The One Reason for Concern

[Hunter94]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

*Warning - Going back to the glory days post...*

In the 90's, we had 8-9 guys in the box defending us on most plays, yet it didn't matter. We had the push, the technique and the speed to still get at least a four yard gain. Different offense, a solidified system that had been in place for years, a well tenured offensive mind - yes, we had all of those things and don't now. However, offensive linemen at Nebraska shouldn't have a problem with an FCS team in the run blocking game. Physically, we should outmatch them without question. The only other viable explanation is that our technique is extremely poor on the offensive line, which I have heard thrown around by observers before (most namely Stai).

Throwing the ball more effectively, which has been a point of emphasis ever since Martinez took over, is still a point of emphasis now. And throwing the ball better should help set up the run. However, it's not just that we have a young line. It's that we have a young line that obviously has some technique issues. They should get better with time.

Two years from now this offensive line could be pretty good, even if Cotton is still coaching them.

that's what i thought last year......and the year before that... :facepalm:

 

[robsker]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

We do not have a person who can throw the ball or ... at least as of yet... receivers who can catch the ball? Maybe that is the answer --- we can't pass the ball?

Sarcasm aside, we should have tried more over the top passes... just as you suggest. I think the coaches lack confidence in the passing game and are hoping against hope that we can run the ball effectively. Or perhaps they are as well just determined to work out the kinks on the ground game while we are in glorified practices against teams like last weeks opponent.

 

[Hunter94]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

We do not have a person who can throw the ball or ... at least as of yet... receivers who can catch the ball? Maybe that is the answer --- we can't pass the ball?

Sarcasm aside, we should have tried more over the top passes... just as you suggest. I think the coaches lack confidence in the passing game and are hoping against hope that we can run the ball effectively. Or perhaps they are as well just determined to work out the kinks on the ground game while we are in glorified practices against teams like last weeks opponent.

and we never stretched the field one time with the longball...not once.

 

[Hercules]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

We do not have a person who can throw the ball or ... at least as of yet... receivers who can catch the ball? Maybe that is the answer --- we can't pass the ball?

Sarcasm aside, we should have tried more over the top passes... just as you suggest. I think the coaches lack confidence in the passing game and are hoping against hope that we can run the ball effectively. Or perhaps they are as well just determined to work out the kinks on the ground game while we are in glorified practices against teams like last weeks opponent.

and we never stretched the field one time with the longball...not once.

You'd think after overreacting to the season opener year after year after year, people would learn their lesson.

It was Tennessee-Chatanooga. Pretty sure they didn't reveal much of the playbook, vertical passing game included.

 

[Foppa]

Reading these threads, everyone's going back and forth about the offense, play calling, execution, etc. All that is fine and good for debate, but I think we can all agree on one thing: 2011 Nebraska needs to be able to run the ball.

Whether you think the offense will be top 10 this year, or you think they'll have to play to not lose, it's obvious they will need to lean on the run. To run the ball, you need an offensive line. Forget about scheme, execution, etc. Against an FCS team, a top 10 BCS school should be able to just physically push guys aside. Period. Forget about stacking the box for a minute and rewatch the game. More than once the Mocs d-linemen were getting off blocks and disrupting plays, that had nothing to do with stacking the box. Just ask UTC's head coach:

When we came in, we didn't know if we could get off of blocks," Huesman said. "Could we even stop the power play? Can we defend the belly option? And we did. For the most part, I thought we defended a lot of plays pretty well.

I have no doubt they will get better with experience and solidify the line a little bit. But if you're not a little concerned by that comment coming from a middle of the pack FCS team's coach, you're glasses are pretty rosey.

A good coach who is completely outmanned will try to expose any weakness he can find. He found it. Huesman took the chance that Martinez couldn't beat them through the air, and he was right. Beck may have changed the playbook, but the o-line blocking scheme by a terrible o-line coach won't allow any changes. In case you forgot, the option requires guess what...LINE BLOCKING. That was pretty much non-existent on Saturday. Martinez, for all everyone hopes for, isn't a passing QB, and even if he was, he barely had time to do anything. Just like last year. And this was against a pretty terrible defensive line. Uh oh.

 

[Foppa]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

We do not have a person who can throw the ball or ... at least as of yet... receivers who can catch the ball? Maybe that is the answer --- we can't pass the ball?

Sarcasm aside, we should have tried more over the top passes... just as you suggest. I think the coaches lack confidence in the passing game and are hoping against hope that we can run the ball effectively. Or perhaps they are as well just determined to work out the kinks on the ground game while we are in glorified practices against teams like last weeks opponent.

and we never stretched the field one time with the longball...not once.

You'd think after overreacting to the season opener year after year after year, people would learn their lesson.

It was Tennessee-Chatanooga. Pretty sure they didn't reveal much of the playbook, vertical passing game included.

