SBNation: Scott Frost is perfect for a possible Nebraska opening, but here’s who should be No. 2 on the list

National writes who say we should hire Nuimatolo, Johnson, or Calhoun and "go back to the triple option" lose all credibility.  WE NEVER* RAN THE TRIPLE OPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Never is a strong word, but we ran some triple option in the 80s, but by the 90s there was no triple in our option.

 
Go back to 97.

There were sets where NU did run triple option looks. Specifically think about one drive vs Tennessee where Shevin Wiggins got the pitch and was about a yard or two short. 

Also, while it may or may not be triple option, but anytime you ride a fake to the fullback and option off it. It's pretty much triple option or gives the illusion of. Which NU did plenty.

Now if you want to say NU didn't run flexbone...I'd be with you on that comment.
 

Go to 48:07




 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Depends which flavor of 3-4.  Diaco's bend-but-don't-break 3-4 is a load of horse hockey.  I prefer an attacking, dictating defense that forces opponents to make quick decisions and beat you with precision. If they can, fine, we'll get you next series. If not, we're going to bury your a$$ behind the line of scrimmage. 
Click to expand...


Just say it, Knapp. You want us to run the ol' 6-2....

 
Makes my gut hurt what the next 2 years are going to be like...  seriously.  But if we have to go through the pain, I would rather we go back to a mobile QB system where teams have to defend against the QB run.  

 
31 minutes ago, Coach Power'T said:

Go back to 97.

There were sets where NU did run triple option looks. Specifically think about one drive vs Tennessee where Shevin Wiggins got the pitch and was about a yard or two short. 

Also, while it may or may not be triple option, but anytime you ride a fake to the fullback and option off it. It's pretty much triple option or gives the illusion of. Which NU did plenty.

Now if you want to say NU didn't run flexbone...I'd be with you on that comment.
 

Go to 48:07

Click to expand...

headdesk1.gif


 
35 minutes ago, Coach Power'T said:

Go back to 97.

There were sets where NU did run triple option looks. Specifically think about one drive vs Tennessee where Shevin Wiggins got the pitch and was about a yard or two short. 

Also, while it may or may not be triple option, but anytime you ride a fake to the fullback and option off it. It's pretty much triple option or gives the illusion of. Which NU did plenty.

Now if you want to say NU didn't run flexbone...I'd be with you on that comment.
 

Go to 48:07

Click to expand...

Goodness, watching the 1st NU scoring drive just brought back memories on how we had the most effective most difficult to defend against offense.  What a machine and a thing of beauty to watch.

 
knapplc said:
Depends which flavor of 3-4.  Diaco's bend-but-don't-break 3-4 is a load of horse hockey.  I prefer an attacking, dictating defense that forces opponents to make quick decisions and beat you with precision. If they can, fine, we'll get you next series. If not, we're going to bury your a$$ behind the line of scrimmage. 
Click to expand...
I also like the Wisconsin 3-4. You know the one where in year 1 they didn't look inept.

 
Hilltop said:
Makes my gut hurt what the next 2 years are going to be like...  seriously.  But if we have to go through the pain, I would rather we go back to a mobile QB system where teams have to defend against the QB run.  
Click to expand...


In a perfect system, you'd always want a QB run threat, because it breaks basic football math (Safety vs QB exchange). But you'd also want a drop back passer, because that also breaks basic football math (8 defensive zones vs 4 rushers). 

 
We don't need to go to a triple option (flexbone) attack to be honest.  We actually didn't run a true one under coach Osborne.  Nebraska ran a power running offense, with double option plays. We rarely if ever ran a true triple option.  In a true triple option, the quarterback makes a read on the defense on whether or not to give the ball to the fullback. With us when the fullback got the ball it was almost always a called play. The option was on the pitch to the I-back, or for the quarterback to keep the ball.  People say we can't run the old Osborne offense and I say BULL!!!  

Our power was basically I-back dive, I-back sprint draw, outside play (stretch), toss sweep, counter, isolation, fullback quick hitters, quarterback keep and quarterback sneaks all with inside/outside zone blocking.  Plays that are still ran frequently by many others.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Get the right players in here we can run any offense - even Tom's old O.  However, one missing ingrediant - Tom's wizard like genius in calling the plays.  There were times when you wonder if Tom had a direct connection to the opposing team's DC coordinator's mind. 

 
TGHusker said:
Get the right players in here we can run any offense - even Tom's old O.  However, one missing ingrediant - Tom's wizard like genius in calling the plays.  There were times when you wonder if Tom had a direct connection to the opposing team's DC coordinator's mind. 
Click to expand...
The other thing missing is the patience to get the right players. No way the fans will wait while the next coach revamps the offense again.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top