Jeremy

I just hope his shortlist is made up of guys that could actually turn it around. We definitely don't need another NFL washout.

So, new coaching search. Option guy this time? Please?

The only exciting part of this season will be the coaching search rumor mill. I wonder where Trev is leaning - an NFL washout, or an up-and-comer? Personally, I would go after an established guy like Chadwell, Monken, or Calhoun. 

1 hour ago, BIG ERN said:

I wonder if the staff sees Tannor as a rotation guy now? 

Yeah, this could be an issue. Maybe he could play inside linebacker? I don’t like Tannor off the field a lot

23 hours ago, Red Five said:

 

I think that 4/5 star athlete wants to make it to the NFL, and playing option QB isn't the way to do that.  You would have to seriously overpay for this to happen.

We wouldn't have that much trouble. We'd be paying our guy a lot less than Ohio State is paying their blue chip no matter what. 

6 hours ago, LumberJackSker said:

I can't imagine boosters and fans doing that when the current head coach's greatest achievements so far have been close loses. People want to have something to show for their investment.

Kind of a chicken/egg problem. Frost can't win without the better athletes, but the better athletes won't come/stay unless he wins.

I say, put the money out there, get the 4/5 stars, and if we still don't win much, Frost is the problem. 

26 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Not the victory but the action; in the deed the glory.

[Eyeroll]

Okay, fine. Let's forget NIL, and keep going 3-9. That'll be fun, won't it?

Additionally, aren't we already subverting that quote with all the money some of the volleyball players are making, not to mention Casey Thompson?

I don't know. Selfishly, I would think this would put us in a good position. Not many athletic departments are as cash rich as UNL. We used to have the weightlifting/training edge for decades, then everyone caught up.

We've been needing a new edge since the Solich days, and this could be it. Pump the cash into the collective, hype it up, and watch the 4/5 stars come calling.

Do you guys wanna win or not? If you donate, they will come.

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

Maybe it's all coordinated with Frost and coaches, or at least folks in Admin.

 

As @Farms mentioned, boosters are forking over money to get kids here.  What are they doing for the kids that are here?  Especially the kids NU doesn't want to lose.

 

Maybe this is a notice from the football dept that screams, "hey! take care of our kids or they could leave!"

 

wishful thinking, I guess...

Ohio State literally has a collective that everyone and their dog can donate to for basketball and football. I think we JUST started something like it, but we're playing catch up regardless. Think about the numbers that could be generated. 

I wish I had a lot to give, but I don't. As a fanbase, we need to pony up and put our money where our mouths are. Do we want to be back or not?

Cough it up, Husker Nation!

14 hours ago, Huskinator said:

Are you new here?  This boards full of chicken littles just waiting for the sky to fall. I honestly think some hope we rank the season so frost is fired.  It’s pathetic. 

We aren't chicken littles. The sky fell a long time ago, especially last year when we went THREE AND NINE. No bowl game for 5, mostly likely 6 years in a row now? Yeah, the sky is a quaint, distant memory.

Good gawd, it's just never ending. 

On 3/29/2022 at 12:46 PM, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You nailed it! I'm sure Scott, who has played under or coached with Bill Walsh, Tom Osborne, Bill Parcells, Bill Belicheck, Tony Dungey, Mike Tomlin, Jon Gruden and Coach Kelly, has forgotten how to practice in such a way as to make an offense run well.

Yeah, our practices have been GREAT. Best practices ever, actually. In fact, I'd say we're the best practice team in the nation. 

Name dropping doesn't help when you barely average 24 points a game over 4 years and go 2 straight seasons with just 3 wins. 

And I already mentioned Osborne, a coach that Frost isn't taking much of anything from offense-wise. 

double post or something

On 3/21/2022 at 4:35 PM, J-MAGIC said:

 

Per my charting last year we called a designed run play on 42.5% of our plays, a designed pass play on 47.8% of our plays, and an RPO (a run or pass dictated by the defense) on 9.7 % of our plays. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were the only teams that called more designed run plays than us, but Iowa and Wisconsin never use RPOs. So in terms of when we actually ran the ball (our designed run calls plus our RPOs that were runs) we were ahead of Iowa and Wisconsin and trailed only Michigan and Minnesota in terms of when we were actually running the ball (Minnesota doesn't call many designed runs and uses a ton of RPOs that ended up being runs). Also keep in mind that in most of our games we were playing from behind, which is going to inflate our passing numbers even further.

 

Additionally, of our explosive plays (traditionally defined as a pass or scramble of 16 or more yards or a run of 12 or more yards) 64 percent were passes and only 35 percent were runs.

