy Armstrong struggled to read a defense before the snap and make adjustments on the fly. How often did the defense come out in a pretty base defense and not worry about having to disguise its coverage because they felt TA could read what they were doing, and they could pin their ears back and rush 7 because he wouldn't hit the hole in the zone, or see the mismatch in man coverage? If Lee is able to make the defense have to think and try to constantly adjust from play to play it makes it much tougher on them because they now have to do a lot more thinking and can't just go out and play football. A great QB makes defensive coordinators overthink their calls, and DB's second guess their reads. That is what we are all hoping we get out of Lee. And if we do then we very easily could win our division and play with the teams a program like Nebraska feels it should be

 

I think this this the key right here. Langs seems to have an NFL mindset. Throw the ball often, complete a high percentage, run inside zone as your base running game. And I don't think that's all a bad thing - other than we really need more creativity in the running game. I'm just not sure it's a good fit here. I think it might lead to some really good offensive games against the poorer teams on our schedule. But I'm afraid it will make it tougher to beat the better teams because the coverages will be tighter making the passing tougher and we won't have built up a strong confidence in the rushing game to be able to convert third downs and touchdowns as much as we need to.

 

Perhaps that won't be the case. It just won't surprise me if that's how it plays out.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Riley doesnt use the pass to open up the run. He uses the pass to open up the PASS.

And the result is usually a well conditioned punt unit.

Nebraska ran the ball 523 times and passed the ball 400 times last season, and was fourth in 3rd Down Conversions among the Big 10, ahead of both Michigan and Penn State.

 

But whatever.

Benning and Schaefer were having quite the Twitter conversation about it this morning. It's not that far fetched.

 

I don't see why it's so hard to see people's skepticism about what kind of offense they're going to run. Supporters have been hanging their hats for two years on Langs getting a QB that can run his system. Then you try to act like he's not going to use that QB more? Doesn't make sense.

Because you don't have to pass MORE to have the offense work better when you have a QB that can pass BETTER.

 

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

And that would be a great counter point if we were arguing about having a BETTER offense. But we aren't.

The discussion was about if he uses the pass to set up the run or the pass to set up the pass.

 

Someone pointed out last year we ran much more than we passed.

 

Then, someone tried claiming it's obvious that he's going to pass more because now he has a QB that is made for his offense.

 

That comment is meaningless. People are interested in seeing how a QB made for his offense can improve the offense NOT because now they will be passing it 50% more. It's because the passing plays they call will work better.

 

So.....yes....that is what the conversation was about.

No, it really wasn't. It's a lot more productive to talk about having a better offense. But that's not what we were talking about. You were the first one to talk about having a better offense.

 

If we are better at passing the ball than we have been, don't you think we'll do it more?

You're doing some great gymnastics trying to twist that around. And in doing so, your comments came back to mine.

 

To answer your question, no....not necessarily. There are lots of offenses yfat pass better than us but don't necessarily call more pass plays.

 

Will we????maybe. But it's not a forgone conclusion.

 

Just show me where anyone was talking about a "better offense" before you brought it up. Otherwise it's you doing the gymnastics.

[BigRedBuster]

So.....nobody in this thread is discussing throwing the call more or running the ball more as it pertains to if we are going to have a better offense than last year.

 

Nobody is talking about having a QB made for this system and if that's going to make our offense better.

 

Question, if you're not debating this as to what would make our offense better......why exactly are you discussing it?

[Mavric]

No, I don't think anyone was talking about having a better offense. At least in the posts including me. But you keep claiming th that we were. So you should be able to point them out pretty easily.

 

There were several posts specifically referencing the number of times we passed the ball compared to the number of times we ran the ball right before you jumped in with the "better offense" line. That would be a fine discussin to have. But it wasn't happening here. Until you brought it up. Which is what I've been saying in the pointless argument you and I have been having now.

 

I didn't realize there was some rule that said you could only talk about things in terms of better or worse. As I said, that would be a fine discussion to have. But there's no reason we can't discuss other facets as well. Guy brought up how many times we passed and ran the ball last year to try to invalidate another post. So we were discussion how many times we may pass and run the ball this year. It is really quite plain if you just read the posts. I have no idea why you're so hung up on insisting otherwise.

[BigRedBuster]

Ok....let's back up here. You were talking about if Langs was going to pass more this year with his QB.

 

Now.....why go you think he thinks that's a good idea.....if that is what he wants to do.

 

What possibly would motivate him to want to do that?

