Florida Husker Watcher

When I was young, I was an avid golfer. Not a good golfer, but an avid one. If I played 18 holes in the 90's, I felt pretty good. So... yeah... not good. When I was about 17, I made a strange decision. I stopped playing 18, stopped going to the practice green, stopped playing with my driver at the driving range - stopped it all, but one thing. I went to the driving range every day and just played a 7-iron. Over and over and over. Don't know why I did that. But here's what happened: I continued to suck for several weeks. And then one day, BAM! Long, high, arching perfect 7-iron shots over and over. Every time. 175 yards, beautiful trajectory, backspin, the whole works. Every time. It happened over night. (And it bled over to my other irons, and I became a good golfer almost over night. But that's not the point.) My point? It didn't really happen over night. What I witnessed was the completion of a long journey from 5 critical flaws in my swing, to 4 critical flaws in my swing, to 3 critical flaws, and so on. Until there were no such critical flaws. And then BAM! You know what it looked like when I reduced my critical flaw count from 5 to 4? Nothing. I still sucked. Know what it looked like when i went from 4 to 3? Same thing: I sucked. It's only when I got to 0 critical flaws that the magic happened. That's what Nebraska is going through now. It's getting better, but it won't show up in wins and losses just quite yet. There are a few other things that I could say that relate to exactly why the turnaround is taking longer than other turnarounds. If anyone is curious, I'm happy to share. But I'll leave it here for now.

Let me pose a question: what if the Huskers had a QB like Tanner Morgan? A guy with slightly below average athleticism, a little too short to ideally inhabit the QB position, and slightly less than ideal arm strength. But accurate, catchable, capable in the pocket, and with the intellectual capabilities to grasp and master the offense? Give him a pocket, and he distributes to the playmakers. Let me observe that the Huskers have more playmakers on the field than anyone in the West. Let me observe that the Huskers recruit better than anyone in the West. If the Huskers had Tanner Morgan, they would win the West. But they don't. And it is the result of a philosophical choice. Frost is seeking a dual-threat QB who can create offense with his legs. He doesn't need to do that. Just go get a Tanner Morgan who can reliably get the ball to your playmakers. There are many of those types of QB's, and the Huskers can easily land one. But there are between 0-2 TRUE dual-threat QB's in the nation, and the Huskers are unlikely to land one. Do you know why the Huskers lost? Because the MN defense prioritized creating no escape routes for Martinez over actually getting to Martinez. Keep him in the pocket; don't let him run; make him actually have to pass the ball to receivers. So he gets -17 yards rushing, and the Huskers lose. Because he really can't pass all that well. Because Frost keeps aiming at dual-threat QB's. Go get a Tanner Morgan and you will win the West. But that requires a philosophical change. If Frost can make that change in his own head, then the Huskers will win. If he cannot make that change in philosophy, then the Huskers will continue to lose. It's that simple. BTW, the Huskers look much improved. The problem is that there exists a simple "formula" for beating the Huskers as they are currently constituted.

If being a good coach means evaluating talent (and getting it right much of the time - no one is 100%), having the admiration of your players, having the personal charisma to get "buy in," having a broad stable of assistant coach candidates you can call upon, having a loyal set of assistants you can immediately plug in, and having a clear vision of what sort of system you want to run... then it may be the case that Frost is a good coach. Frost is failing because he wants to run a system predicted upon a dual-threat QB. If the question is: is it the case that a system predicated on a dual-threat QB is effective? The answer is: yes. The trouble is that smuggled into that question is a second one: can you actually land a dual-threat QB? Or can you only land a running back who can throw the ball a little? There are between 0 and 2 true dual-threat QB's throughout the nation on any given year. That is why this is a terrible plan. Frost can't get the piece he needs. If he could, he'd succeed. And to make matters worse, he can't reverse course over night. The entire offense is built around the concept that he'll have a dual-threat QB. So if he does the right thing and reverses course, you need to give him about 3 more years to finish the project of building a different kind of offense. But, then again, you'd need to give the next guy that.

