Guy Chamberlin

We obviously look through things with a Nebraska lens, but Westerkamp really has broken out into the national football consciousness. ESPN loves him. He's the closest thing college football has to Odell Beckham, Jr.

Like the guy who coached Eli Manning?

I would have supported and rooted for Turner Gill as head coach when the opportunity first presented itself. No AD would have been criticized for giving the job to Turner Gill. It would have been the safest fan-friendly decision. But it may not have been the right choice. There's something a bit funky going on with Scott Frost's relationship with the University of Nebraska. I wouldn't bet on his return, but if the situation is right I'd still welcome it.

Zac runs a WCO and played for Cally. That automatically discredits him from a large portion of the fan base. Those same folks would absolutely freak out if they saw the Chip Kelly/Scott Frost offense run with less skilled players.

That's some pretty fair and savvy analysis, Brandon Cavanaugh. I'm on the side that says a Tommy Armstrong who makes half the bad decisions and completes 5% more passes makes all the difference in the world. But I really wanted to see that this year. His third year as a starter. Instead Tommy looked determined to prove his doubters wrong by sticking with his bad footwork and over-dramatic choices. I love that he's such a dangerous offensive weapon, but not so much that he's dangerous to both teams. There are a lot of ways for a quarterback to beat the other team with his legs. Big lumbering quarterbacks like Ben Rothleisberger and Brett Favre have pocket smarts, and know how taking a few small steps can buy the crucial extra second to complete a pass. There are a lot more quarterbacks these days willing to take off running when a play breaks down and the yards are there for the taking. They don't have to be called dual threats to hurt you with their legs. The ranks of Regional Sales Managers are filled with high school phenoms who couldn't make the transition of big time college football, so it's ridiculous to hand it to Patrick O'Brien now, replacing the guy who's poised to become the Career Total Offense leader at the University of Nebraska. But Tommy Armstrong's recent social media posts suggest he's worried about the starting job. Good. Because he needs to get better. I have no reason to assume POB will get the job, but I'm wide open to him replacing Tommy if he brings the goods.

On a sidenote, do you know what it usually means when someone resorts to personal attacks like you do? That they're tired of condescending, one-note posters passing their bullsh#t off as knowledge? Nope, it means they've lost the argument. Are you calling me a loser? Pretty sure that's a TOS violation. Anyway, I have five posts on this page of this thread. I suspected they would be a complete waste of time but tried to compose them for maximum comprehension. So please: point to something in my posts that isn't true. And if you or CM or my old pal TheSker isn't too busy, feel free to answer any of the incredibly relevant questions you've been choosing to avoid.

On a sidenote, do you know what it usually means when someone resorts to personal attacks like you do? That they're tired of condescending, one-note posters passing their bullsh#t off as knowledge?

Nobody runs the WCO anymore. At the same time, everybody runs the WCO. After 35 years, coaches have picked up the WCO elements they like and bring in their own pieces, as coaches have done forever. For some reason they don't get obsessed with naming it. If you see teams that swap a few safe running plays for high percentage short and mid-range passing plays that spread the field, you're watching WCO principals at work. It revolutionized football to the point where it's taken for granted. I can't name the specific philosophy of what Riley and Langs are trying to do from one play to the next, but again, they are among the Top 3 in the Big 10 in Total Offense, Scoring Offense, Third Down Conversion and Time of Possession, so your premise that it's merely random and clueless only plays to your dislike of Nebraska's coaching hire. Are you suggesting that the WCO is a "pick a play out of the bag" system? Jesus, you don't know football. As I recall, your premise is that the WCO is dying, which is why Nebraska needs to run an offense more like Navy's. For some reason you don't delve into the dying popularity of run-first offenses, which is far more traceable than the history of the WCO, an offense you clearly don't understand. And the original post tries to connect a single interception of Matt Ryan's to the difficulty elite pros, much less college players have, making basic reads in these scary and complicated passing schemes. You're really off the rails at this point. There are four elite teams left in this college football season. You wouldn't call any of them pass-happy, and god-forbid you'd credit the WCO influence, but Clemson averaged 34 pass attempts a game, Oklahoma averaged 33 pass attempts a game, and MSU and Alabama both averaged 30 pass attempts a game. These are teams that can pass and run and bring multiple weapons to both approaches, and who knows what play Saban or Swinney will pull out of his bag? The name of their offensive philosophy is Winning. They are run by college quarterbacks who make basic reads and have since they were playing Pop Warner, because the forward pass is not the enemy of football. The good quarterbacks also throw fewer interceptions than our quarterback, and enjoy defenses that hold the opponent to less than 28 points a game.

