Langs Offense

[Roll Skers]

I really dont think this huddle 70 plays a game offense works at the college level... Look at Clemson for example, they ran 52 plays at the half vs Louisville tonight. FIFTY-TWO!!!

 

I also think the play calling is too conservative, even with our o-line. It seems that we always have to run 12+ plays to score... What is wrong with a quick strike pass? I know our line isnt great but Lee is obviously more comfortable slinging it than the quick hitters.

 

I think i have literally seen 3 different run plays all year, jet sweep trap and draw, and we rarely run a jet sweep anyways! 

 

I don't know, maybe just me venting still but I don't think this will change at all.

[admo]

Glad you brought it up. Cannot stand the bunch sets, timing routes with mini size WRs, handoffs up the middle, play action on passing downs, and the jet sweep and bubble screens for stretch plays. Plus, everything draws the defense to the box and that's where our plays go a lot.

 

I prefer an offense that is shotgun spread but can get under center at times. And tall athletic WRs. And running plays that give a back an option to go inside OR outside.

 

Okie State, Clemson, TCU, OU, Texas, USC and many others do so well pass or run. They're explosive and not 2 yards and a cloud of lineman...smh

[brophog]

Number of plays is a silly stat. It's an alternate possession game. You get the ball, they get the ball. Drive efficiency is what really matters, not how many plays you run or how long you have the ball. They may be means to an end, but they're simply overrated counting stats.

 

The only stat in the box score more useless is run pass/ratio. That whole "balance" idea is really silly when you think about it. You know what those balanced 50/50 teams do? They run on first and pass on second. But sometimes they get creative and pass on first and run on second. Ooh, outlandish. How many times do they run 14 times in a row? Not many, their goal is being balanced, as if that's the holy ratio.

 

(They confuse balance with being multiple).

 

Enter Langs, who takes it to another level. 2nd and 10, something conservative and predictable like a RB Screen or draw. Last year he had a fetish for running weak side out of trips. Over and over. He throws out what appears to be a lot of looks, but he has these little patterns he clings to like an old teddy bear. It doesn't take long for the opposing graduate assistant to chart his patterns that year. 

[Roll Skers]

12 hours ago, admo said:

Glad you brought it up. Cannot stand the bunch sets, timing routes with mini size WRs, handoffs up the middle, play action on passing downs, and the jet sweep and bubble screens for stretch plays. Plus, everything draws the defense to the box and that's where our plays go a lot.

 

I prefer an offense that is shotgun spread but can get under center at times. And tall athletic WRs. And running plays that give a back an option to go inside OR outside.

 

Okie State, Clemson, TCU, OU, Texas, USC and many others do so well pass or run. They're explosive and not 2 yards and a cloud of lineman...smh

I agree with everything you said...

[Mavric]

Quote

Problem No. 2: Northern Illinois faced 83 plays against Nebraska, and didn’t look terribly gassed. Nebraska huddles up, changes personnel and takes its time running a play but doesn’t get the clean execution that should come from having 30 seconds between plays. Nebraska rarely plays with pace and rhythm. Spread, up-tempo offenses have their weaknesses, but they can overwhelm lesser-talented teams, too.

 

OWH

[Mavric]

Here's another issue that I've been saying for two years.  Everyone raved about how Langs would use fullbacks and tight ends again.  The problem with that is that the more offensive players you put in tight formation the more defensive players line up in the box.

 

This guy is bemoaning the offensive line's blocking.  But look closer.  We start with two TEs in formation and motion a third receiver in tight.  The defense properly reacts with a corner coming in tight and walking a safety into the box.  That's nine guys in the box.  That's not "stacking the box" - that's properly aligning their defense to the formation we are running as we are likely to run from such a formation.  We are making it very difficult on ourselves by inviting the defense to load the box.

 

I'm not going to say the line did a great job - Conrad isn't that good - but it's really the safety that walks down into the box adjusting to our formation that really makes the play.  If we don't shift into such a tight formation and that safety stays at 10-12 yards instead of 5, Wilbon has a lot of room to run off the left side.