If Frost was able to build the particular machine he wanted to, then this would be correct. But the machine can't be reliably built. Frost wants to build a machine predicated on a dual-threat QB. Why? Because no defensive scheme adequately accounts for a QB as a runner and a passer. So by scheme alone, the defense will always give one of those options away. So it's a great concept. Except that there are only between 0 and 2 true dual-threat QB's nationally in any given year. So to turn the concept into a reality, Frost needs to locate and secure a particular "piece" of the machine that is ridiculously scarce. On top of that, the staff goes out and gets receivers that are supposed to work in that kind of system. Wan'Dale was an example. Explosiveness is valued over fluidity. YAC is valued over precise route-running. And so on. So what happens when you end up with a running back who can throw a little? Well, you end up with a guy who is an iffy passer trying to pass to receivers that aren't where they should be, when they should be - because that wasn't valued. So the machine you ended up building in reality malfunctions. STOP TRYING TO BUILD AN OFFENSIVE MACHINE PREDICATED ON A DUAL-THREAT QB. It is that simple. It is a terrible idea because you can't get one reliably. So you will just keep losing. And losing. And losing. STOP, I BEG YOU! Frost needs to stop trying to re-live the McKenzie Milton miracle. Period. But, yes, Farms, if you could actually build the machine that Frost wanted to build - rather than be forever limited at holding it in your mind as a philosophical concept - then everyone would have to adapt to Nebraska.

Not sure which particular part you disagree with. But I'm sure there's plenty of material that's worthy of disagreement. My main point is that your every decision has been based on the presupposition that you will have a dual-threat QB. When, in fact, almost no such QB's exist. And those that do largely go to Alabama, Ohio State and Clemson. Frost is trying to repeat the Milton McKenzie miracle. But that cannot reliably work. So you fail again and again. Permit me to be more specific. You assume you'll have a dual-threat QB to fuel explosion. So you recruit "explosive" WR's who can't run precise routes, but can freelance and produce YAC. But you don't have a true dual-threat QB. You have a running back who can throw a little bit (Martinez, McCaffrey). ...So, now you have a QB that cannot throw the ball reliably paired with receivers that are not precisely where they should be precisely when they should be there - and who cannot "set up" cornerbacks with exacting route mechanics. With regard to the WR's, that's not their fault. They were supposed to be free-lancing explosive types who leveraged preoccupation of the entire defense (secondary included) on the QB. But that didn't happen. Because you ended up with a running back for a QB. Now the whole thing doesn't work. And this will repeat itself again and again. Why? Because there are between 0 and 2 true dual-threat QBs throughout the nation every year. And you're unlikely to end up with one of them. SO STOP PREDICATING YOUR ENTIRE FUTURE ON LANDING ONE. You don't need one to succeed. It's not the only path - it's just the only path you are pursuing.

I said this on another thread that appears to have been deleted: The problem with the offense is that you have predicated it on location of a "piece" that is nearly impossible to find: a true dual-threat QB. That is what Martinez was supposed to be, and that is what McCaffrey was supposed to be. But neither are. They are running backs that can throw the ball a little bit. True dual-threat QB's exist at a rate of about 0-2 per year nationally. So predicating your offensive strategy on having the services of one is unwise. That is why you lose and lose and lose. It is a bad plan. You CAN win. First seek to possess the ball, play strong D, and prioritize mistake-free disciplined football. Then add at least two #1 NFL-caliber WR's, plus a game manager QB. Then you will compete for a title. Stop with the dual-threat nonsense. You will only lose again and again. You are trying to build a machine that requires a "piece" that is simply too rare to locate. Enough!

Let's just focus on the "variety of machine" aspect for a moment. And let's take Wisconsin as an object lesson. If you pointed out to Alvarez that Wisconsin aims to build a type of football team that, by virtue of how it is constructed, will win 9 or 10 games each year, but cannot win them all, he'd privately tell you: "no sh!t?" He knows they are not trying to win every game. They are trying to win 9 or 10 games. And here's why: the risk in trying to build a machine that is capable of winning all your games is that you win very few games. If you are willing to build a machine that by virtue of its construction cannot win certain games, then you will win much more often than you lose. But you will lose - reliably and by design - those particular games that require your team to operate outside of the operating capabilities of the machine you built. Let me be less abstract. Will Wisconsin recruit 2 true #1 NFL-caliber receivers? No. Not as the result of failure, but by design. They value receivers that block for the run game. Period. And #1 type receivers won't go to Wisconsin. But Wisconsin doesn't care - they know what sort of machine they are building. You guys have an opportunity to build a species of machine that, by design, is better than Wisconsin's. But you're not going about it the correct way. To be clear: the machine you are trying to build would, in fact, be superior to Wisconsin's. The problem is that the machine cannot be built on anything like a year-in, year-out basis. But there is a type of machine that you could build on a nearly annual basis that would top Wisconsin's. You should build that machine, instead of hunting for Milton McKenzie.

