Offense

[BigRedBuster]

We were going up against what was supposed to be a really good front 7. 

QB was almost 60% completion rate

RB ran for 193 yards with over a 6 yards per carry average. 

0 turnovers. 

38 rushes to 32 passes. 

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

The offense did well, thankfully, but the O-line still needs some work as Tanner got planted into the ground too many times. I personally seen a lot to be happy with from the offense and think they can really be dangerous if they get some things worked out.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

The offense did look good, but I expected NU to do well on offense against a Sun Belt defense, even if it's a good Sun Belt defense.

It was encouraging to see Bryant establish himself and play great.  The WR's look very fast once they get the ball.  I thought Lee played good (but not great).  I know he was shaking off some rust early in the game, but I am going to reserve my full judgement on Lee until he faces Wisconsin and Ohio State.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

Those arent' bad numbers, but 70 snaps is about 12 short of the number you need.  We should have run another dozen and prevented them from running that many.  

Run vs pass ratio is 'OK" but the issue is not so many how many of each but the when they do it.  Often times, as you sit and listen/watch the games, you just naturally have a 'feel' for what plays ought to be run next.  It is rare that Langs/Riley will actually run those.  It is just odd to me how I never have a good idea of what the next play will be.  I don't claim to be an expert but I do know that after watching Osborne call plays for a quarter century, I became pretty darn good at calling his plays out loud before the snaps while fans sitting around me wanted to know how I knew what was coming.  It is a feel.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I was looking at the game stats this morning, and I was surprised to see that NU only scored 2 TD's in the 2nd half and had to punt 4 times.  Now, the first half was much more efficient on offense, but I would have figured the offense could establish themselves a little better and wear down an opponent in the 2nd half.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Tight end was very involved in the passing game also. 

Morgan jr. had over 100 yards receiving. 

 

[macroboy]

Liked Bryant. Liked run/ pass ratio. Liked passing game. QB can throw the ball, where it goes, on time, without weird mechanics.

O line looks to still be an issue. I think some of those guys have reached their ceiling. Farmer was really bad last night. That safety was a 9point+ swing. Would like to see Wilson if that continues.

 

[JJ Husker]

Those arent' bad numbers, but 70 snaps is about 12 short of the number you need.  We should have run another dozen and prevented them from running that many.  

Run vs pass ratio is 'OK" but the issue is not so many how many of each but the when they do it.  Often times, as you sit and listen/watch the games, you just naturally have a 'feel' for what plays ought to be run next.  It is rare that Langs/Riley will actually run those.  It is just odd to me how I never have a good idea of what the next play will be.  I don't claim to be an expert but I do know that after watching Osborne call plays for a quarter century, I became pretty darn good at calling his plays out loud before the snaps while fans sitting around me wanted to know how I knew what was coming.  It is a feel.

So is knowing what play is coming a good thing or a bad thing? If you don't know what play we're going to run, how do you think the opposing defense feels? And this game is no longer built for what Osborne did in the 80's and 90's. I am not aware of any team that can basically tell you what their going to do, lineup and exert their will on you the way Osborne did it. Most of us had a good feel for what he was going to do next but there were a lot of subtleties in the blocking schemes that really weren't that predictable and with the option game, most plays had 2 or 3 possibilities even as they were developing. Unfortunately football doesn't work that way any longer.

But having said that, Langs sure can call some stuff that doesn't make sense. Not as bad as Beck imo, but along the same lines. I've always been a fan of finding something that works and more or less sticking to it until the defense adjusts to stop THEN exploit that adjustment. Rinse and repeat. Too often over the last ten years seems when we find something that works we lock it away in a leper colony never to be seen again.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What didn't make sense about the play calling?

 

[brophog]

Run vs pass ratio is 'OK" but the issue is not so many how many of each but the when they do it. 

It's a number that is almost completely irrelevant and gets in the way of proper analysis. 

"Balance" is just a really poorly used concept in this sport. The ability to give various looks and to create complementary plays is what is important. If the rules of football weren't written around the concept of one forward pass, we wouldn't even write the damn number down.

The only number in the box score more irrelevant is time of possession.

 

[brophog]

So is knowing what play is coming a good thing or a bad thing? If you don't know what play we're going to run, how do you think the opposing defense feels?

This is a great question, and the answer is counterintuitive. On the surface, "keep me guessing" sounds like the right answer. Yet, so many teams (in so many sports) do the opposite to incredible success. Human psychology is powerful. If a defender doesn't know what's coming, he's more reliant on scouting and reading his keys to determine the play and then execute. But, when you give a person what appears to be a pattern, like calling a play multiple times, they begin reacting to that pattern. Humans simply love to look for patterns, even if they are not there. Their reactions can become very predictable.