 

So (a) we already run the ball more than almost anyone in the freaking BIG TEN, and (b) our runs were not delivering a lot for our offense. And you're complaining that we didn't run MORE?? I imagine if we had been running for 7 yards on three plays every series and punting you'd be pretty upset, but that's what you're advocating for. 

 

Some of you guys want to be Iowa so badly and it's disgusting haha.

Yeah, everyone knows we sucked at running the ball. That's the point. The gripe we have is about scheme, technique, and overall philosophy - what they focus on. What they focused on in the offseason, fall practice.  What kind of running plays are we running? What's effective, and what isn't? 

As a coach, if something isn't working, you have to simplify to the basics. You HAVE to pick a few plays, and drill them ad infinitum. You can't just keep adding more plays and more formations. These kids are struggling to keep up as it is. Sometimes Frost talks almost condescendingly about his playing days in Osborne's offense, as though it were a simpler time, beneath him. No, Scott. There's a REASON why that offense was effective. Osborne was a repetition FANATIC, and I wonder if Frost has just forgotten what it takes to get 11 guys to work as one.

Everyone, including him, is bashing 3 yards and a cloud of dust. What's wrong with that offense, if we move the ball down the field? 

Our linemen are big and strong enough, right? Why can't they effectively block smaller defensive linemen and linebackers? Why are there always unblocked defenders shooting through or waiting at the line of scrimmage for our backs?

Personally, I think it had a lot to do with scheme, overall technique, and the fact that our stuff isn't much different than much of the B1G. It's not hard to prepare for Nebraska if the last 2 or 3 teams run similar stuff.

Maybe Raiola and Whipple will turn things around. I sincerely hope so. If Thompson comes out firing, and we look like the Kansas City Chiefs, I'll be the first to eat crow. I just don't see that happening.

Until I'm proven wrong, I will contend that Nebraska will never be 'back,' or even close to it, until we COMMIT to running the ball, where our identity is based on the running game. 

I don't want to be Iowa. I want to be 9-4 Army or 10-3 Air Force.

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Most of college football did, as well, so that's not saying much. 

I hope Thompson works out and slings TDs game after game. It seems like we have a bunch of passing talent now.

In the 70s, however,  Nebraska won because they ran over everyone. Not to say we couldn't throw the ball at all, but most of the offensive success came via the run.

Eventually, Osborne implemented option with option QBs because Oklahoma was KILLING us with the Wishbone.

On 1/7/2022 at 12:10 AM, Husker_Bohunk said:

You obviously don't recall Osborne's pro style offense of the 70's and the quarterbacks we sent to the NFL.

They EASILY ran the ball 65% of the time back then, if not more.

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

I want to be the best rushing team in the nation. Especially if the the landscape is going the other way.  If every defense is set up to stop the pass, I want to pound the absolute f#&% out of the rock.  

 

Trying to mimic the landscape has been a catastrophe over the last 17 years.  Particularly catastrophic in the Frost era.

Maybe this year will be different somehow. 

Whipple likes to throw it 35-40 times per.  So if you're right, there should be zero reason we can't at least win the division.  What with one of the lightest schedules Nebraska has ever had.

Preach, brother. Couldn't have said it better myself. 

16 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

1. Bringing up a team's cumulative record to discuss their offensive performance: Very dumb! We had at least a top 40 offense by every schedule-adjusted metric. Our record was bad because we had the worst special teams in the nation and played an insane schedule.

 

2. The service academies play in the AAC and Mountain West. When they play better teams with speed and NFL talent they almost always get blown away.

 

3. Mike Leach turned an awful Washington State team into a near-Pac-12 champion, which you're conveniently ignoring.

 

4. Do not seriously quote the 2001 college football landscape as comparable to 2022 and expect anyone to take you seriously. 

 

1. Every schedule-adjusted metric? What does that mean? I'll concede that the ST were horrible, but MAYBE we would have won more if we scored more touchdowns, which were few and far between. 23 per game against FBS teams just isn't good enough. 

2. While the service academies play lesser competition, they DON'T RECRUIT.  Every team they play is vastly more talented than they are. Yet, somehow, they win WAY more than we do. And no, they don't get blown away, not all the time at least. This year, Air Force beat Nevada, Boise State, and Louisville, 3 teams with a lot of potential NFL talent. I already mentioned Navy's win over KSU a couple years ago. They admittedly struggled this year, but still beat UCF, another team WAY more talented athletically than they are. Army did give up 70 to Wake Forest, but still dropped 56 on the Demon Deacons, which I seriously doubt we could have done. Army played Wisconsin, and lost 20-14.

