Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
???????????????????????????
OWH: Five Hearts, Two Stars - A Look at Husker Recruiting
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Wrong.
Speed became a much bigger priority when they went to the 4-3 defense.
Naaaa....the well documented theory of making safeties line backers and line backers rush ends was over blown.
Last edited by a moderator:
McBride said they recruited, speed, tackling ability and size. If you couldn't run, you didn't get looked at.
We recruited runners and hitters and the third thing was size. If the kid couldn’t run, we didn’t recruit him. I think that showed up. One year one of our linebackers ran a 10.4 100 meters and the other one ran a 10.6. Those guys could play defensive back in the NFL, and they did. Our only big linebacker was our middle linebacker, and we had some good ones, but the speed factor was really the thing.
http://hailvarsity.com/news/football-news/mcbride-talks-defense/2012/09/
Please refer to page 5 of this book.
https://books.google.com/books?id=cLwcrZay-zAC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=osborne+always+recruited+speed+defense&source=bl&ots=OXcAkNVBLE&sig=2wFGOXyAiH00EZ5_5HAztqV8Sf8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBmMmKgM7KAhWG74MKHRinAnwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=osborne%20always%20recruited%20speed%20defense&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=cLwcrZay-zAC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=osborne+always+recruited+speed+defense&source=bl&ots=OXcAkNVBLE&sig=2wFGOXyAiH00EZ5_5HAztqV8Sf8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBmMmKgM7KAhWG74MKHRinAnwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=osborne%20always%20recruited%20speed%20defense&f=false
Going to smaller quicker guys up front? Isn't that getting faster guys?
TO says this of his 1992 class....
Nebraskas recruiting emphasis was speed. Were trying to get it, said Osborne. But then, everybody is. Nobody in college football is not trying to recruit speed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
The part where Tom Osborne virtually jumps off the page and says "give it up, CM Husker?"
Last edited by a moderator:
I was actually referring to his comments about his offensive system choices (which was the original subject of the discussion). He specifically said he chose and developed his system based on the personnel who he had available (and to the prevailing weather conditions).
I understand that TO was focused on recruiting speed. My point is, he always wanted speed, on both sides of the ball (he said that many times throughout his career, and, like you pointed out, no one is looking for the slwo guy). The real shift was that they changed their defensive philosophy (5-0 to the 4-3 and out of as much zone and into more man). Did NU recruit "more speed" as a result of having additional LBs and the Rover? Yes. But it wasn't as though TO was undervaluing speed early and woke up to the need for it later. It may be a subtle distinction, but I think it's an important one.
Because it goes back to what I've always argued: scheme is far more important to a program's success than a special player here and there. Special players in the recruiting game can take you from good to great, but scheme is what keeps you from being mediocre or worse during all of those in between years.
See comment above. He clearly talks about the necessity of running an offensive system that makes sense within the context of Nebraska football.
As to your question marks, what pro-style, throw first system is producing elite offenses out there right now? Especially with the tier of recruits NU is likely to obtain year in and year out?
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
I honestly can not figure out why this is so confusing to you.
When we ran a 5-2 defense, we wanted bigger LBs that could attack and help stop the run oriented Big 8 offenses. that worked fine until we met up with the speed in the bowl games against Florida schools. Yes, we wanted speed with those too. But, the theory was, if we have to give up a little bit of speed to get the size, we'll take the size.
When was switched to the 4-3, they moved safeties to LBs and LBs to rush ends. That down sized all three positions in favor of faster players at those positions.
This isn't even debatable. It was and has been well documented making these moves in personnel.
I'm not sure why you keep up this argument other than you trying to prove to everyone for some reason that you are the expert in everything TO.
When we ran a 5-2 defense, we wanted bigger LBs that could attack and help stop the run oriented Big 8 offenses. that worked fine until we met up with the speed in the bowl games against Florida schools. Yes, we wanted speed with those too. But, the theory was, if we have to give up a little bit of speed to get the size, we'll take the size.
When was switched to the 4-3, they moved safeties to LBs and LBs to rush ends. That down sized all three positions in favor of faster players at those positions.
This isn't even debatable. It was and has been well documented making these moves in personnel.
