Jeremy

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

But they're still runs. The point for the run the ball people, is that we do run the ball an overwhelming majority of the time. Scheme and run/pass ratio are not the problem. It's development and coaching, as it has been for a long time.

 

The run the ball crowd also wants to cherry pick stats for their narrative; and ignore the context of recruiting, transfers, and what was inherited. Frost started with nothing, we now have the talent, and conditioning to compete with anyone, but lack the coaching/development.

Cherry-pick? 3-9. 23 pts per game. That's not cherry-picking. That's cold, hard reality. 

16 minutes ago, lo country said:

I want to run the ball.  That's obvious.  I like the Whip hire, but it's just not my style.  If we win, that's great. Regardless of pass guy, run guy or 50/50 guy, somethings needs to changes.  We are in year four and had the worst record in Frost's tenure with his own admitted "most talented team".  Four losing seasons.  Now the record for most one score losses in a single season.  For me, a team where the RB is a 1000 yard rusher is a start.  Same with not having the QB the leading rusher for 3 out of 4 years IIRC.  Our O has been AM.  The DC's, stop AM and win the game.  That's proven true season after season and game in and game out.  I'd prefer a QB who can run a few designed runs per games, but not a run first QB.  

 

I've beat the CC scheme to death, but McCall rushed 93 times. Averaging 7/game.  Unsure if this included scrambles.  And this in a perceived "triple option" offense.  WR over 1000 yards.  TE over 900.  RB over 1000 yrds, 2 over 500 yards....  McCall passed for almost 3000.  McCall at CC, roughly 60 throws less, but also over 2800 yards (AM above 2800).  Yes, lesser competition, but that O spread the ball around.  WR, TE, RB, QB (put less than AM).  McCall distributed the ball to his playmakers.  Something Whip is alleged to do very well. Maybe we see a merger of Frost and Whip and it starts to look like something CC runs.  

 

BUT then you get into the other issues, OL, ST, receivers not running correct routes, Joseph's comments about not practicing, penalties, lack of development etc.....Where do we start?  ST is probably the easiest. Average at best and we would have gone bowling every year IMO.  

I would love to see something like what CC runs. It's different, unique, and the B1G wouldn't be used to it.

What I'm afraid we're going to get with Whipple is a lot of drop-backs, incompletes, 3rd and longs, sacks, picks, and punts. Yay.

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

This is going to be my last response to you because it just keeps going in circles and it's dumb. Big Ten defenses aren't going smaller, they are staying big while trying to find more speed. Shoving them around just because we "want to" doesn't automatically work.

Strange how other teams shove us around, and it's just a fact of life. Braelon Allen, anyone? Goodson?

But I say that we could do the same, and it's just completely out of the realm of possibility?

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I don't disagree that 23 PPG is not a great measure and NU needs to do better. However, the defense and special teams aren't doing a good job of creating points and short fields for the offense. Would that be magically fixed by a drastically different offensive scheme other than just because you say so?

Wasn't the defense the best part of our team? 

Maybe if we had sustained, clock-chewing, defensive-will-battering drives, we could help THEM out? Keep them fresh?

It's not magic. It's dedication to being bigger and stronger than the defense. We've done it before, there's no reason we can't again. 

23 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

@Jeremy I think none of us are happy with the team's results the past 4 years under Frost, but the ills of Nebraska isn't only due the offensive scheme. I think the offense has shown good results at times, and many of the reasons for the 3-9 record in 2021 are outside the offensive scheme.

 

I do agree that the RB run game needs to improve.  The results under Frost have been unacceptable, and that's why Held and Austin were fired. I disagree that NU should try to run the ball more, even when the results aren't there.  That's like ramming your head into a wall over and over again.  I disagree that the only thing holding NU back as a team is to shift to an offense that runs 70-80% of the time, like it was done in the 80s and 90s.  You know, it worked so well then, it should be run now.

 

Part of me thinks you even know that, but you just like to argue it because you know it will never happen, so you can just sit there and make your posts arguing about something you know will never happen. It's like me saying "my life would be so much happier if I had millions of dollars and married to a supermodel wife".  I know that will never happen, so I don't make those types of statements. 

