A Candid Conversation With Nebraska Offensive Coordinator Tim Beck, Parts 1 & 2

[Landlord]

Who cares what our offense is called?

What I'm interested in is results, and we've had a mixed bag of results under Beck. Some great, like Taylor's record-breaking career and Ameer's 1,600 yards last year, but some not-so-great like our hemorrhaging turnover problem and our inability to get going in the first half of major games.

We can call it anything we want, or nothing at all. Just get the ball moving, give the defense a break, and put the ball in the end zone more often than the opponent.

Great post knapp, but the not being able to get going in the first half doesn't seem accurate, at least not far enough to be a trend.

2011 Ohio State is the only game I can think of off the top of my head where our offense just really couldn't do anything to start out the game. Sure we had all those comebacks, but usually we were at least trading punches and scoring a bit to start.

In fact I'd argue the opposite that lately we've been able to hang with teams coming out of the gates and not been able to sustain it. South Carolina, Georgia, 2012 OSU, 2011 Wisconsin and Michigan, 2013 UCLA, etc. were all games that we started out well.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Overall Beck is pretty good but he gets into these ruts where he doesn't want to use what is working because he wants to outsmart himself. Wisconsin 2011 where he called 11 straight passes if I remember right, UCLA 2012 in the second half, UCLA 2013 in the second half, Minnesota 2013, whatever the hell Iowa 2013 was. Those are just ones I can think of now but there is more. Beck just needs to not over think his game plans.

God I find myself agreeing with you. I think I'll go smash my head with a hammer now.
But seriously. You got it nailed here.

 

[JJ Husker]

Finally took the time to read all 3 parts of the interview. Beck seems like a likable enough guy but some of his answers just made my head hurt. I realize there is more going on and more to consider than most of us would like to admit but dang, when asked what your bread & butter play is and you totally obfuscate and dodge the question......heck that probably isn't even the problem. The problem is that he didn't have an answer and quite possibly that didn't bother him at all. The OC at Nebraska should have a quick, clear, and concise answer for that question. It is rather telling and consistent with what I've witnessed that he couldn't/didn't answer that. I think that is why the "identity" issue seems to surface so much. It may not matter what it is called or if it even has a name but, it sure as hell matters when "it" isn't working or when your team doesn't have a "go to" when nothing else is working.

The other answer that left me feeling cold was the question about the Minnesota game. Yeah yeah, we know, lots of key players were hurt and it ain't easy but, damn, you can't stick with what ISN'T working. I guess I shouldn't expect him to come right out and say the offensive game plan screwed the pooch in that one but I sure would've had a lot more respect for the admission and knowing that he realized that was on him.

 

[Mavric]

Dan Hoppen ‏@danhoppen 4h
In 2013 Nebraska ran the ball on 33 of its 42 third downs with three or fewer yards to go, or 78.6 percent of the time.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Dan Hoppen ‏@danhoppen 4h

In 2013 Nebraska ran the ball on 33 of its 42 third downs with three or fewer yards to go, or 78.6 percent of the time.

That few? For shame.

 

[Hunter94]

Finally took the time to read all 3 parts of the interview. Beck seems like a likable enough guy but some of his answers just made my head hurt. I realize there is more going on and more to consider than most of us would like to admit but dang, when asked what your bread & butter play is and you totally obfuscate and dodge the question......heck that probably isn't even the problem. The problem is that he didn't have an answer and quite possibly that didn't bother him at all. The OC at Nebraska should have a quick, clear, and concise answer for that question. It is rather telling and consistent with what I've witnessed that he couldn't/didn't answer that. I think that is why the "identity" issue seems to surface so much. It may not matter what it is called or if it even has a name but, it sure as hell matters when "it" isn't working or when your team doesn't have a "go to" when nothing else is working.