3. This just further proves my point. Air Force beat the near-Pac 12 champion. 

4. Why couldn't Nebraska run the ball like they did in 2001? Have the rules changed? 

13 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

Well if you're less skeptical of that number, then what do you want. For us to go from rushing the ball at the third-highest rate in the Big Ten to the first? Is that changing much?

 

You are misunderstanding the broader point. Alabama and Ohio State, traditionally power rushing teams, looked at the landscape and future of where football was going and said, 'We should stop doing this and throw a lot more." Think about Nick Saban doing that. Every piece of data we have say rushing more than passing, no matter the talent, is the vastly less efficient way to play.

What data?

The data I have shows that since September 4th, 2004, when Nebraska football made a drastic departure away from what we were known for offensively, we've gone 127-98. 

Why do we care where we rank in the B1G in terms of rush/pass ratio? We used to nearly lead the nation in all the rushing categories, and it was a source of pride. If anything, all the data shows that what we've done recently, and where we seem to be going are quite inefficient. 

18 hours ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Because other coaches would be running the ball more than 70% of the time it was actually successful. You can NOT be successful running the ball more than 70% of the time.

It would appear that you can NOT be successful doing what we're doing. Once again, 3-9. (After a 3-5 season the year prior.)

Yeah, I know, we 'fired the coaches responsible for the shortcomings.' Sure. I seriously doubt that passing MORE is the answer, but with Whipple, the great offensive mastermind, maybe we'll be Pitt 2.0.

How do you explain the success that that the service academies have had in recent years? Winning WAY more games than we have? They alone prove you wrong. Navy won 11 games and beat a good Kansas State squad in Liberty Bowl in 2019. ELEVEN. WINS. 

Air Force won 11 games in 2019, too, beating Mike Leach, the Air Raid guru in the Cheez-It Bowl. 

The Falcons just finished with 10 wins this year, Army with 9. 

The last time we won 11 games in a season? 2001. Guess what our run/pass percentages were. 70.4% run to 29.6% pass. 

12 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

For 11 of the past 12 years, Nebraska has committed itself to dual threat quarterbacks who wouldn't be allowed to play quarterback at most P5 programs.

 

You are suggesting we stick with that approach because it's the best we can expect. 

Yes and no.

In the Flexbone model, there is way less pressure on the QB to be a dual-threat because he’s one of 4 in the backfield that the ball could be going to. It's a BIG difference from what we're doing now when nearly everything is dependent upon the QB and the myriad of decisions he has to make on any given play.

A Flexbone QB has to make quick decisions, but there are less of them, and they're easier. 

Since not as much is expected of the QB, the general trend is that backups can come in and be nearly as effective as the starter if needed.

A QB running the Flexbone is not even close to the same as what Frost has tried to do the last 4 years. 

47 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

The last power 5 team to run the ball 70% or more (besides Georgia tech) was west Virginia in 2006 when they had Slaton and white.  Apparently "run the ball" guys know more than the coaches of today. Maybe they should apply for head coaching jobs!

Who cares what everyone else is doing? Are we going to win doing the same thing as everyone else? 

Did Osborne care about the offense that Florida State was running?

The coaches in Lincoln went 3-9. That record speaks for itself. 

1 hour ago, hskrfan4life said:

Being able to throw and doing it effectively are two different things. I don't think Wisconsin did so effectively. QB stats show very meh performance.

True. However, they are absolutely committed to running the ball, and doing so effectively. 

This is what I want. 

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Exactly. But that doesn't make your case that Nebraska can't recruit guys who throw and catch, so we should go all in on the run. 

You're half right. We have recruited some guys that can catch the ball.

What we haven't gotten is a guy that wins games by throwing the ball very well, nor have we recruited guys to protect him. 

I mean c'mon. It's been 7 years now. Do you see a Kenny Pickett on our roster? 5 star offensive tackles? 

It just ain’t gonna happen. 

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

In your reality it's cold and hard but you live in the last millenium. I'd encourage you this off-season to study college football as a whole and it might change your opinion of how to succeed.  Running the ball 75% of the time ain't it.

 

Even Wisconsin is trying to throw the ball more in recruiting Mertz.  You need balance, period.

In this millennium, we have zero conference championships trying to be 'balanced.' 

Wisconsin can throw a little bit because they have Allen running behind some great blockers to batter defenses and get them in the box.

They can throw because they establish the run. That scheme has been around as long as the forward pass itself.