No, I'm arguing because we're gonna go 5-7 again,  and I HATE that I'm going to be right about that. What's never going to happen is Nebraska being successful doing what everyone else is doing. 

We can actually run the ball like we did in the past for a few reasons: 

1)The rules against holding are more lax than in the glory years. Iowa and Wisconsin get away with blatant holding nearly every play. No reason we couldn't adopt their 'techniques.'

2)With the spread being so en vogue, defenses are going with less down-linemen, more smaller, speedier guys. With more linemen/tight ends, we can shove the smaller guys around. 

12 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Did it occur to you that the 100 teams that had a better record than Nebraska did so without switching to a power option offense? 

 

Some football purists claim that most teams run a "defense" and "special teams" as well as an offense, and many believe these can affect outcomes as well. 

 

The numbers say a lot of things.

I can't disagree with the special teams argument.  We were just abysmal in every aspect there. 

That being said, 23 points per game is a BIG reason we're 3-9. It's just not enough. Not even close.

How people are defending an offense that went 3-9, and has averaged 23 points per game vs FBS teams over 4 years is beyond me.

I mean, the numbers literally speak for themselves. 

And then to point out how much more we ran against iowa than we passed as though it means something?

It means our running scheme is deficient. We aren't running the right scheme with the right players. We aren't blocking the right way. Outside zone is a bad idea against Wisconsin and other good B1G teams. 

We don't do anything significantly different than most other teams in the league, and around the nation. We aren't different enough to be a problem to prepare for. Defensively, the trend nationally is and has been to build defenses to stop offensive schemes like ours.  And it's working. 

Bielema said himself that if they stopped AM, they stopped us, and he was right. Why not have the QB as a threat, but also 3 other guys, any one of which could get the ball, so defenses can't key on one guy?

A year from now when we're sitting home AGAIN at 5-7 or worse, is this STILL going to be the party line, that we need to throw the ball and have 'balance?' 

8 hours ago, admo said:

 

So at halftime when Georgia was winning 24-3, apparently Michigan just needed to run the ball and simply impose their will?

 

Maybe sneak in a play action pass? 
 

Simple plays.  Willpower.  Run the ball.  Trailing by 21.  Be dedicated. 

 

That's so stupid

Michigan just didn't have it last night, for whatever reason. But it's Georgia. You're gonna have to play the best you ever have to beat a team like that. 

But thanks for bringing up Michigan. How did they beat Ohio State and Iowa to GET to the playoff? By running the HECK out of the ball. They finally ended the drought against the Buckeyes by simply being more physical, manhandling the OSU defensive line most of the game, and the play action game was huge because of it.

Remember those days? Don't tell me it can't happen again, because that simply isn't true. 

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I don't get the part where Nebraska can recruit running athletes but not passing and catching athletes. As if the act of passing and catching is too complicated for us simple-minded prairie folk.

 

I also don't get the part where you announce your intention to run almost every play, and don't expect opposing defensive coordinators to make the fairly simple adjustment. 

 

There are a lot of ways to win without switching to an option offense, as evidenced by the many teams that are winning more than Nebraska. One way is to have a better defense. Another way is to have a better quarterback, offensive line and running backs running the exact same plays. They're pretty much the same guys you'd have to recruit for a successful option offense. 

We've tried the passing and catching off and on for two decades now. At some point, we gotta admit it just ain’t gonna work. We don't get the guy that can pass the ball well enough. Never have. Other schools might get that kid, but we don't. We don't get the linemen that could give that kid time anyway. I don't get why we wanna keep doing things that just haven't worked. 

Opposing defensive coordinators can make whatever adjustments they want, but Army and Air Force still end up with 9 and 10 wins somehow. We end up with 3. THREE. The proof is in the pudding. 

Besides, we might announce our intention to run the ball, but there’s always that threat of play action when they're creeping up and peeking in the backfield. Guys get pretty wide open when less people are covering them.

But we can't have that threat of play action until we've proven to be a threat running the ball. We have to DEDICATE ourselves to it. Simple plays that rely on focused effort and willpower instead of schemes that need 2 sentences to call or signal the play. Linemen don't get confused about who they block when it's straight ahead most of the time. 