 

 

[brophog]

Here's the quote I latched onto, from the article Mavric linked.

 

Quote

» On NIU’s first pick-six, receiver Stanley Morgan let a cornerback run unabated to the path of Lee’s pass.

“We have to block the corner there,” offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf said. Or Lee needs to see it.

 

 

Watch that play again. CB is 3 yds off the line, jumps the route at the snap. Morgan has virtually no chance at that angle.

[Mr.Rodgers]

Bad play call, get cute when you're up 30+ points...don't blame the players.

[Mr.Rodgers]

This scheme without a great o line and not enough weapons will have a hard time puting 21pts.  That's where we're at imo.

[Mavric]

On the above play, if you have two WRs to the bottom instead of two TEs, the defense would have to widen two guys out to cover them and would likely keep their safeties deep.  So instead of trying to run the ball with nine guys in the box, you're trying to run the ball with seven guys in the box.

 

You haven't changed anything about the play you've called.  But you've drastically changed how you set up the play that you've called, along with it's chance for success.

[brophog]

35 minutes ago, Mr.Rodgers said:

This scheme without a great o line and not enough weapons will have a hard time puting 21pts.  That's where we're at imo.

 

The point many are making (at least me) is that even with better offensive line play, the play calling is not putting players in the best position to execute.

 

As to the "scheme", I don't even know what that word means in this context. Everyone has stolen from everyone so much over the years, trying to name an offense is kinda silly. They're plays built on their respective concepts. Modern offenses are pieces and parts, often in the same play call.

[Roll Skers]

1 hour ago, unlfan said:

 

Its this staff's MO to throw players under the bus for terrible coaching decisions. Did it with Armstrong after the Illinois debacle. It was laughable, and thankfully so ridiculous all saw right through it.

 

Doing it now with Morgan. The corner jumped the route from 3 yards back (i.e. Knew exactly what the play was going to be). That's on coaching.

ALSO... why tf would you play action a quick hitter like that? And inside the 10? how would that develop. LMAO

[4skers89]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

Here's another issue that I've been saying for two years.  Everyone raved about how Langs would use fullbacks and tight ends again.  The problem with that is that the more offensive players you put in tight formation the more defensive players line up in the box.

 

This guy is bemoaning the offensive line's blocking.  But look closer.  We start with two TEs in formation and motion a third receiver in tight.  The defense properly reacts with a corner coming in tight and walking a safety into the box.  That's nine guys in the box.  That's not "stacking the box" - that's properly aligning their defense to the formation we are running as we are likely to run from such a formation.  We are making it very difficult on ourselves by inviting the defense to load the box.

 

I'm not going to say the line did a great job - Conrad isn't that good - but it's really the safety that walks down into the box adjusting to our formation that really makes the play.  If we don't shift into such a tight formation and that safety stays at 10-12 yards instead of 5, Wilbon has a lot of room to run off the left side.

 

 

That looked like a good run by Wilbon.  He had to make one guy miss early otherwise it would have been a loss or no gain and breaks numerous tackles. 6 or 7 NIU players had at least a hand on him.  Wilbon gets up from the turf wondering if he had been violated.

[VectorVictor]

8 hours ago, unlfan said:

 

Its this staff's MO to throw players under the bus for terrible coaching decisions. Did it with Armstrong after the Illinois debacle. It was laughable, and thankfully so ridiculous all saw right through it.

 

The 2015 Illinois game is where I got off the Langsdorf bus. Granted, my feet were dangling off after the 2015 BYU game, but the 2015 Illinois game cemented it. 

 

I haven't seen an OC so capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since I watched the 2014 New York Giants. 

[Mavric]

This is what a lot of people who say "look what he did at Oregon State" don't want to admit.  Langsdorf wasn't the play-caller at OSU.  Riley was.  Langsdorf had the duty for some short amount of time but then Riley took it back.

 

Riley might have been a good play-caller back in the day.  Langs isn't.