Bill Callahan and his staff showed they could recruit here so I think the whole idea that we're at a disadvantage is something that is overstated quite a bit. IMO our disadvantage is not based on geography alone but because Nebraska is not the household name it used to be. Riley is onto something perhaps by sticking with his 500 mile radius recruiting territory. I agree Nebraska has to get blue collared athletes who bring their lunch pail every day. They can do this by grabbing the best players in the Midwest year in and year out and pluck a few players who fly under the radar like Abdullah did. Roy Helu is a better example (one of my favorite Huskers) He wasn't heavily recruited and was a 2-star athlete coming out of HS but Nebraska offered and the kid worked his tail off to earn the job. We need guys who will bust their rear ends to get playing time. Competition and challenges improves the entire roster. Oh I think we can get good players here, and I think the Husker legacy still has some lingering pull (even if it's with the player's dad) but there's going to be a tendency for today's marquee recruits to go to today's marquee programs and/or the closer, possibly warmer university, especially all the sun belt recruits. Some will be superstars but a lot of the 4 and 5 stars will be busts. Especially the natural athletes for whom everything came easy, who don't make the psychological adjustment when things don't go their way. Maybe for the first time in their lives. There's a world of hard working, under the radar guys out there (Helu another great example, pulled from San Francisco City College) but you gotta have a network of high school coaches and scouts tipping you off. The advantage of our famously run-oriented offense was that we made offensive linemen stars and gave dual threat high school QBs the chance to stay at quarterback when other schools wanted to convert them to DB, RB and WR. But the dual threat QB isn't a novelty anymore, and they really need to hold up the passing end of the threat these days. But I think if you make a conscious effort to recruit the biggest, smartest, baddest ass offensive linemen in the country -- treat THEM like superstars -- then every QB and RB will want to line up behind them.

Good Lord, man. I already said your comment was among the stupidest ever posted. Why are you doubling down? Which part is stupider, the assumption that professional quarterbacks don't successfully complete most of their basic reads, and that Matt Ryan's recent interception is indicative of anything? That college and high school quarterbacks can't complete basic reads, despite sh#tloads of evidence to the contrary? That this particular interception thrown by this particular QB came on a uniquely "WCO" play? Or that the same logic would suggest a running back who fumbles is evidence that the running game is too risky to pull off? I'm going to vote for your apparent belief that any forward pass is evidence of a West Coast Offense.

Best is good!

I do find it amusing when people attack me on the issue of me not understanding the offenses. There are plenty of examples, but statements like the one below make hard to believe you understand the game of football at all. I think the WCO has more upside when it can be run properly. I think limitations at the college level prevent that. Why do you think most dynamic offenses at the college level have moved away from WCO principles? The best teams in college football have both good offenses and good defenses. Those good offenses run the ball well and pass the ball well, and don't have to rely on a single facet or "one thing they do well" when the opposing defense makes adjustments. These good offenses will run more if you let them. With less parity in college, a dominant offensive line lets you run the ball more than in the NFL. Against better defenses, a good college offense will pass a bit more. But they will lower the risk of the passing game with a high percentage short game that spreads the field with RB screens, sideline curls, and quick crossing patterns to the tight end. Every now and then they test the tightening defense with a deep throw. If they get a defense on its heels in the fourth quarter, the between the tackles running game can bust open, too. 40 years ago, a good college quarterback completed 50% of his passes and lived with a 50/50 TD/INT ratio. Today good college quarterbacks regularly complete 65% of their passes and interceptions are way down. It's the same pattern throughout the NFL. And high school football, too. High percentage, ball control offense. What's not to love? That IS the legacy of WCO principles. It's very much alive. Even with teams that run the ball. You just have to understand the game of football. If you see a team indiscriminately flinging deep passes, they aren't playing WCO. Saying Matt Ryan threw an interception thus proving that passing is scary is among the stupidest things ever written on this board.