It's a philosophical mindset of being patient with moderate rushing gains, steady and methodical. Not a 5/7 step drop, trying to out-scheme Jim Leonard's secondary for 4 seconds while defensive linemen are bearing down on whatever newb we have taking snaps; trying to make him read a defense when future draft picks are shaking our  stumbling tackles loose and coming to knock him out of the game. 

Instead of passive, back-pedal blocking, we take the fight TO THEM, push THEM back, and grind out yards in the proverbial cloud of dust. 

Other teams may throw their way to victory. That's great. We aren't other teams. We HAVE to run the ball.

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

You guys do know that power football isn't run exclusive out of multiple back formations under center, right? We run power, and depending on the team we are playing we run it quite regularly. We pull the center, guards, tackles, and tight ends to act as lead blockers. We also motion TEs, WRs, and RBs into an H back position as lead blockers. That's power football. Just because it's not I formation doesn't mean it's not power.

 

 

 

We're very well aware of what they've TRIED to do. But we're 3-9, and Martinez was our leading rusher with 60 yds a game. Whatever that running scheme is...ain't working. 

51 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I agree that 3-9 sucks, as does 5 straight years without a bowl. But, you are wrong in that the best NU offenses patiently worked the way down the field. The best NU offenses of the past were quick strike offenses with getting the ball outside to track stars as I-backs and quarterbacks, or fooling the defense with a deep play action pass. Yes, NU had a power running offense, but it the best success was not due to matriculating the ball down the field, it succeeded because of big plays. 

True, I'll grant you all that. We did get some real athletes at I-back, and I've said we'll always be able to recruit that kind of kid. We got the best RB out of Minnesota recently. 

But I mentioned the PA pass - the ONLY way it works is if you set it up with a solid running game. 

I still contend, however, that both Devaney and Osborne were 'grind-it-out' coaches, both criticized at times for being too conservative, and running the ball too much. Shatel was almost a broken record in the late 80s and early 90s describing Osborne's playcalling as methodical and boring.

They did have a lot of big plays, but they were set up by the plethora of little ones before. For instance, we'd get them on a counter for 30+ after Osborne called several FB dives and traps for minimal gains. 

What you're saying also just goes further to prove my point. We have been successful running the ball, and we can do it again. 

There is only one statistic that matters. W/L. We went 3-9, and if you're a football guy at all, you know DANG WELL, we are what our record shows. 

Here's a stat. The last 4 years, Nebraska has averaged 23 points per game vs FBS teams with this style of offense. THAT ain't gonna cut the mustard. 

It's simple. We can’t recruit the kind of athlete needed to beat other teams like this. We aren't going to out-athlete people for touchdowns. Never has happened, never will. 

Nebraska had only ever found success by patiently working the ball down the field, through sheer force of will. It was about lining up and pushing the guy across from you around. Get them crowding the line, and loft one over their head. 

This is not rocket science, but we've been treating it that way for decades now. What's wrong with being a power-run team? Why is everyone so averse to the idea? Are you afraid we'll suck?

You know what REALLY sucks?

Going 3-9 and 5 STRAIGHT YEARS WITHOUT A BOWL. 

2 hours ago, runningblind said:

Would you just give it up? This is never going to happen, nor should it ever in any universe. There is a reason no major conference school has done this (I don't give a crap about Georgia Tech). It's a gimmick that will never work week and and week out against great competition, it's too easy to pidgeon hole. Schools like the academies use it to overcome disadvantages against much lesser competition, but nothing like the Big Ten.

 

We are in a mess right now because of Scott Frost failing as a head coach and having some very poor quality assisntant coaching, not because of his scheme.  If we had a decent offensive line, good quality ST, and a HC/team who doesn't panic we would have won 9 games last year with the exact same scheme. 

If it was easy to pigeon hole, it wouldn't work at all. Army wouldn't be getting 9 wins, Air Force 10. The teams they beat aren't stupid. They all knew what was coming, but still couldn't stop it. You don't want to talk about Georgia Tech, and that's fine, but they absolutely dominated a good SEC squad in the Orange Bowl. Gimmicks don't get to, nor do they win Orange Bowls in convincing fashion. Why couldn't we do that? When was the last time we dominated anyone with a pulse?