So what you're saying is..Nebraska is expected to rely on 3 plays, look terrible because they can't stop a bad defense who knows what they're going to do, all while they're playing a bad team? All I know is...it doesn't matter what your playbook looks like. If your line can't block, you're not going to perform well.

 

[bshirt]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

*Warning - Going back to the glory days post...*

In the 90's, we had 8-9 guys in the box defending us on most plays, yet it didn't matter. We had the push, the technique and the speed to still get at least a four yard gain. Different offense, a solidified system that had been in place for years, a well tenured offensive mind - yes, we had all of those things and don't now. However, offensive linemen at Nebraska shouldn't have a problem with an FCS team in the run blocking game. Physically, we should outmatch them without question. The only other viable explanation is that our technique is extremely poor on the offensive line, which I have heard thrown around by observers before (most namely Stai).

Throwing the ball more effectively, which has been a point of emphasis ever since Martinez took over, is still a point of emphasis now. And throwing the ball better should help set up the run. However, it's not just that we have a young line. It's that we have a young line that obviously has some technique issues. They should get better with time.

Two years from now this offensive line could be pretty good, even if Cotton is still coaching them.

Not only that, but as TO himself stated several times, that's when we got most of our big plays. Break through a stacked box and you're.......gone.

 

[Enhance]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

*Warning - Going back to the glory days post...*

In the 90's, we had 8-9 guys in the box defending us on most plays, yet it didn't matter. We had the push, the technique and the speed to still get at least a four yard gain. Different offense, a solidified system that had been in place for years, a well tenured offensive mind - yes, we had all of those things and don't now. However, offensive linemen at Nebraska shouldn't have a problem with an FCS team in the run blocking game. Physically, we should outmatch them without question. The only other viable explanation is that our technique is extremely poor on the offensive line, which I have heard thrown around by observers before (most namely Stai).

Throwing the ball more effectively, which has been a point of emphasis ever since Martinez took over, is still a point of emphasis now. And throwing the ball better should help set up the run. However, it's not just that we have a young line. It's that we have a young line that obviously has some technique issues. They should get better with time.

Two years from now this offensive line could be pretty good, even if Cotton is still coaching them.

This is a case of some selective memory. There were only a few seasons when NU could run effectively against 8-9 guys in the box - and those were some of the best offensive lines of all time. Remember 1990-1992 when we couldn't run against most good defenses? And couldn't run against anyone with 8-9 guys in the box? TO countered this with play-action to WR's and TE's and occasional screen passes.

Someone mentioned earlier that we didn't really try passing over the top. And that's because we didn't need to - we won by 33 points. I suspect Fresno St. will try 8-9 guys in the box next week, and we'll get to see what Beck counters that with. Let's see a sample size of more than 1 game before deciding what this offense is capable of.

Yet we still won games with better than average rushing performances. We still did well enough to only lose a couple of games.

Forget those "selective" years, then. Nebraska was still able to put together pretty good offensive lines throughout Devaney's and Osborne's time. When was the last time we can say we had a close to great or even semi-good offensive line here. Since Cotton has been coach here, which has been four years, we have not had one offensive line I would rate 8/10 or higher. We've floated around the 5/10 to 7/10 range for a long time now, and depth really shouldn't be an excuse. We have the bodies, they come and go. Line stays the same.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

The answer to this is a lot more simple then anyone really wants to admit. It isn't an ankle injury.

 

[RedDenver]

Yet we still won games with better than average rushing performances. We still did well enough to only lose a couple of games.

Forget those "selective" years, then. Nebraska was still able to put together pretty good offensive lines throughout Devaney's and Osborne's time. When was the last time we can say we had a close to great or even semi-good offensive line here. Since Cotton has been coach here, which has been four years, we have not had one offensive line I would rate 8/10 or higher. We've floated around the 5/10 to 7/10 range for a long time now, and depth really shouldn't be an excuse. We have the bodies, they come and go. Line stays the same.

You're basing all this on one game so far this season. My point is that in the only game we've seen so far, the opponent put 8-9 guys in the box and completely sold out to stop the run. I doubt many teams could have run straight at that defense, regardless of OL prowess.

We used our speed to the corner using the option to try and exploit the opponent and that led to 40 points. There are many other ways we could have attempted to exploit the opponent, but with the game under control, Beck decided not to try anything else. Would some vertical passing have resulted similar to the OSU game last season? Or maybe it would have backed the safeties off and opened up the running game. No way to tell.

Having said all that, the OL may very well suck this season, but I think it's far too early to draw that conclusion. I'd like to see what we do against Fresno St., at the very least, before starting to draw conclusions. I'd be saying the same thing if we'd run for 500 yards against UTC.

 

[Enhance]

You're basing all this on one game so far this season. My point is that in the only game we've seen so far, the opponent put 8-9 guys in the box and completely sold out to stop the run. I doubt many teams could have run straight at that defense, regardless of OL prowess.