It's unavoidably clear that years of playing football is shaving years off the lives of former players, and a lot of those final years are marked with dementia and depression. The problem was blown UNDER proportion for years. It's at a more accurate proportion now. Some of the most badass football players the game has ever seen are among the most concerned. 20 years ago, long before the concussion issues or much publicity at all, I saw a small newspaper article that mentioned the average lifespan of an NFL lineman was 15 years below the national average. But I agree: you can't have UFC and MMA on the rise while you try to tear football down.

I saw a few running plays I really liked, and most of them had Janovich's name attached. Glad he got some carries his Senior year. Wish I could have seen more.

I do find it amusing when people attack me on the issue of me not understanding the offenses. There are plenty of examples, but statements like the one below make hard to believe you understand the game of football at all.

I guess we'll just have to watch the next few seasons of Husker football and see how it turns out.

When Mike Ditka says he wouldn't let his son play football, knowing what he knows, we may have turned a corner. Unless Mike Ditka's just a big pu&&y. But as long as Ed Cunningham is drawing a paycheck, he's walking a hypocritical line. And Christian McCaffrey definitely deserves the Heisman.

Nobody worked harder to make himself better than Ameer Abdullah. He took absolutely nothing for granted. He was told he was too small to play running back in D1 (much less the NFL) so he abandoned his dream of playing in his home state of Alabama when Nebraska gave him the chance to prove himself at RB. I do think Nebraska is at a recruiting disadvantage, so we need to be grabbing these diamond in the rough guys and creating a culture where a player willing to work his ass off can be a hero to an entire state, and hear 90,000 fans cheering for him. You don't get that everywhere. So that should be our thing.

The point. Try your best to catch it as it flies over My post. Read it again. If I'm going to go to the trouble of playfully insulting you, the least you can do is pick up on it.

I never accused Beck of being too pass happy. With Beck, I could at least discern what he was trying to accomplish and how he used certain plays to set up other plays. You may have been busy getting kicked off another Husker bulletin board, but around here the complaints about the offense have been nearly identical since the day Shawn Watson arrived. With Riley and Langs, I defy anyone to make a cogent argument for what they try to establish with their "pick a play out of the bag" approach. What are they doing to stress a D? Technically, they were averaging 450 yards and 33 points a game, near the top of the Big 10. There was nary a college football analyst who didn't declare Nebraska's offense dangerous, with Tommy Armstrong being capable of making both sides stress. A cogent argument can also be made that the Husker defense continues to be a bigger problem than the offense, but I'm pretty sure you'll hate it. Newby's early stats were as good or better than Ameer's corresponding year. That's not meaningless During any of Newby's first two seasons did you say "Damn! I can't wait to see that guy get more carries!"? Newby had physical talent, but I don't think it's being developed or utilized. As I said earlier, to listen to Keith Jones' recent interviews. He talks about how he had to learn to play between the tackles. Solich taught him those skills, similar to how Brown taught our string of great backs those skills. Coaching matters. And most coaches would do much better with Keith Jones in the backfield. As it was, this staff coaxed 5.3 yards a carry out of a frequently injured Newby, mostly between the tackles as this very thread points out. As for Jano, I seem to remember Bo speaking highly of him. If the FB had been a prominent part of our offense, I'm sure he would have played more. I wouldn't have been surprised to see him as a h back if the precious staff had been retained. Not sure why your statement is relevant though. I had to read that sentence several times. Still doesn't make sense. Apparently Bo and his coaches would have done more with Janovich this year than they would have the previous three years, when they were actually in charge of the team. Actually, the statement wasn't supposed to be relevant, just a playful poke at the equally irrelevant speculation about coaches squandering talent. But your response is priceless.