Do you really think we're going to throw the ball and beat Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin? Not a chance against their elite secondaries. Who's even going to throw these NFL-level passes for us? Who's going to slow down Wisconsin and Iowa's pass rush? Not our guys. 

I'll eat crow if these new coaches somehow pull 9 wins out of a hat, but the chances of that happening are slim and none.

I don't get why anyone would bash on the service academies, AT ALL. They literally can't really recruit, and EVERY team they play is miles more talented than they are. Yet, here they are, 2 of the 3 getting 9+ wins. Air Force ended up with 10 this year, with wins over Nevada and Boise State, both of which are loaded with talent. Navy is definitely struggling, but still somehow bested UCF, who has athletes all over the place. The point is that their offense does a lot to cancel out other teams' athletic talent. The proof literally is in the pudding.

As much as everyone is dragging him, Law is right. We aren't going to win unless we go back to a run-oriented offense, simple as that. We want to be B1G champs, right? Who do we have to beat to do that? Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa. 

We can't out-recruit most of those teams, not even CLOSE. We aren't going to get more talented WR's, QB's, or RB's than them, the type of kids you HAVE to have to win running Whip's offense. We don't have, nor are we going to get a Kenny Picket. Just ain't gonna happen. I will concede that we do seem to have some pretty good receivers, but still, no one to throw to them, nor anyone to block for the guy to even TRY to throw to them. 

Ohio State gets the guys we would need to win. Stroud, Olave, Smith-Njigba, etc. We don't get them. Ohio State does. 

So why keep square-peg/round-holing this? Why keep trying to beat Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan for recruits from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan? Why not play our own game, get our own kind of guys for our own different kind of offense?

We would be unique, hard to prepare for, difficult to plan against. It would be the 'Nebraska Identity.' 'They run the ball, that is who they are.' Wouldn't that be great? Something for the team, the program, and the state to get behind. To go CRAZY for a FB bruising ahead for 5+ yards. To deliver some punishment to defenses instead of seeing QB after QB limp out of the game. To eat the clock, move the sticks, keep the defense fresh and off the field. While we can't get many 4 and 5 star guys, the talent we COULD get to run this stuff would be a definite step up from the guys that the service academies get. 

Plus, because we aren't wasting time and resources going after 4 and 5 star QB's and WR's, we could spend time and effort recruiting the kids that will really win games for us- the defense.

Law is right. Nebraska needs to be Nebraska again. Run the ball.

Nope, can't have fun or good things for this fanbase. Just continue the 5 year streak of absolute irrelevance, sitting at home during bowl season. God, this just sucks.

Welp. Pass the Ball Guy is happy. Even though we have an offensive line that gave up 29 sacks and no QB to throw these NFL routes. 

Sigh.

27 minutes ago, knapplc said:

That's 13 P5 coaching changes this year (so far). 

 

Florida
LSU
Miami
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Oregon
TCU
Texas Tech
USC
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Washington
Washington State
 

I'm not super happy with how things have gone under Frost, and I know several here wanted him gone, but at the same time, I'm glad UNL isn't on this list. If we were coach-hunting, I have no idea who would end up in Lincoln.

7 minutes ago, Cdn Blackshirt Two said:

 

Just my opinion, but I think you have enough raw material left in the OL Depth Chart to make this work. 

 

The bigger issue is getting someone competent to teach technique and Tackle-specific S&C that prioritizes foot speed over brute strength. 

 

LT - Prochazka / Banks / Transfer?

LG - Lutovsky / Miller 

C -   Piper / Hixson

RG - Nouili / Bando

RT - Corcoran / Benhart (I see him as more an S&C project than anything else)

 

I would add that Hutmacher is the only wide body left on the roster I've noticed at NT and we all saw what happened to to our run defense when Daniels was injured....so as much as prioritizing improvement in the OL is important, with the make-up of the Big Ten West, we can't attempt to fix the OL by gutting our run defense.  With Daniels leaving, I'd really love to see Chins go and snag a Vince Wilfork-like kid from the transfer portal with the express objective of being able to hold their ground against Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota double-teams....as we all know they're coming. 