The other answer that left me feeling cold was the question about the Minnesota game. Yeah yeah, we know, lots of key players were hurt and it ain't easy but, damn, you can't stick with what ISN'T working. I guess I shouldn't expect him to come right out and say the offensive game plan screwed the pooch in that one but I sure would've had a lot more respect for the admission and knowing that he realized that was on him.

great post.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

This could be interesting:

Dan Hoppen ‏@danhoppen 1h

Teaser for a column I’ve got running tomorrow: Nebraska ran 300 times on 1st down this year compared to just 120 passes. Too much passing?

Could be but it's pay to read so it will be ignored.

 

[The Dude]

What would be the difference between Auburn's "identity" and ours?

Part of the challenge in answering that question is first determining what Nebraska's offensive identity is supposed to be. I think the closest Beck has ever come to clearing that up in a concise manner is calling it a "mutt" offense. Which is to say, there isn't really a clear identity.

So saying Auburn's offense has an identity and Nebraska's doesn't is an acceptable answer, I suppose.

This article describes Auburn's offense as "a power running game based on the Delaware Wing-T, run out of spread formations", which I think is fairly accurate. If we can decide what Nebraska's identity is, then we can compare and contrast.

 

[Mavric]

What would be the difference between Auburn's "identity" and ours?

Part of the challenge in answering that question is first determining what Nebraska's offensive identity is supposed to be. I think the closest Beck has ever come to clearing that up in a concise manner is calling it a "mutt" offense. Which is to say, there isn't really a clear identity.

So saying Auburn's offense has an identity and Nebraska's doesn't is an acceptable answer, I suppose.

This article describes Auburn's offense as "a power running game based on the Delaware Wing-T, run out of spread formations", which I think is fairly accurate. If we can decide what Nebraska's identity is, then we can compare and contrast.

You took my question out of context. The identity given for Auburn's identity by the previous poster was "spread the field and run". My question is how is that different from what you could say our identity is.

My point is that many like to say "we don't have an identity" but when pressed to state what other team's identity is, no one had been able to do that either. Yours is the first to really have a good answer for any other team.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Auburn ran on nearly 72% of their plays, Nebraska ran 60%. I'd call Auburn a power running team and Nebraska a multiple offense leaning towards the run game, but I think Beck would pass more if he could. The run % has dropped from 67 to 63 to 60 the last three years and now that Taylor is gone I'm guessing we'll see 55-60% this year.

 

[The Dude]

What would be the difference between Auburn's "identity" and ours?

Part of the challenge in answering that question is first determining what Nebraska's offensive identity is supposed to be. I think the closest Beck has ever come to clearing that up in a concise manner is calling it a "mutt" offense. Which is to say, there isn't really a clear identity.

So saying Auburn's offense has an identity and Nebraska's doesn't is an acceptable answer, I suppose.

This article describes Auburn's offense as "a power running game based on the Delaware Wing-T, run out of spread formations", which I think is fairly accurate. If we can decide what Nebraska's identity is, then we can compare and contrast.

You took my question out of context. The identity given for Auburn's identity by the previous poster was "spread the field and run". My question is how is that different from what you could say our identity is.

My point is that many like to say "we don't have an identity" but when pressed to state what other team's identity is, no one had been able to do that either. Yours is the first to really have a good answer for any other team.

To put it in vague, meaningless terms, I would say we don't "spread the field and run", we're "multiple".

 

[Hunter94]

What would be the difference between Auburn's "identity" and ours?

Part of the challenge in answering that question is first determining what Nebraska's offensive identity is supposed to be. I think the closest Beck has ever come to clearing that up in a concise manner is calling it a "mutt" offense. Which is to say, there isn't really a clear identity.

So saying Auburn's offense has an identity and Nebraska's doesn't is an acceptable answer, I suppose.

This article describes Auburn's offense as "a power running game based on the Delaware Wing-T, run out of spread formations", which I think is fairly accurate. If we can decide what Nebraska's identity is, then we can compare and contrast.

