Why the option?

[Blackshirts007]

It's going to be a hurry up, fast passed offense, much like oregons, our guys will rush up to the line and all of them will stand up and look at the sideline for a play, or they will possibly have 2 or 3 plays lined up so they can just run up and snap the ball quick, it will be fun to watch

 

[Hoosker]

The option is great. I have no problem with Nebraska embracing the option once again. I obviously don't know what to expect from Taylor this year, but last year he seemed to use his atheltic ability and speed to make up for his poor reads in the zone read play. I would really like to see us embrace the Oregon type offense, without the ridiculously high speed aspect of it. Mississippi State has a great offense that we should model ours after IMO. They run the spread, but they are a run/option dominant team. I think, with the right people in the skill positions, the opiton is a tool that's vital to success.

 

[Scarlet Overkill]

Don't get me wrong - I still love a good run game, but we do need to be able to pass when needed also. I am really excited to see what they do this year, and hope whatever it is they are planning on doing is effective.

 

[Danimal]

I thought Oregon was more of a spread type thing.

Oregon runs the spread option. Very similar to what Nebraska was just starting to run in 1997 before Osborne Retired and Solich went more conservative.

Similar to what we ran last year I'd say.

Or where we have been trying to get to recently, at least.

Remember how sick of the read option we got last year? Guys were denouncing it left and right.

Because we ran it 75% of the time and half the time Taylor made the wrong read.

Uhhh.....because he had a bad ankle on one leg and turf toe on the other "might" have had something to do with it?

He was making the wrong reads the whole year, but got away with it because we were playing teams like K-State who were terrible against the run. And Zoogies, our offense last year looked like about 10% of the variety of option plays that Oregon ran, so I don't agree with your statement. I think an offense similar to 97 where we ran a mix of power/spread and ran the option with Wiggins would be successful today, particularly with some of the young speed we've got this year. I am all for running the option(with a little more creativity than Watson had).

Maybe Da Skers or somebody else with more info can provide insight but it's been alleged that Wats would call gives and keeps for TM on the "read" options.

 

[Mierin]

He was making the wrong reads the whole year, but got away with it because we were playing teams like K-State who were terrible against the run. And Zoogies, our offense last year looked like about 10% of the variety of option plays that Oregon ran, so I don't agree with your statement. I think an offense similar to 97 where we ran a mix of power/spread and ran the option with Wiggins would be successful today, particularly with some of the young speed we've got this year. I am all for running the option(with a little more creativity than Watson had).

Maybe Da Skers or somebody else with more info can provide insight but it's been alleged that Wats would call gives and keeps for TM on the "read" options.

If it is the case, it meant he didn't trust TM to make the correct read, which is as bad or worse as him making the wrong read on his own.

 

[Enhance]

Why are people practically drooling over the possibility of running an option based offense? Sure it was great fun to watch in the 90's, but things have evolved, IMO, and if 'we' started running that type of offense, I think it could actually hurt recruiting in the future.

What's your opinion?

You're wrong? that's my opinion.

That whole sentiment got us Callahan in the first place. Things haven't evolved much... Tebow running the option won florida 2 titles basically. Paul Johnson was killing teams at Navy and has chronic over-achievers at GT now due to the option. As everyone else has said, see Oregon.

and the zone read is 'option.'

and you know what... we had an identity we could recruit to when we ran it.

So, a 6-7 record last year was over achieving for GT? My fear is (and you could be correct in saying I'm wrong), once your opponents get familiar with it, it's no longer an advantage.

EDIT: to add that GT's 6 wins last year were against the crappiest possible teams. A depleted NC team, Duke, South Carolina State, close one over WF, Virginia, and Middle Tennessee.

Tom Osborne tweaked but ran the same offense every year once he became the head coach. It was an offense predicated on power running, play action and confusion. People became 'familiar' with it, but he ran his offense successfully until the day he retired. Analysts constantly ridiculed Nebraska for their prehistoric offense, yet it was a dominating force at times, much more dominating than any offense we've had in the last decade at Nebraska.