I'm not sure why you keep up this argument other than you trying to prove to everyone for some reason that you are the expert in everything TO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
It's not confusing to him. He is simply twisting himself in knots in every thread, in every post, to advance an argument that will undermine the choice of Mike Riley.
That's why it can never, ever be about the level of talent. If a coach was merely smart enough to run the old power option running attack, even mediocre talent would once again dominate the world of college football. For some reason that will make your defense awesome, too.
The fact that most people in football don't quite see it this way confirms that CM is a misunderstood genius.
No knots. It's actually very straight forward:
1. NU is situated in Lincoln, Nebraska and faces a specific set of circumstances based on that geography
2. In order to be successful, a coach at Nebraska needs to tailor his entire program, but most importantly his offensive scheme, to thrive in that set of circumstances
3. Arguably the greatest coach of all time spent the better part of 3 decades developing what he thought was the best system for success in Lincoln
4. Since his retirement in 1997, I have not seen any evidence that surrounding circumstances have changed in a way that makes that coach's system outmoded
5. Therefore, in my ideal world, the current HC would follow those principles (rather than, for example, installing a pass oriented offense or an offense that doesn't use a mobile QB)
And, for the record, that style of "taking the air out of the ball" definitely tends to help defenses. Again, this was often mentioned by TO, and I'm happy to post a video if you don't believe it that was a tenant of his philosophy.
By the way, Guy, where are the quotes yous aid you heard from TO about how his system wouldn't work anymore?
1. NU is situated in Lincoln, Nebraska and faces a specific set of circumstances based on that geography
2. In order to be successful, a coach at Nebraska needs to tailor his entire program, but most importantly his offensive scheme, to thrive in that set of circumstances
3. Arguably the greatest coach of all time spent the better part of 3 decades developing what he thought was the best system for success in Lincoln
4. Since his retirement in 1997, I have not seen any evidence that surrounding circumstances have changed in a way that makes that coach's system outmoded
5. Therefore, in my ideal world, the current HC would follow those principles (rather than, for example, installing a pass oriented offense or an offense that doesn't use a mobile QB)
And, for the record, that style of "taking the air out of the ball" definitely tends to help defenses. Again, this was often mentioned by TO, and I'm happy to post a video if you don't believe it that was a tenant of his philosophy.
By the way, Guy, where are the quotes yous aid you heard from TO about how his system wouldn't work anymore?
Again, I don't think there are any "silver bullet" offenses (or defenses, for that matter), but there are definitely system taht work better in a certain set of circumstances than in another.
And when we look at the empirical evidence, most teams in and around Nebraska have had very very limited success chasing the "balanced" approach to offensive systems. Even CU was running an option, ground based system when they won.
And when we look at the empirical evidence, most teams in and around Nebraska have had very very limited success chasing the "balanced" approach to offensive systems. Even CU was running an option, ground based system when they won.
PasstheDamnBallGuy
Starter
I'm kind of curious what people think are the limitations specific to Nebraska that prevent us from using a pro-style or multiple offense. We have no problem with WRs. Considering the TEs that came out of the state this year and the potential of the ones we have already that is obviously not an issue. Can o-lineman out of Nebraska only run block? Or is it all down to not being able to get a pocket passing qb?
It's a combination of a bunch of things.
But mainly, it's about the difficulty in recruiting and getting adequate production out of a pro-style QB in the college game. I also don't think the "prototypical OL" necessary to be good at pass and run blocking are readily available to NU like they are to schools in better recruiting grounds.
Most of the teams that have had success with "pro-style" offenses are those that also play phenomenal defense (see, Alabama, MSU, USC during the glory years, et al). I don't believe NU will be able to recruit consistently enough to ever have defenses that are dominant enough to cover for a struggling offense that goes 3 and out while taking about 90 seconds off of the clock.
But in any event, I think that the NFL style offenses can't be taught to a sufficient degree in CFB (due mainly to time constraints and a revolving door at skill positions), so I think it's a fundamentally flawed approach for ANY program, not just Nebraska's. I really can't find a team in CFB today who utilizes a "pocket passing" QB that I want NU to emulate. To the degree some teams have success with that system, I think it's in spite of and not because of it.