Can we please, please stop the ridiculous argument that a run-first offense requires less talented players?
Including all those guys we need to play defense?
If you think we should "swallow our pride" because a good quarterback will never come to Lincoln, then we've already lost our pride.
Jesus.
Don't let those straw men catch fire.
By the way, you never answered the very fundamental question I once poised: why did TO shift to and continues to believe in the type of offense he chose for NU?
I'd submit that it's because of what he understood about the type of players that could be reliably recruited to NU and what type of system those types of players could reliably execute, year in and year out. I don't see that those basically realities have changed much for NU.
What's your theory?
Dude, I answered your very fundamental question immediately and specifically when you first posted it. Go back and look.
I don't have a "theory" as much as I have a fact: Tom Osborne kept getting his a$$ kicked by Oklahoma's Wishbone Offense in the 1970s, and decided to adopt and adapt it for himself.
The "type" of players he would need to run the precision option rushing attack were outstanding offensive linemen, great running backs, tight ends able to both block and catch, and highly recruited wide receivers willing to accept a lesser role on a team that regularly played on national TV, attracted NFL scouts and played in major bowl games.
The wild card was the running quarterback. There were plenty of them in high school, but few colleges let them stay at the position. Nebraska and Oklahoma could make them stars, but they had to bring the talent. Option quarterbacks had to be every bit the split-second decision makers that passing quarterbacks are, but they also had to be at least semi-competent passers and able to take open field hits from linebackers. You might have had less recruiting competition for Tommie Frazier, but you also had few Tommie Frazier's out there, and plenty of advisers correctly reminding them their only path to the NFL was to change positions. To suggest the offensive scheme removed the premium on talent is ludicrous.
Like those 1970s Oklahoma teams, Tom would also need to recruit and maintain the highest levels of defensive talent, because defenses win championships. By Tom's own admission, the 1990s dynasty was a result of changing his defensive recruiting scheme, in which Nebraska targeted and recruited speedy blue chip defensive talent wherever it was, even in another powerhouse's back yard. Near as I can tell he didn't swallow his pride and recruit slower, less-talented defensive players because that's all Nebraska could get.
If you know anything about Tom Osborne, you know that he evolved and adapted with the times. He believes in the offense he chose because it won him three NCs in four years. Which came after 20 years of honing and recruiting. He has said (it was cited
somewhere here on HuskerBoard) that he's not sure if the same offense would work as well in today's college football, which has become bigger, faster and more competitive in general. Maybe it would. But it's hardly a no brainer, otherwise more schools would be doing it.
No offense to Navy, but after a careful review of their schedule, it's not hard to see them going 6-7 if they played in the Big 10.
Tom Osborne's most recent views are that he'd like to see more commitment to the running game, and maintain more of the threat in today's dual threat quarterback.
Good advice. But not necessarily a call to swallow our pride, accept our fate, and recruit for a vintage option offense that is anything but simple to perfect.
It's easy to see Tom Osborne's hand in any number of offenses being run today, not just the Georgia Tech's and Navy's.
Now could you bookmark this so I don't have to keep running you through it?
