The Model for Success at Nebraska: A Strong Physical Running Game

[The Duke]

The OP says the only way to win at Nebraska is to run TO's system. Nebraska isn't some special snowflake that can only run one type of offense. My argument is we can run the WCO, or whatever system and be successful. It just requires talent and coaching.

I agree with you that Nebraska "isn't some special snowflake that can only run one type of offense." My original post was not to suggest we need to return to Tom Osborne's exact system, but rather we need to have a much heavier emphasis, and commitment to running the football rather than being 50-50 run/pass.

Everyone, on both sides of the discussion has made some good points in this thread. I'm old enough to remember the days when we used to complain about Osborne's or even Solich's teams, and say "man, I wish they would pass more."

The key is, whether it's run or pass...how efficient are you in those categories. I think we can all agree Nebraska under Tom Osborne was above-average to elite when it came to running the ball, and middle of the pack efficient when it came to passing. In Osborne's philosophy it wasn't how often you passed, but how efficient and effective were you when you did have to throw.

If Riley wants to continue with his emphasis on being balanced 50-50 with a quick passing game and multiple screen game fine. But the running game must become more efficient, and I would argue more physical than what we have seen thus far.

The running game we've seen thus far:

• Inside Zone / Outside Zone
• Jet Sweep
• I-Back Lead Draw
• QB Sweep, QB Power, QB Draw
• FB Trap

I would like to see Riley & Langsdorf slowly add these plays to the offense if possible:

• Read-Option

You're already running inside and outside zone, might as well tag a read on it to give the offense an option element. This also gives your lineman one less man to block. Tag the read element to the jet sweep game as well, now you've really given something for the defense to think about. Best part is the blocking stays pretty much the same for your O-Line).

• Counter Sweep & Counter Trap

Best of both worlds...power football & misdirection. These plays also help to open your inside & outside zone plays as well.

• Speed Option & Counter-Read Option

Nebraska is already running QB Power or the QB Sweep, add this option play and the line is just doing outside zone blocking which they are already used to. You could actually have a package of three plays that would give the defense fits, those being QB Power, Speed Option, and Counter-Read Option. The counter-read option simply would look like speed option with the running back taking one false step before cutting back the other direction to follow the pulling guard & tackle. The QB would have the option to give or keep.

 

[GBRedneck]

I'm pretty sure I saw Janovich run a counter-trap this year.

 

[True2tRA]

How many former Nebraska QB's are listed as QB on an NFL roster?

Second string or third string QB?

There's a reason Husker fans approach offense the way they do.

They've never seen it done any other way here and when we've tried, we haven't had an elite passing QB at the helm.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

 

[GBRedneck]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

 

[NUinID]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

 

[Dansker]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

This is a silly comparison considering the fact that Paul Johnson has a career winning record of 167-78, 4 ACC division titles, and an ACC conference championship.

 

[GBRedneck]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently.

That describes the WCO in a nutshell.

 

[Undone]

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

Such a great point. +1

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

This is a silly comparison considering the fact that Paul Johnson has a career winning record of 167-78, 4 ACC division titles, and an ACC conference championship.

Silly comparisons are the lifeblood HuskerBoard.

So if Georgia Tech were to freak out about the team getting off to a 2-4 start and Johnson became available, would you grab him?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

Apparently there's also a difference between designing a more efficient gameplan, and convincing your Quarterback not to improvise something more dramatic.

 

[GBRedneck]

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently.

That describes the WCO in a nutshell.

But there are other inherent traits with the WCO that do not fit the philosophy.

 

[The Duke]

Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game.

That is a true statement. Osborne has said that his coaching staff viewed the option game as an extension of their passing game. They had a goal and expected to get at least 6 to 7 yards every time they ran the option.

 

[GBRedneck]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

Apparently there's also a difference between designing a more efficient gameplan, and convincing your Quarterback not to improvise something more dramatic.

Both of those would be part of TO's philosophy.