Jeremy

5 minutes ago, theknife said:

He's already making 1.2 million at Ole Miss, so play calling duties would have to be the selling point. 

Do we have or could we get a Matt Corral? Not saying Libby is a bad pick, but Corral makes that offense look good with a lot his own crazy ability.

18 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

But according to a lot of NU fans, Frost running draws out of the shotgun and having the I-back be the lead blocker is basically the same as the wing-bone option.  When Osborne was asked about offenses well after his retirement, he said multiple times that his offense was evolving and he would probably run a similar offense to what Urban Meyer was running at Florida and Ohio State.  But, NU fans only want to think Osborne=full-house, triple option with a fullback.

Obviously, I'm a flexbone guy, but I would be fine with an Urban Meyer-style scheme. The problem is that we would need Urban Meyer to run it. I would say the Buckeyes have changed a good deal since Day took the helm. Another issue, though, is that we would need a QB that is, at the very least, moderately accurate with his passing. We haven't had a guy like that since...Joey Ganz?

38 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I think some Husker fans carry a pocket rolodex of exhausted and banal Husker football topics to insert into any conversation that has to do with offensive scheme or coaching.

 

Frost is sticking with the spread. Nebraska's never going to run a triple option scheme (nor should they).

Hey, we might get Willy Korn from Coastal. Now, what they do might not be solely considered a 'triple option' scheme per se, but they've certainly utilized Triple, Speed, Load, and Lead options quite a bit in their scheme. 

So that would be cool. 

Oof. I like Frost, and I'm glad he was retained, but this is a poor decision. C'mon, Scott, can you seriously not see this? 

2 hours ago, runningblind said:

You are essentially making yourself one dimensional by doing that, teams will dare you to beat them throwing the ball and loading the box.  This has played out in thousands of games, that is the proof you are ignoring.  That is the goal of a defense to make an offense one dimensional and therefore easier to defend.  You are helping them do that with this change.

 

What proof am I ignoring? Navy's 11 win season 2 years ago? Air Force's 11 wins the same year? Georgia Tech's 2 ACC championships and Orange Bowl berths? Army's 9 wins last year? That's a lot of success 'playing out' very recently against defenses that absolutely loaded the box over and over. And yet...they still couldn't stop it. 

Oh yeah, Army scored 56 points against Wake Forest, their loaded box, and all that ACC 'speed.'

2 hours ago, Gorillahawk said:

 

I know I have stated that I don't believe that switching to an offense like the flex bone and running a ton of triple option would be successful and I stand by that. I feel like the proof is in the pudding so to speak. There is a reason why no team in a P5 conference runs it. Georgia Tech with Paul Johnson was the last to do so, and he was never uber successful in the ACC with it. It is a great offense in it's own right, however it is typically used when you are going to be out athleted against just about every team you face, so you hope that you can take advantage of teams potential lack of discipline on defense, and cause them trouble.

 

And guess what....it works every once in awhile. BUT when you play in a conference like the BIG or SEC where pretty much every team has lots of speed on defense, and are typically coached extremely well it doesn't work. When is the last time Navy beat Notre Dame? It was 2016, before that it was 2010. The service academies are currently 0-3 against P5 conference opponents.                                  

 

Now I know the argument against what I am saying is that we have better athletes than the schools who currently run that particular offense. And yes you are right, so I can't say for sure that we wouldn't have more success against P5 schools than them. Again I have to continue to go back to there is a reason no P5 schools run it. The offensive scheme Frost has been using isn't terrible, however I agree with the fact that we do indeed need to have more of a power rushing element to what we have been doing, because too many of our drives have stalled out because we can't get 1 or 2 yards when we need it. I am hoping that a new OC, OL Coach and RB coach can remedy that issue.

Paul Johnson and Georgia Tech won the ACC TWICE, and won the Orange Bowl against Mississippi State, Dak Prescott, and all that $EC speed. That's pretty 'uber successful.' They didn't just beat them, they set the Orange Bowl RUSHING RECORD against all that speed. Georgia Tech and their high admission standards make their recruiting challenging, and yet, they still competed very well most years. Since Johnson retired, the Yellow Jackets have stunk it up trying to run spread stuff that everyone else is doing. Like us. 

Thank you for bringing up Navy. Navy won 11 games 2 years ago, so it doesn't work 'every once in a while.' Guess what kind of offense we ran the last time we won 11 games? How many games have we won trying what we're doing now? The fact that Navy could EVER beat a WAY more talented program like Notre Dame is a real testament to the Middies as a program, and I think this offense contributes a lot to that. They beat Kansas State and all their Big 12 speed, too. Navy is definitely rebuilding this year, but they did beat a very talented UCF squad. 

Army won 9 games last year. Air Force ALSO won 11 games in 2019. Don't TELL me it doesn't work. Every team the service academies play are way more talented than they are.

I would argue that Frost's offensive scheme HAS been terrible. Sure it gained some yards, but we don't win with the most yards. We win with the most points. Frost has averaged a whopping 26 points per game against P5 competition. That's not nearly enough when our defense is out on the field for WAY more than half the game. 

Nebraska never won anything by caring what everyone else was doing. When the rest of the country started going to passing attacks, Osborne stuck to his guns and ran the ball even more. We've tried nearly every offense besides this for the last 18 years, and we have NOTHING to show for it. Literally, what do we have to lose? 

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

That's the key here I think.  We don't need to be a power rushing team solely,  we simply need to be able to use the power run when we need it and on demand. As you said,  we must be able to throw the ball to win this conference and make the playoff.  If folks want to be Air Force and GT to only squeak out 6/7 wins some years and have losing seasons in others,  that's what we'd get by switching solely to what they do.  I personally still want hope of winning the conference again someday. 