No, I'm not. The part you quoted clearly mentions the last four years under Cotton and our lack of offensive line 'prowess'. I understand your point as I also noticed that they were selling out against the run. That doesn't change my observation about our offensive lines in general over the last few years.

We used our speed to the corner using the option to try and exploit the opponent and that led to 40 points. There are many other ways we could have attempted to exploit the opponent, but with the game under control, Beck decided not to try anything else. Would some vertical passing have resulted similar to the OSU game last season? Or maybe it would have backed the safeties off and opened up the running game. No way to tell.

You are exactly right - there is no way to tell what would have happened if one play went this way instead of that way, one pass got caught instead of dropped, etc. But, this works both ways as I mentioned in another thread - if one play is different, the next play could have been a catastrophe.

Having said all that, the OL may very well suck this season, but I think it's far too early to draw that conclusion. I'd like to see what we do against Fresno St., at the very least, before starting to draw conclusions. I'd be saying the same thing if we'd run for 500 yards against UTC.

I haven't said the offensive line sucks. My observation is simply that we haven't put together an offensive line that I would rate very highly over the last four years. I'm no offensive expert, but I can tell the difference between lines that are usually pretty good (Alabama) and lines that aren't. That's why I'm keeping it all in perspective. There's tons of room for improvement, and I wouldn't be getting too excited even if we'd blown out UTC 70-0.

Sam Mckewon even mentioned it in the end of an article, how criticism was likely to ramp up again towards Cotton. I'm not going to draw a full conclusion yet on the offensive line. However, I think my game one observation still holds relevance - we played poorly against an o-line we should have dominated. We just have to get better and I'll leave it at that.

 

[bshirt]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

*Warning - Going back to the glory days post...*

In the 90's, we had 8-9 guys in the box defending us on most plays, yet it didn't matter. We had the push, the technique and the speed to still get at least a four yard gain. Different offense, a solidified system that had been in place for years, a well tenured offensive mind - yes, we had all of those things and don't now. However, offensive linemen at Nebraska shouldn't have a problem with an FCS team in the run blocking game. Physically, we should outmatch them without question. The only other viable explanation is that our technique is extremely poor on the offensive line, which I have heard thrown around by observers before (most namely Stai).

Throwing the ball more effectively, which has been a point of emphasis ever since Martinez took over, is still a point of emphasis now. And throwing the ball better should help set up the run. However, it's not just that we have a young line. It's that we have a young line that obviously has some technique issues. They should get better with time.

Two years from now this offensive line could be pretty good, even if Cotton is still coaching them.

This is a case of some selective memory. There were only a few seasons when NU could run effectively against 8-9 guys in the box - and those were some of the best offensive lines of all time. Remember 1990-1992 when we couldn't run against most good defenses? And couldn't run against anyone with 8-9 guys in the box? TO countered this with play-action to WR's and TE's and occasional screen passes.

Someone mentioned earlier that we didn't really try passing over the top. And that's because we didn't need to - we won by 33 points. I suspect Fresno St. will try 8-9 guys in the box next week, and we'll get to see what Beck counters that with. Let's see a sample size of more than 1 game before deciding what this offense is capable of.

Yet we still won games with better than average rushing performances. We still did well enough to only lose a couple of games.

Forget those "selective" years, then. Nebraska was still able to put together pretty good offensive lines throughout Devaney's and Osborne's time. When was the last time we can say we had a close to great or even semi-good offensive line here. Since Cotton has been coach here, which has been four years, we have not had one offensive line I would rate 8/10 or higher. We've floated around the 5/10 to 7/10 range for a long time now, and depth really shouldn't be an excuse. We have the bodies, they come and go. Line stays the same.

Can't buy that my friend. We're talking "two" Olinemen from 2007 & 2008. That's why we have freshmen & sophs everywhere on the Oline depth chart.

 

[shyndy]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

We do not have a person who can throw the ball or ... at least as of yet... receivers who can catch the ball? Maybe that is the answer --- we can't pass the ball?

Sarcasm aside, we should have tried more over the top passes... just as you suggest. I think the coaches lack confidence in the passing game and are hoping against hope that we can run the ball effectively. Or perhaps they are as well just determined to work out the kinks on the ground game while we are in glorified practices against teams like last weeks opponent.

and we never stretched the field one time with the longball...not once.

i distinctly remember going deep to kinnie once and drawing a dpi

 

[Saunders]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

The answer to this is a lot more simple then anyone really wants to admit. It isn't an ankle injury.

The please tell us plebes oh enlightened one...

 

[Saunders]

They had 8 and 9 men in the box consistantly.

I question why we didnt pass over the top of their pressure more.

We do not have a person who can throw the ball or ... at least as of yet... receivers who can catch the ball? Maybe that is the answer --- we can't pass the ball?

6 of the 11 incomplete passes touched receivers hands. There's your answer.