Return to the option all in Frost's plan?

M

milehighbob

Banned
Watching Nebraska these last couple of seasons, I thought I would see an offense that resembled Oregon and UCF. The closest thing that resembled those two offenses was when Noah Vedral came in late against Northern Illinois. Vedral was very smooth running the system by the way. However, I also was amazed at how smooth the offense, particularly Adrian Martinez, looked running out of the I formation.  

Based on Frost's O-Line recruiting the last couple of cycles, it looks like he is recruiting absolute monsters:

Bryce Benhar, 6-9

Brant Banks, 6-7

Matthew Anderson, 6-6

Jimmy Fritzche, 6-7

Turner Corcoran, 6-6

Alex Conn, 6-6

These O-line are all taller than most of the boys from the 1994 pipeline. For example, Brendan Stai was 6-4.

It is my belief that Frost is building his program with a major focus on the offensive line being the foundation. Luke Mccaffrey and Logan Smothers are running first quarterbacks with blazing speed. 

Anyways, thoughts? agree? disagree?

 
I think Frost wants to run the ball but I don’t think he wants to do it in the I or Wing T formation all the time. His running back recruiting would say he wants to play in space and not in a phone booth

 
Sker4Ever said:
I think Frost wants to run the ball but I don’t think he wants to do it in the I or Wing T formation all the time. His running back recruiting would say he wants to play in space and not in a phone booth
Click to expand...
Exactly you might see the i formation or wishbone for 3-5 plays a game but its not going to be a huge part of the offense.

 
Showing the I/double wing won't be our base, but it will be a great way to create miss matches with the D.  Force them into subbing with the personnel they see and audible to get mismatches.  I think we will see it 10-15 plays per game. Walters even mentioned seeing more of it with more wrinkles moving forward.  They stopped running it against OSU so as to not show our hand moving forward.

From Sam on twitter:

Asked Troy Walters why Nebraska went away from double wing after the 3rd drive of the game (they brought it back for a few snaps in the 2nd half): "When the game got out of hand, we didn’t want to show too much. We’ve got more in our bag that we can pull out this week."

I wonder if this is why Hickman is getting snaps this weekend?  Or do we just need a tall receiver?  Beckton's comment here makes me wonder if it's a case if actually being in the right spot and "getting open" that Frost and Walters alluded to.

"He's looked really good this week in his assignments and understanding what he needs to get done there," Beckton said. "Really excited about him seeing some action this week."

 
lo country said:
Showing the I/double wing won't be our base, but it will be a great way to create miss matches with the D.  Force them into subbing with the personnel they see and audible to get mismatches.  I think we will see it 10-15 plays per game.
Click to expand...


This ^^^

If we can force a team into variations on Nickel and Dime personnel groups, we can create physical mismatches on the second level. That is, in the 'linebacker' and 'safety' areas of the field. 

Some teams even sacrifice a down lineman in favor of an extra DB against 4-wide spread packages. Im certain that even our anemic o-line could open holes against that kind of front. Even Ohio State had to call a timeout to substitute in and adjust their defense to stop it. 

If teams remain in their base 4-3 or 3-4 groupings, we can audible to a 4-wide spread and create physical mismatches in the slots; force a linebacker to try to cover a WR or a tall, (relatively) fast TE like Allen or Stoll. 

If they sub out for a Dime package, trading two of those LBs for DBs, we create a physical mismatch in a 'phone booth' power run game. 

Considering that a read option is basically a 'veer', the basic read in a wishbone, flexbone, or I-formation option run game, we can even scheme to take either a DE or OLB completely out of a play, granting an even greater advantage at the point of attack. We can run essentially the same concepts from either spread or power formations, and audible into whichever one we need to in order to create an advantage. 

Scott Frost should definitely integrate this into Nebraska's offense moving forward. Not only because it is useful and creates advantages, but the two setups also cover for the other's weaknesses. It's hard to run spread on the goal line effectively, and I-formation has a harder time passing the ball deep, because of only two wide receivers (the TE can run a seam route, sure, but he may get tangled up near the line of scrimmage, which could throw off the timing). 

That, and the nostalgia of seeing an I-formation option play is good for the fanbase. 

 
EmeraldIngot said:
This ^^^

If we can force a team into variations on Nickel and Dime personnel groups, we can create physical mismatches on the second level. That is, in the 'linebacker' and 'safety' areas of the field. 

Some teams even sacrifice a down lineman in favor of an extra DB against 4-wide spread packages. Im certain that even our anemic o-line could open holes against that kind of front. Even Ohio State had to call a timeout to substitute in and adjust their defense to stop it. 

If teams remain in their base 4-3 or 3-4 groupings, we can audible to a 4-wide spread and create physical mismatches in the slots; force a linebacker to try to cover a WR or a tall, (relatively) fast TE like Allen or Stoll. 

If they sub out for a Dime package, trading two of those LBs for DBs, we create a physical mismatch in a 'phone booth' power run game. 

Considering that a read option is basically a 'veer', the basic read in a wishbone, flexbone, or I-formation option run game, we can even scheme to take either a DE or OLB completely out of a play, granting an even greater advantage at the point of attack. We can run essentially the same concepts from either spread or power formations, and audible into whichever one we need to in order to create an advantage. 

Scott Frost should definitely integrate this into Nebraska's offense moving forward. Not only because it is useful and creates advantages, but the two setups also cover for the other's weaknesses. It's hard to run spread on the goal line effectively, and I-formation has a harder time passing the ball deep, because of only two wide receivers (the TE can run a seam route, sure, but he may get tangled up near the line of scrimmage, which could throw off the timing). 