Case in point, those seemingly annoying screens Arky St ran last night. They're not hard to stop, it's just a numbers game. Even Nebraska eventually stopped them. They're effectiveness is in forcing you to stop them and then using complementary plays to exploit your tendency to put numbers in places you don't want them, like near the boundary where you can become isolated. I say this Arky St offense wasn't very good because they simply didn't have much to flow off of those screens.

The best offenses, regardless of what form they take, do. Running, passing, none of that really matters one way or another if plays don't cause defenders to think. Thinking makes you slow. Reading your keys, staying disciplined, and flowing to the football makes defenders fast. The defenders that seem to play that little bit faster aren't that way because they knew what was coming, but rather because they read the play and used their momentum towards making a tackle rather than think they knew the play and had it used against them.

 

[ScottyIce]

The offense did well, thankfully, but the O-line still needs some work as Tanner got planted into the ground too many times. I personally seen a lot to be happy with from the offense and think they can really be dangerous if they get some things worked out.

That is correct. /BillyMadison

 

[84HuskerLaw]

This is a great question, and the answer is counterintuitive. On the surface, "keep me guessing" sounds like the right answer. Yet, so many teams (in so many sports) do the opposite to incredible success. Human psychology is powerful. If a defender doesn't know what's coming, he's more reliant on scouting and reading his keys to determine the play and then execute. But, when you give a person what appears to be a pattern, like calling a play multiple times, they begin reacting to that pattern. Humans simply love to look for patterns, even if they are not there. Their reactions can become very predictable.

Case in point, those seemingly annoying screens Arky St ran last night. They're not hard to stop, it's just a numbers game. Even Nebraska eventually stopped them. They're effectiveness is in forcing you to stop them and then using complementary plays to exploit your tendency to put numbers in places you don't want them, like near the boundary where you can become isolated. I say this Arky St offense wasn't very good because they simply didn't have much to flow off of those screens.

The best offenses, regardless of what form they take, do. Running, passing, none of that really matters one way or another if plays don't cause defenders to think. Thinking makes you slow. Reading your keys, staying disciplined, and flowing to the football makes defenders fast. The defenders that seem to play that little bit faster aren't that way because they knew what was coming, but rather because they read the play and used their momentum towards making a tackle rather than think they knew the play and had it used against them.

Indeed!     You said it well.   Osborne always said calling plays was more 'art' than science.   It is feel.  I completely agree.   You do have to give 'em a little shake and bake, and fool 'em and get the defense thinking one way and go another or just go against the grain a tad.  You punch in the gut until they uncover the head, etc.  Sometimes you punch in the gut when the head is open cause you want them to stay uncovered.  

Random play selection, which is somewhat what I see / feel from Riley/Langs and their predecessors as well, is maybe very unpredictable but it is not going to get the defense thinking what you want them to think.  As you say, it will have the defense using their reads and not thinking, effectively playing into their hands a bit.  QBs who feign a pass one way and throw another are trying to get the defenders to misread and do the wrong thing at the right time.  

Football is a game of chessj, sort of.  But you don't want the chess pieces moving or 'thinking' themselves.  Only the chess master (OC or DC) should be doing the thinking.  Scripted plays or computer generated or 'randum selected by drawing out of a hat are NOT the way to call the plays.  They need to be thought out and planned many plays ahead of time but that script will be constantly adjusted depending on the moves and counter moves of the opponnent.   This is what makes football the best game and so much fun.  

I would say Osborne was predictably unpredictable and many watching the games could not predict what play he would run beyond the fact that it would likely be run from a running formation and would probably be a running play.  Play direction, blocking methods, inside or outside, run with pass option, etc were all quite variable.  But it was pretty likely that he was going to start the game by running the ball at the defense until the defense gave up, gave in, we scored or we had punted several times.   I did not mean to say that we need Osborne to call the plays although it would be nice if that were possible.   Rather, we need an offensive coordinator or play caller who has a feel for what plays to call rather than one that is apparently an automaton or follows a script.  I believe Frank Solich followed a script for the first 25 or so snaps after which he then deviated as it seemed best.  This is better than blindly going forward without consideration of the real time circumstances and outcomes of the prior plays, etc.  

 

[BoNeyard]

I thought Lee did fantastic and the running backs looked good. Think the O-Line did good for blocking the run but need work for pass protection. The WR's had bright spots and look to be talented, but I wonder if they largely as a group are too young right now for the maturity of Lee.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I will be most interested in the red zone offense as the year progresses. Inside the 20 is where I think a mobile QB can pay most dividends. There is less space for the offense to move and passing windows get tighter.  I know Lee is touted for his smart decisions, but NU will need to continue to end more drives in TDs. In today's college football, it's pretty much a win for the D if they can force the opponent to kick (punt or FG attempt).