Jeremy

This is specious reasoning at best. Every fan base wants a new coach after a loss, even Alabama and Clemson. I doubt their recruiting is affected - at all - by this. Besides, if a kid decides to decommit because of what some randos on a message board say? Good riddance.

Gotcha. The only way we run our '95 scheme again is if Osborne himself is calling plays. Which would be cool, not gonna lie. I'm not asking for that. Paul Johnson option - I'm convinced it would work. We would have an identity (which we don't right now), and we would be unique; hard to prepare for in the B1G.

Well, 21st in the country obviously isn't good enough, considering we're sitting at 3-5 and dealing with the very real possibility of sitting at home during bowl season. Again. There is NO WAY anyone can justify how things have gone offensively for this staff this year, and the 3 previous.

This is an important detail, but it actually just further proves my point. In the spread, SO much pressure is placed on the quarterback position, that if the starter goes down, unless you're Ohio State, Oklahoma, or Alabama, your offense is pretty much done. We will never have a back-up ready to come in and move us down the field like the starter. I contend with an option offense, more pressure is on the offensive line and backfield. Does the QB need to make snap-decisions, and does the offense depend on this? Absolutely, but the reads are quick, easier, and easy to rep in practice a lot. The back-up can get nearly the amount of quality reps as the starter, and be ready to keep the offense going if need be.

I don't think it matters a whole lot. Frost, in order to be successful in Lincoln, would have to make wholesale changes himself in regards to offensive philosophy, coaching style, drills, methods of instruction, and play-calling flow. I don't see ANY of that happening. We either move on, or we're stuck with what we're seeing for at least one more year, if not 2. It's not going to change.

I will grant you the NFL argument, but only for QB's and WR's. The good news is that we won't be recruiting against the big dogs for those kinds of kids. We could spend that recruiting time and money on defensive prospects (where games are won, anyway). But I guarantee that we would recruit linemen and running backs to a system where there is a lot of run blocking and a lot of running the ball.

1) There is no proof whatsoever Chadwell's stuff wouldn't work in the B1G. Part of it is RPO, which Minnesota, Penn State, and a few others utilize to some degree of success. According to your logic, against all these NFL caliber defenders, nothing will work. Minnesota just went up and down the field with an average QB against us running some RPO. And we did run some option plays successfully against nearly every team we've played. Frost just doesn't call it often enough to get a real read on how effective it actually is as an offense. No play is going 20+ yards every time, and while the option does get stopped at times, it's still an effective play, and offense. 2)Army, Navy, and Air Force are almost always out-matched athletically, but somehow, they have winning records and make bowl games. They move the ball. They keep their defense fresh. They keep themselves in most games. A struggling, rebuilding Navy squad beat Malzahn's high-flying UCF Knights a couple weeks ago. Air Force just beat Boise State by a touchdown, the same Boise State that bested a previously undefeated BYU. In 2019, after Colorado beat us in overtime, Air Force beat them. Army marched (pun intended) into Camp Randall and fell by 6. They moved the ball on the Badgers, though out-sized and out-matched athletically. Imagine what could be done with Husker size, strength, and speed if they had someone to coach them to be steady, disciplined, and consistent? 3) Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech proved that an option offense at the FBS level can be somewhat successful. They did hit plateaus here and there, but the Yellowjackets won the Orange Bowl, set rushing records, beat Florida State, Georgia, etc. 4) I don't get the resistance, either from Frost, or a large segment of the fans, to going back to a ground-based attack that includes option in some form or fashion. We've literally done about everything EXCEPT that since '03, and what success is there to show for it? Literally, how much worse could things be? a 4-8 season? It's simple. Nebraska football is NEVER going to return to any kind of real success until whoever is coaching is 100% committed to establishing a running attack as our IDENTITY. The 'N' on the side of the helmet NEEDS to mean hard-nosed, smash-mouth football, or we'll be watching everyone else come bowl season every year. We need to go back.

I would prefer Monken or Calhoun, but Chadwell's stuff doesn't rely on defensive mistakes at all. First and foremost, it makes the defense commit to stop a certain look, and then they take the open grass, whether it be through read/pitch option or RPO. Frost implemented a few of Chadwell's concepts for this year, and they've looked great against lesser competition, and even some good option looks against Minnesota. I don't know why he doesn't go to it more.

Bingo. It's too much pressure for a kid like Martinez. He can't sit in a porous pocket and try to make 4 different reads. He needs to go 'one read and run' again. Then he could at least pick up some yards on a scramble instead of giving up a safety. This staff wants to throw the ball with a young offensive line, to guys that don't get open, while highly regarded recruits like Alante Brown, Latrell Neville, and even Betts stand on the sideline? None of this makes any sense. Have we seen the jet sweep to Betts that scored last year? Did we try the pitch to him? A deep pass downfield?

I hear Campbell or Aranda.

We don't want him. National championship notwithstanding, I've heard some pretty bad stuff related to Orgeron on and off the field.