Clearly, if you know what you're doing and do it right, you'll do well.

Furthermore, Nebraska has never and will never get great athletes as consistently as more traditional power house schools like LSU, Florida, Texas, etc. Option offenses are one of the simplest, most effective offenses to run and does not require great athletes at all the skill positions, which is why it worked so well at Nebraska. We don't get the WR talent here to run overly successful passing games, and the fact that we have ever tried is futile to me.

The point is that people don't just want an option offense, they mainly want an offense that works and works well consistently. The only time this ever happened in the last 5 decades was when we had a power option offense. As soon as we switched to a more balanced offense, we had the worst years in recent Nebraska history. People here know and are comfortable with the option, and more than likely always will feel that the option is the offense we should run here.

If GT craps the bed again this year, will they stay with their option? 6 wins against what amounts to air doesn't make me think that the true option football can be the bread and butter alone.

If they keep the same coach, then yes. GT's head coach is an option man through and through. They won't change the offense while he's there.

 

[da skers]

I thought Oregon was more of a spread type thing.

Oregon runs the spread option. Very similar to what Nebraska was just starting to run in 1997 before Osborne Retired and Solich went more conservative.

Similar to what we ran last year I'd say.

Or where we have been trying to get to recently, at least.

Remember how sick of the read option we got last year? Guys were denouncing it left and right.

Because we ran it 75% of the time and half the time Taylor made the wrong read.

Uhhh.....because he had a bad ankle on one leg and turf toe on the other "might" have had something to do with it?

He was making the wrong reads the whole year, but got away with it because we were playing teams like K-State who were terrible against the run. And Zoogies, our offense last year looked like about 10% of the variety of option plays that Oregon ran, so I don't agree with your statement. I think an offense similar to 97 where we ran a mix of power/spread and ran the option with Wiggins would be successful today, particularly with some of the young speed we've got this year. I am all for running the option(with a little more creativity than Watson had).

Maybe Da Skers or somebody else with more info can provide insight but it's been alleged that Wats would call gives and keeps for TM on the "read" options.

Correct. After the injury the majority of the reads were not really reads but designed plays so Taylor didn't have to react to the defense and make cuts his ankle and toe wouldn't allow. He continually reaggravated his injuries as it was but it probably could have been worse.

 

[da skers]

Every program in the country like us who has tradition and is at or even close to the 800+ ncaa win club has the tradition because of a heritage or a mantra or identity that works. Nebraska has never won a national title throwing passes. We have sucked trying to but never succeeded. Point is regardless of ESPN or anyone else's analysis ....they don't know husker football. They talk out of their rear ends and think they know but don't. See callahan experiment. We recruit well for speed option and power running. Not pro style anything. Pound the rock.

Yes....I remember Jerry Tagge being the nations best option QB back when he won his National Championships in 70 and 71. :sarcasm Horrible passer that guy was in that passing offense we didn't run.

 

[huKSer]

Tom Osborne tweaked but ran the same offense every year once he became the head coach. It was an offense predicated on power running, play action and confusion. People became 'familiar' with it, but he ran his offense successfully until the day he retired. Analysts constantly ridiculed Nebraska for their prehistoric offense, yet it was a dominating force at times, much more dominating than any offense we've had in the last decade at Nebraska.

Nice post overall, but this is wrong. TO ran a very pro-style offense for the first 5 or so years. Humm and Ferragamo played pro quarterback. He changed because at times weather challenged that style and the "Oklahoma problem"

 

[NUance]

I'm in favor of any offense that puts 35 or more points on the board against conf opponents. Option? Fine. West Coast Offense? Okay by me. Pistol? Wildcat? Spread? Good-good-good. As long as they get the job done, and put points on the board.

 

[The Dude]

Because it's virtually impossible to stop when ran properly.