Sure, Osborne teams did not fight back as well as Riley teams. But why do you have to bash Tom Osborne? Especially this close to Christmas?

Tim Beck ran a 60/40 run/pass split and helped Ameer Abdullah become the second most prolific running back in Nebraska history. He was accused of being too pass happy. Now that we want to get back to that run-happier time, apparently we're giving all the credit to Ron Brown. Marlon Lucky wasn't a great running back. He was a pretty decent receiver out of the backfield. To that end, he was probably lucky to be in Callahan's system. He would never have sniffed starting under Osborne or Solich. Terrell Newby isn't a great running back, either. He wasn't great under Ron Brown. He's not great now. He's good and I hope he gets better. But you have to be addicted to your agenda to believe the new coaching staff kept Terrell Newby from blossoming into the great back he'd be on any other team. By the way, why did Ron Brown hate Andy Janovich so much that he never let this talented, potential NFL player see the field at Nebraska?

Point to one game where TO had to score 29 points to pull within 10. Hell, point to one where he scored 15 points just to get within 10. Or ever lost to a team as bad as Purdue. As you probably know, Osborne had big humiliating losses to Oklahoma. Some of those scores: 27-0 35-10 38-7 27-7 45-10 Some of those Oklahoma teams were pretty legendary. But Nebraska came into some of those games ranked higher. The 45 - 10 loss came to an unranked Oklahoma in 1990. In one of those games, the Nebraska offense never hiked the ball in Oklahoma territory. Osborne lost to Miami 23-3 and 22-0, Georgia Tech 45-21, FSU 41-17 and 41-28 to UCLA in a game where Nebraska came out totally flat and fell behind 28-0 in the first quarter. An Osborne team stacked with past and future National Championship talent got shut out by Arizona State 19-0 in 1996. Those were losses to pretty good teams. But they sure felt like blowouts at the time. Did Osborne lose to a team as bad as Purdue? Unranked Syracuse in '84, unranked Colorado in '86 and unranked Iowa State in '92 come close, and those Husker teams were loaded with talent. They just had bad days. Not bad for a 27 year career, but it's not like Tom Osborne teams never had clunkers.

Oops.

Point to one game where TO had to score 29 points to pull within 10. Hell, point to one where he scored 15 points just to get within 10. Or ever lost to a team as bad as Purdue. As you probably know, Osborne had big humiliating losses to Oklahoma. Some of those scores: 27-0 35-10 38-7 27-7 45-10 Some of those Oklahoma teams were pretty legendary. But Nebraska came into some of those games rated higher. The 45 - 10 loss came to an unranked Oklahoma in 1990. In one of those games, the Nebraska offense never hiked the ball in Oklahoma territory. Osborne lost to Miami 23-3 and 22-0, Georgia Tech 45-21, FSU 41-7 and 41-28 to UCLA in a game where Nebraska came out totally flat and fell behind 28-0 in the first quarter. An Osborne team stacked with past and future National Championship talent got shut out by Arizona State 19-0 in 1996. Those were losses to pretty good teams. But they sure felt like blowouts at the time. Did Osborne lose to a team as bad as Purdue? Unranked Syracuse in '84, unranked Colorado in '86 and unranked Iowa State in '92 come close, and those Husker teams were loaded with talent. They just had bad days. Not bad for a 27 year career, but it's not like Tom Osborne teams never had clunkers.