You took my question out of context. The identity given for Auburn's identity by the previous poster was "spread the field and run". My question is how is that different from what you could say our identity is.

My point is that many like to say "we don't have an identity" but when pressed to state what other team's identity is, no one had been able to do that either. Yours is the first to really have a good answer for any other team.

To put it in vague, meaningless terms, I would say we don't "spread the field and run", we're "multiple".

oh yes, we aspire to be multiple....and of course, we take what we want.....lol

 

[Enhance]

Who cares what our offense is called?

What I'm interested in is results, and we've had a mixed bag of results under Beck. Some great, like Taylor's record-breaking career and Ameer's 1,600 yards last year, but some not-so-great like our hemorrhaging turnover problem and our inability to get going in the first half of major games.

We can call it anything we want, or nothing at all. Just get the ball moving, give the defense a break, and put the ball in the end zone more often than the opponent.

Great post knapp, but the not being able to get going in the first half doesn't seem accurate, at least not far enough to be a trend.

2011 Ohio State is the only game I can think of off the top of my head where our offense just really couldn't do anything to start out the game. Sure we had all those comebacks, but usually we were at least trading punches and scoring a bit to start.

In fact I'd argue the opposite that lately we've been able to hang with teams coming out of the gates and not been able to sustain it. South Carolina, Georgia, 2012 OSU, 2011 Wisconsin and Michigan, 2013 UCLA, etc. were all games that we started out well.

You both are right. I think knapplc isn't ignoring what you're talking about, but simply didn't list all the factors that make our offense a mixed bag. We've had problems sustaining, absolutely. But, he's also very accurate when he says we haven't been able to get going early in big games.

You mentioned tOSU 2011. Here's others that I can think of without closely looking at the scoring sheet - Wisconsin 2011 (you mentioned this to support yours, but it can go both ways as Nebraska's first half drives were three punts, two touchdowns, three interceptions, a missed field goal and a field goal). To me, at least, that doesn't fit the definition of really trading punches when you turn the ball over three times in one half. I guess we did score a TD early so yay us but I can see both sides of the argument there.

tOSU 2011, Wisconsin 2012 (had to mount huge comeback), Michigan state 2012, Penn State 2012...

Needless to say, mixed bag hits the nail on the head. Turnovers, a defense put in bad situations and a defense that struggled in general, didn't help the situation at all, either.

 

[True2tRA]

Mixed bag as it may be, we have proven we are capable of running the ball. That should be our bread and butter and most would say it is. I would sit here and say we need to stick with the run and pass less, but with Armstrong now at QB I think our passing attack will be more efficient than it has ever been under Beck. We just need to be wiser about when we go away from the run. We truly went to the passing game at baffling times. A turnover prone, up tempo offense is an enemy of our own defense already. When we get into these pass happy situations it only makes matters worse. I'd love to see more option football, more Abdullah and Cross, and man on man run blocking up front. Run to set up the pass. Especially play action pass. Right now it doesn't seem like we are setting up much of anything. We try to fool opponents but many times I think we've fooled ourselves.

All this said, the offense is really a big question mark for me simply because of Armstrong being the new QB. We saw a defense holding their own towards the end of the year and we saw some flashes of greatness from the offense as the season progressed. If these coaches would just continue on the "simplifying" trend they started last year, and create less confusion and more unity, we could be seeing a high caliber offense and defense next season. Sadly, I believe these coaches will try to build on last year too quickly. They will take that experience gained from last year, and make themselves believe they can throw the entire book at these kids again. The results will be much the same as they've always been. Confusion and devastating mistakes when the pressure becomes its highest. The pressure will be high this year with all these night games and big road matchups.

 

[Hunter94]

seems like the identity issue is associated with teams that are offensively potent and they are either well versed in the run game or the passing game...but not both....therefore they have a definitive identity as one or the other....seems like well balance run/pass programs just don't get assigned an identity, so like Knapp says, who gives a damn....just average 42 points per game and you don't need an identity!