Bright spot: I got drunk. Very, very drunk.

This is one of my basic points. You can recruit well enough to win 10-ish games most years. And to compete on a national level for all the marbles at least once a decade. But you are trying to build the wrong sort of machine. -There's what variety of machine you are attempting to build. -Then there's how you operate the machine you have, in fact, built. -And then there's how you maintain the machine you've built. You guys are failing on the first point.

Your "system" is attempting to find Milton McKenzie - in vain - every year. That's your system. And you need to cut it the hell out. Because - even you should succeed one particular year - you'll go two decades trying to locate that rare piece again. Stop. It. For the love of God, just stop. If Frost can't be convinced to build a foundation that values controlling the ball, defense and discipline, then replace him with someone who will do those things. Then use your reputation, state-wide support and facilities to acquire a competent game-manager QB and 2+ true #1 NFL-caliber receivers. That's it. That's your formula. Do that, and you're competing with Ohio State and Wisconsin.

True. But: (1) Luke is another example of an attempt at acquiring a true dual-threat QB. He is a running back who can throw a little bit. Stop trying to generate explosiveness through the QB position! It is a formula for losing because you cannot reliably locate a true dual-threat QB on anything remotely resembling a regular basis. (2) If you tried to predicate explosiveness on acquiring 2+ true #1 NFL-caliber receivers, plus a game manager type of QB, you'd have an option to swap out Martinez for. You guys could actually locate those pieces and build that machine. Again, for my money, I'd start by building a machine that possessed the ball, eliminated mistakes, and played great defense. Then I'd aim to add the explosiveness to the team using the WR position accompanied by a game-manager QB.

New poster here. For the record, I watch the Huskers and wish the team well but I'm not a fan in the sense that you all are. My primary allegiance is with another team. With that said, my objective observations: (1) Adrian Martinez should not be starting. That should have been apparent by 2019. I think the fact that he remains as your starter is probably the result of: (i) Frost's loyalty to Martinez, maybe coming from his psychology as a former QB; and (ii) Frost's preference for an offensive strategy predicated on a dual-threat QB. The trouble with attempting to build an offense strategy around a dual-threat QB is that in most years there are between 0 and 2 true dual-threat QBs in the entire nation. And Martinez isn't one of them. He's a running back who can throw a bit - and as running backs go, he's not all that fast. Every team since 2019 just loads the box, sells out for the run, and dares Martinez to beat them through the air. (2) Because Martinez can't throw, and because of the offensive philosophy - it is predicated around explosion fueled by a dual-threat QB - the Huskers are not playing complimentary football. The time of possession? 25 minutes for the Huskers. And that figure is inflated in reality because Illinois traded yards for time on that last TD possession. Want yards and a TD? Fine - we'll give it to you. Just so long as you take 7 minutes doing it. This is a shame because the defense looks like it could actually hold up their end of the "bargain." (3) Instead of trying to predicate offensive explosiveness on a QB, you'd be better off to predicate it on getting 2 or more true #1 NFL-caliber receivers paired with a capable game-manager sort of QB. The reason I say this is because you will be able to find those "parts" to build the machine - on aggregate, you recruit well. But you are trying to build a particular species of machine that requires one part that is so rare that you are unlikely to locate it if you are not Ohio State/Alabama/Clemson. Explosiveness can be constructed other ways. (4) For my money, I'd first work on building a machine that possessed the ball, limited mistakes, and played great D. Build that culture first. Sure - that'll top out at 8-9 wins. But understand that when you are doing that you are just building the platform to add explosiveness to. When you add the explosiveness, you'll be back to competing at a national level. You have the facilities and recruiting to accomplish this. Big picture: A successful Nebraska would be good for the Big Ten. Right now, Nebraska is perceived as a failed experiment in compromise. The Big Ten compromised academically in terms of letting Nebraska join - but it was supposed to get a football power to add to the West. Instead it got its only non-AAU member school and a losing football team. If Nebraska were to succeed on the football field, the conference might consider permitting other non-AAU members to join. Right now, that's a non-starter because the conference feels it didn't get what it bargained for.