 

This is one of the problems I have with the 3-4. No disrespect to Chins - the defense has definitely improved since he's been here. However, like you said, if you don't have a Wilfork kind of kid at nose AND at least one better-than-average DE, you're gonna get gashed. Michigan has a couple of guys like that, and Iowa's zone game was going nowhere. For whatever reason, we aren't getting guys like Hutchinson. JoJo would be comparable to Ojabo, but do we have anyone else like JoJo stepping in next year? 

I know this thread is about the offensive line, but I have real concerns about our front 7 next year. 

3 minutes ago, roadrat said:

I find it laughable the rest of the country is worrying about what Nebraska is doing. We have hardly been a force to contend with for a long time.  I also haven't checked to see what Venables record as a head coach has been. Oh that's right, he's never been a head coach. 

That's what I was thinking. Who is Oklahoma to say anything about the 'Nebraska mess'? Am I crazy, or didn't they just have a coach flee Norman in the middle of the night, throwing disarray into a program that hasn't dealt with that since before Stoops was hired? Does Venables already have all the assistant positions filled?

We might have issues, but they're not nearly as bad as Oklahoma's, not to mention the bevy of 4 and 5 star guys that decommitted in the last week.

On 11/25/2021 at 11:13 AM, nupowr said:

godam, why does Paul Johnson keep getting brought up as if his stupid option offense was even anything close to what Nebraska used to do?  It just like bringing up a damn Dodge Neon and comparing it to a Supra because they both have front bumpers.   Starting to piss me off.   Go watch an old  Husker game and please tell me if it looks anything at all like that stupid crap Johnson was running.  

Nobody is saying that Nebraska ever ran Paul Johnson's Flexbone. This 'stupid option offense' led GT to 2 ACC Championships, and they destroyed Dak Prescott's MSU Bulldogs in the Orange Bowl, setting the rushing record for that bowl in the process. They beat a loaded Georgia team a few times, top-5 Florida State, and got a few other wins bigger than anything we've had since 2015 or even 2001. 

    Some of us would like to see Nebraska adopt the Flexbone as their offense because it would be a rock-solid identity in Lincoln for the first time since 03. Everyone is crafting their defense to stop spread-style offenses, not the Flexbone. We would be hard to prepare for, unique, and nobody could truly simulate what we do with their scout offenses. 

    We wouldn't be losing recruiting battles to Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, because we wouldn't be recruiting against them very much for the same types of players, at least on offense. There are a litany of other reasons why this would be beneficial for us, but for some reason, most people want to stick with the same kind of stuff that's given us 6 losing seasons in the last 7 years. Why stay with what hasn't worked for most of a decade?

5 minutes ago, Husker74 said:

You need to watch games if you think that happened every time.

It certainly didn't happen every time, and Frost's offense definitely had its moments - no doubt. The problem is how streaky and inconsistent we've been the last 4 years. The last game, in particular, revealed a real structural flaw with the scheme. The safety. It wasn't a fluke, and I think Iowa's staff was well-prepared; they watched the Minnesota game.

     Our offensive line and QB, whoever it may be, can't keep their heads when passing near our own goal line. We're bleeding the lead away, and we need to run clock, but Frost calls a pass. Sacked. 3rd and long. Run the ball, control the damage, punt away and play D? No. Try to pass, sacked again, safety. 

     A few B-back dives/A-back counters, maybe throw in a Rocket Toss? Maybe we get a first down, maybe not, but we run the clock, punt the ball away at the very least. 

1 minute ago, jager said:

Gabriel originally committed to Army before ultimately going to UCF. So it's not that much of a stretch.

Okay, then. I stand corrected. It would be an interesting development, to say the least.

Just now, HuskerNation1 said:

Some more speculation...

 

 

 

 

This makes zero sense. Davis is an option guy. I highly doubt a kid like Gabriel would want to run that kind of offense.

So why can't Shafer just come out and say the flippin' name? I HATE this 'I know something you don't' crap.

3 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

So why was there a plane from Norman to Lincoln today? 
 

and South Bend 

Stoops DID have some very nice things to say about Frost...

He wouldn't...would he?