Absolutely, I could get behind hiring Chadwell. We probably couldn't get away with throwing as much in the B1G as he's used to, but I would love how unique and hard to prepare for we would be.

Look. At. This. For the love of God, bring this back to Lincoln. BTW, Boise thumped previously unbeaten BYU...

I've watched a bunch of Coastal Carolina; though they run spread like Frost, it's quite different. They like a lot of pistol, triple option, quick game. His line blocks downhill, and his QB is very decisive.

I don't know. I've been on both sides of the fence, but it just feels like if Trev dumps Frost, we'll lose all the progress they've made in the last 4 years. And they HAVE made progress. Remember the last time we played Michigan? Let's see what this offense looks like with Martinez possibly back, toure, Yant, Johnson, Fidone, etc.

03-04, to me, is a STEEP drop. Yes, 03 wasn't exactly an awesome year, but they did get 10 total wins. The offense was struggling, but Pelini was running a legit defense that was leading the nation in a few categories. In 04, we lost to Southern Miss, a mediocre Kansas State team, a bad Iowa State team, and the worst loss in school history, the 10-70 nightmare in Lubbock. That game, in itself, probably should've gotten Callahan tarmac'd and Pederson shown the door the next morning. Nebraska football was a bulwark, a historical power that beat Rockne's famed 4 Horsemen, and all the history since. Devaney's turnaround, Osborne's rock-solid consistency with the MILLIONS put into facilities, recruiting, coaching, etc. To get Tom Osborned ourselves by a bunch of 2/3 star guys; a national laughingstock overnight. All to be topped off by losing to a mediocre cu squad that kept us out of a bowl game for the first time in what, 40 years? Yeah. Big drop.

As soon as Russell Wilson led the Badgers up and down the field on us in 2011, I knew the B1G was a very competitive conference, and Pelini (at the time) was definitely going to have to change a good chunk of his defensive strategy to be in the running for the conference championship. That game in particular, if we didn't turn the ball over so much, I think we could've kept it within a score. It looks like Chinander has a recruiting and schematic formula to match up fairly well to the B1G. Getting guys like Daniels at nose is a big deal. Frost is...getting there.

I could get behind this. Frost's stuff is similar every now and then.

Yes, but I was looking at a bigger score differential as big or bigger than 56-7.

I can agree with some of this. The problem is that we aren't ever going to attract better talent than Ohio State or Michigan. Or Penn State. I would contend that we would definitely be able to attract good offensive line talent as well as running backs. We could get a few good receivers, but we could spend more time and money recruiting the best defensive prospects, because we aren't worried about going after Trevor Lawrence or CJ Stroud. We would be different. Unique, hard to prepare for. Run right, the option offense chews a lot of clock. We would keep our defense fresh and their offense off the field.

We haven't beat-down a conference foe like this since we beat Baylor 59-0 in 2000. Lotta bad, some good since then.

Absolutely, 100% agreed. To continue the point further, though, when it comes to Jimmies and Joes, it's obvious that trying to recruit against Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, and even Iowa is quite difficult. Ohio State is ALWAYS going to get the best guys for their type of spread offense. We aren't going to get a Chris Olave over them, or Stroud. But with an option offense, we aren't going for the same types of guys. We wouldn't need to recruit against those teams for 4/5-star QB's and WR's. I think we'd be okay with the pipeline and running backs, because there's a lot of run-blocking, easy assignments, and the backs get the ball a lot. Option offenses, while requiring athleticism, still take a lot of pressure off of quarterbacks with simple plays and simple reads. If they can throw to a wide-open guy downfield, they pass in an option offense. I don't mean to put a damper on last night, because it was great. But the yolo-bomb to Toure to start the game is getting picked off by Michigan and Ohio State's safeties 9 times out of 10. We won't be able to push anyone else around to make gaping holes with 11 and 10 personnel and zone blocking schemes. Martinez isn't going to have time to sit in the pocket like that against any team left on the schedule. I hope I'm wrong, but the Michigan State game is really best-case what we'll see in terms of competitiveness against the top tier of the B1G.

Granted. But who doesn't want to run triple option, and why?

True, Northwestern looks about as bad as I've ever seen them. But I contend that a Paul Johnson disciple could be successful at the P5 level outside of the Service Academies. A struggling, re-building Navy team just beat high-powered UCF running option every play. Army took Michigan to OT a couple years ago. Air Force beat cu in 2019 running option after the buffs beat us. It's a viable strategy, especially with the kind of athletes we can draw to Lincoln. I realize that this is all a moot point after the drubbing we delivered last night. I believe, however, after watching football since 1989, coaching for 15 or so years, basing an offense on the option is a viable scheme and attack. We'd be unique, hard to prepare for, keep the defense fresh, and wear opposing defenses down. There's no reason why it wouldn't be effective.

I agree that simple zone read and the new triple option look we're seeing are totally different animals. HOWEVER, comma. Zone read is still option, and you'll never convince me otherwise.