 

[scarletNcream]

First we did win a championship with a well balanced pass and run team 71 (2311 not stellar passing numbers compared to current stats but well balanced). Second, the new offense will run from under center and get Taylor outside the tackles to give him more options. With a trailing back he can pitch or throw. If you watch any of Becks offense in the past, you will see that Reisling looked to an open area around the receiver, not just the route of his receivers. The zone read has its place and you will see it, but not 75% of the time. This will put responsibility on the receivers to get open or come back. IF the O-line is better, as everyone is predicting, this should work well in the BIG. (see Northwestern) Finally, Taylor was a freshmen last year that got hurt. Did he get rattled in some games, certainly. Did he make wrong reads and poor decision, most definitely. All the baggage from last year is gone (certain seniors that questioned his leadership)and it seems that the team is behind him 100%. I for one am looking forward to "Beck Ball" it should be exciting. Oh, one last thing, how many times are you watching any college game and you yell at the TV to roll the quarterback out to give him some options? Speed kills.

 

[hskrfan4life]

All I want to see is us running the ball and getting chunks of yards and in the fourth quarter the other teams defense resting every chance they get.

 

[knapplc]

This is crazy. Do people forget so easily, or did they just not pay attention last year?

Taylor was not just fast, he was very good at making reads in the zone read play, and he was not just good but brilliant at the point of handoff. Houdini-like, I would go so far to say. Look at those exchanges in the first part of the year between Taylor and the running back. Look at how long Taylor held the ball in the running back's gut. The longer the ball stays in the running back's gut, the more difficult it is for the defensive end to make the decision on who to tackle. Taylor mastered the art of holding the ball in there for a ridiculous amount of time and that's one of the major reasons it was so successful, not just because he was so fast.

Regarding the question in the OP, I really don't care what offense we run, or what we call it. If it matches our personnel and we can run it effectively, then let's run that.

I will definitely agree with Got Carl?'s notion that we must be able to effectively pass the ball when a team shuts down the run game. That was a HUGE gripe back in the day.

When comparing this Nebraska team to teams from the past we're often guilty of a Husker-esque form of Godwin's Law, where we make reference to the version of the team that we all most readily remember - the championship teams of the mid-90s. A far better comparison for our current squad would be the Huskers of the late 80s and early 90s, when Osborne was mired in his 0-for-7 slump in bowl games. As great as those teams were - and they were darned good - the fatal flaw was always the over-reliance on the run game. Far too often a team would simply load up the box, and when they were solid up front, they'd be able to shut down our run game.

Over and over and over back then (when people weren't calling for Charlie McBride's head) they were griping about Osborne's ineffective offense and denouncing our lack of a passing game. The mid-90s success, based on that crazy-good series of offensive linemen we had, seems to have largely erased that era from everyone's mind. For certain the younger folks whose first Husker QB they can remember is Tommie Frazier have little incentive to pay attention to those teams, but they are by far the more applicable to who we are today - a team with ability and skill, but full of fatal flaws.

So let's gear up for a run-based offense. Like GBRsal said, "Pound the rock and chew the clock." But BY ALL MEANS we had better have the ability to pass when necessary, because we're never going to have another line like we had in the mid-90s.

 

[papersun87]

This is crazy. Do people forget so easily, or did they just not pay attention last year?

Taylor was not just fast, he was very good at making reads in the zone read play, and he was not just good but brilliant at the point of handoff. Houdini-like, I would go so far to say. Look at those exchanges in the first part of the year between Taylor and the running back. Look at how long Taylor held the ball in the running back's gut. The longer the ball stays in the running back's gut, the more difficult it is for the defensive end to make the decision on who to tackle. Taylor mastered the art of holding the ball in there for a ridiculous amount of time and that's one of the major reasons it was so successful, not just because he was so fast.

I've long been a Snuffy apologist but this^ is what I remember. Once he gets hurt (BOTH legs) he gets so limited because the defense can bank on two things: he's probably gonna hand off, and two, if he doesn't he's slow as molasses due to injury. Not hard to stop at that point.