That, and the nostalgia of seeing an I-formation option play is good for the fanbase. 
Click to expand...
Also agree!! 

 
Didn't Iowa switch to a base 4-2-5 last year to help stop spread offenses? I thought I saw that somewhere. Think a lot of defenses are doing something similar. If that's the case 2 linebackers trying to stop an I formation or flexbone is a nightmare scenario. I like the mismatches this could cause. 

 
WyoHusker56 said:
Didn't Iowa switch to a base 4-2-5 last year to help stop spread offenses? I thought I saw that somewhere. Think a lot of defenses are doing something similar. If that's the case 2 linebackers trying to stop an I formation or flexbone is a nightmare scenario. I like the mismatches this could cause. 
Click to expand...
Especially if we can switch to that formation without having to switch players.  Keep the defense guessing and not allowing them to substitute based on which formation they see.

 
grandpasknee said:
Especially if we can switch to that formation without having to switch players.  Keep the defense guessing and not allowing them to substitute based on which formation they see.
Click to expand...


That was part of the whole logic of running up-tempo when Oregon started doing that all the time and not just in 2-minute drill situations; both to prevent substitutions and to tire out the guys their opponents had on the field. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
WyoHusker56 said:
Didn't Iowa switch to a base 4-2-5 last year to help stop spread offenses? I thought I saw that somewhere. Think a lot of defenses are doing something similar. If that's the case 2 linebackers trying to stop an I formation or flexbone is a nightmare scenario. I like the mismatches this could cause. 
Click to expand...


Iowa did switch to a 4-2-5 last year, but a big reason was the personnel on hand.  Amani Hooker was the guy who moved from safety to "cash", won the Big Ten DBOTY, and was a 4th round NFL draft pick.  The coaches said "the 4-2-5 is in our DNA" in the offseason, but injuries at cornerback has Iowa back to a base 4-3 so far this year. 

They'll be forced to a 4-2-5 against some matchups later in the year, and as the cornerbacks get healthy.  Probably a good amount at Michigan this week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lo country said:
Showing the I/double wing won't be our base, but it will be a great way to create miss matches with the D.  Force them into subbing with the personnel they see and audible to get mismatches.  I think we will see it 10-15 plays per game. Walters even mentioned seeing more of it with more wrinkles moving forward.  They stopped running it against OSU so as to not show our hand moving forward.

From Sam on twitter:

Asked Troy Walters why Nebraska went away from double wing after the 3rd drive of the game (they brought it back for a few snaps in the 2nd half): "When the game got out of hand, we didn’t want to show too much. We’ve got more in our bag that we can pull out this week."

I wonder if this is why Hickman is getting snaps this weekend?  Or do we just need a tall receiver?  Beckton's comment here makes me wonder if it's a case if actually being in the right spot and "getting open" that Frost and Walters alluded to.

"He's looked really good this week in his assignments and understanding what he needs to get done there," Beckton said. "Really excited about him seeing some action this week."
Click to expand...


Nice to know that at least we didn't blow our wad in terms of offensive wrinkles in a losing effort. Sucks we had to use that sweet direct snap to Washington on Illinois because we got behind. 

With our pass-blocking woes, AM being rather off, etc. I do like the idea of expanding our rushing attack.  Don't see us becoming as run-oriented as TO but can see us evolving into a run-first O that is highly multiple like TO's. Should help us keep the sticks moving more and keep the defense from being out there so much.

 
ICHawk24 said:
Iowa did switch to a 4-2-5 last year, but a big reason was the personnel on hand.  Amani Hooker was the guy who moved from safety to "cash", won the Big Ten DBOTY, and was a 4th round NFL draft pick.  The coaches said "the 4-2-5 is in our DNA" in the offseason, but injuries at cornerback has Iowa back to a base 4-3 so far this year. 

They'll be forced to a 4-2-5 against some matchups later in the year, and as the cornerbacks get healthy.  Probably a good amount at Michigan this week.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the insight, I appreciate it. Sounds like they'll be more of a multiple defense like most have become. It's always a chess game. 

 
I like all of this. 

I like under center, and what can happen on the O-line because of it. Tight formations with mismatches on the edge or dime/nickel look but be able to find creases and pound it. Sounds like they’ve been practicing it for awhile. 

The difference we have, is a guy in Martinez that can really throw the ball. It’s like Steve Taylor but even better. Mcathorn Clayton but even better.  The high and bad snaps have led Frost to get under center and use our players in a different way. I’m totally on board. 

Lastly, I don’t think for one second that he’s abandoning his overall scheme of speed and space. He’s actually evolving an offense that can keep the same players on the field and give defenses terrible fits.  Run, pass, RPO, I-formation, option...

Everyone talks about “holding playbook, don't show too much, save the secrets..”  I think he’s on to something big 

Frost is cutting edge and don’t you forget it. Next year we don’t have 20 sophomores, we have 20 juniors. I’m so excited, even for this year,  to see what unfolds. 

 
You don't become perfect by chance you do it by honing in and beating your craft over and over and over. It is constantly working hard at something repeatedly. Running formations under center to me, sounds like we're throwing stuff at a wall hoping it'll stick. We may run the ball more than we pass but, it isn't very effective. I continue to ask myself, "Are we a smash mouth team or an Air Raid? Multiple? What?" I think that the more they continue not to find their identity, the more we'll struggle on offense.

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