[Moiraine]

Uh, sorry to butt in, I'm sure this is how a lot of my conversations look too.

 

But Mav, why don't/didn't you just skip over the playing better part of BRB's response and just reply to the part you thought the convo was about, which was his hypothesis that having a better QB reduces the number of passing attempts?

[Mavric]

Ok....let's back up here. You were talking about if Langs was going to pass more this year with his QB.

 

Now.....why go you think he thinks that's a good idea.....if that is what he wants to do.

 

What possibly would motivate him to want to do that?

 

Are you still going to refuse to admit that you were the one who made the mental jump?

 

He's going to want to throw the ball more because he wants to throw the ball more. That, the fact that he has a QB that will complete a higher percentage and the fact that he struggles to develop a diverse running game will all contribute to throwing more.

[BigRedBuster]

Uh, sorry to butt in, I'm sure this is how a lot of my conversations look too.

 

But Mav, why don't/didn't you just skip over the playing better part of BRB's response and just reply to the part you thought the convo was about, which was his hypothesis that having a better QB reduces the number of passing attempts?

Exactly. It's like he's trying to pick a fight for no reason.....on idiotic grounds.

 

He could have chosen to reply to the point that a better passer doesn't make you need or necessarily want to pass more.

 

But....he chose to pick one word out of my post and ignore every thing else.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Ok....let's back up here. You were talking about if Langs was going to pass more this year with his QB.

 

Now.....why go you think he thinks that's a good idea.....if that is what he wants to do.

 

What possibly would motivate him to want to do that?

Are you still going to refuse to admit that you were the one who made the mental jump?

 

He's going to want to throw the ball more because he wants to throw the ball more. That, the fact that he has a QB that will complete a higher percentage and the fact that he struggles to develop a diverse running game will all contribute to throwing more.

So...he's just going to throw the ball more because he loves seeing the ball fly through the air?

[Mavric]

Uh, sorry to butt in, I'm sure this is how a lot of my conversations look too.

 

But Mav, why don't/didn't you just skip over the playing better part of BRB's response and just reply to the part you thought the convo was about, which was his hypothesis that having a better QB reduces the number of passing attempts?

 

I didn't skip over it. I said it was a great point. I agree with it. I just said that wasn't what we were talking about.

[Mavric]

But....he chose to pick one word out of my post and ignore every thing else.

 

 

 

He's going to want to throw the ball more because he wants to throw the ball more. That, the fact that he has a QB that will complete a higher percentage and the fact that he struggles to develop a diverse running game will all contribute to throwing more.

So...he's just going to throw the ball more because he loves seeing the ball fly through the air?

 

Pot meet kettle.

[Enhance]

 

 

Ok....let's back up here. You were talking about if Langs was going to pass more this year with his QB.

 

Now.....why go you think he thinks that's a good idea.....if that is what he wants to do.

 

What possibly would motivate him to want to do that?

Are you still going to refuse to admit that you were the one who made the mental jump?

 

He's going to want to throw the ball more because he wants to throw the ball more. That, the fact that he has a QB that will complete a higher percentage and the fact that he struggles to develop a diverse running game will all contribute to throwing more.

So...he's just going to throw the ball more because he loves seeing the ball fly through the air?

I'm not sure what the disconnect is here. Langsdorf likes to throw the ball more (as evidenced by his somewhat square peg, round hole approach with TA), he's got a QB that will likely have a higher completion percentage and we've struggled to develop a consistent rushing attack. I'm not trying to wedge myself into the debate, but his response to your question was more intricate than suggesting Langs just "loves seeing the ball fly."

 

All those factors suggest Langsdorf will be motivated to throw more.

[Enhance]

Uh, sorry to butt in, I'm sure this is how a lot of my conversations look too.

 

But Mav, why don't/didn't you just skip over the playing better part of BRB's response and just reply to the part you thought the convo was about, which was his hypothesis that having a better QB reduces the number of passing attempts?

An observation in the form of a question: when was the last time you, me, or really anyone skipped over something they felt was a misrepresentation of a conversation and/or their opinion? We all love picking apart nuances of posts - it's how this board survives!

[teachercd]

I know people hate this stuff but as a guy that has coached for like 20 years I can tell you this much...

 

1. When we had awesome running backs...we ran the ball a lot more because we could.

2. When we had awesome QB's we passed the ball more because we could.

 

Coaches love playing with their new toys.

 

Now, that is not every single staff...just the 4-5 I have been a part of.