There is literally no proof that this is what would happen. I can throw out predictions, too: If we keep doing the crap we're doing now, we'll keep winning 3-5 games a season. 

3 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

I think the offense will be pretty similar but you will probably have to find a QB who can consistently hit the stuff inside 10 yards.  I think that has been 2AM biggest problem.  He throws a pretty good ball between 12-20 yards but inside of that he can't seem to be accurate.  He also barely throws to guys unless the are completely open and not just "open".  Like other QB's who will throw the ball in a tight window to his best rec and count on him to make a play.  

I love Adrian - he's an absolute warrior and all around great kid. But he'll never be the guy that consistently fits passes in tight windows. 

12 hours ago, admo said:

Going with 2 receivers, They are always open. 

 

But if he over throws him.  3rd and 9.  Down 17.  The other team wants the ball back.  Glad we didn't take a sack though.

 

At least we aren't running a flex bone or spread bone.  I like the play action call there.  They will never see it coming

2 hours ago, admo said:

Ok but, what do you call next, now that it's 2nd and 9? 

 

Remember, we are down 17.  It's the 2nd quarter (or 3rd)

Rocket Toss.

45 minutes ago, r06ue1 said:

Triple option, never going to change my mind on this. Running the ball eats clock, keeping your defense fresh, wears out the opposing teams defense and opens up the deep ball. I have always hated spread offenses and pass first offenses. 

You couldn't be more right.

2 minutes ago, BigRedN said:

It feels like various posts can put words in your mouth ... so ...

I was watching those titles in 71-72.  I had moved on from Scott after the Illinois game.  And as I keep stating, the two-year extension was "bull-butter".  It was not a "cost of doing business".  It was folks who saw Scott as a "Nebraskan" and "savior" and the extension was a short-term fix to help recruiting [but Scott has floundered in really every capacity other than "loving these kids"]. 

For me, I don't admire Trev for his decision.  I do applaud his gamesmanship amidst his own PR and political maneuvers for sure [the stuff he pulled in the last week would rival the national leaders].  I would have respected him greatly to fire Frost at the end of the season after his evaluation he said he would do [at the end of the season].

Still, I get it all ... and here we are.  I'm not trying to win any argument and will be rooting for Scott to succeed.  

I made this post because as an old-timer, I would not do what has been done by any stretch ... going all the way back to when we were 8-14 after two seasons under Frost.  I wanted Frost to have five [5] years for the rebuild come hell of high-water, but frankly, it was obvious to me at 8-14 that we had a "lemon" and it has been difficult to see the program have to suffer under Scott's lack.  I get it.  I failed at several opportunities in life that most would have concluded that I would have been very successful.  In that ... I truly feel for Scott.  We all wanted it to be the fairy tale story ... some continue to perpetuate it.  That's okay ... you get another year.

For me, my previous wife of 26 years, her Dad [Iowa St. alum] and my former three sons ... it's just another year for them to laugh at  and mock and humiliate me.

If it's any consolation we have scoreboard forever over Iowa State, and even with Campbell, their best coach in...forever?, they've achieved basically nothing.

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Fans are not supporting Frost because they are happy he's a former player and totally fine with the record.  

 

This agenda is flat out wrong.

 

There are two groups of thought.

 

A). We need a new coach to win more.

 

B). Frost can win more with changes to the program.

 

Neither of those groups want to win more than the other.  It's just that Trev had two options to get to more wins.  He chose Frost with changes.  You can disagree with that decision.  But, that doesn't mean people who support it don't want to win.

I agree with this.

Here's where I'm at. Whether Trev fires Frost or not, we're in for a couple more struggle bus years, right?

I mean, outside of a miracle, like Urban Meyer or Bobby Stoops ending up in Lincoln, the next staff has an uphill battle on their hands, probably another losing season at the least.

I think we as fans ALWAYS have the 90s in the back of our minds, and Frost was a big part of that. So if we're going to be wading through some tough times, we'd rather do it with the true blue Nebraskan; a guy we KNOW is doing everything he can to right the ship. A guy that isn't looking for his next stop after Lincoln. To me, Frost kind of cemented this by taking the lower contract; somewhat of a sacrifice. 

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Maybe after you fight over the drumstick   Or whoever wins in breaking the wishbone - fire him yes or no.   

Did someone say Wishbone?

Just now, Xmas32 said:

Better than the goddamn flexbone.

How do we know that? I don't get everyone's hate on a legitimate, effective offense. We've been trying spread/RPO stuff for 4 years, and average something like 26 points per game against P5 competition. 

53 minutes ago, seaofred92 said:

I’m a Wake season ticket holder. Offense is fun as hell to watch. 

I have to say that really slow ride/RPO look is quite different, very interesting stuff. Not sure if it would translate against some of these B1G defenses, though.

Just now, Cdog923 said:

 

He doesn't have to be Patrick Mahomes, he just has to be Joe Ganz. 

Hey, I'll give you that. If we were as efficient as our 2008 offense under Watson (man, what happened to him?), I think this coming game against Wisconsin would be for the B1G West. 

Joey Ganz as QB coach confirmed?

2 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

A modernized Tom Osborne offense would have looked pretty similar to what Florida ran in the 2000s. 

 

 

 

I disagree. Total yardage-wise, he's already averaging 300 a game; all he (or any other QB) has to do is cut down on turnovers and increase his completion % by a couple points. Perfectly doable with proper coaching. 

I guess the real question, then, is who is the quarterback whisperer that's going to swoop in here and turn our QB into Pat Mahomes?

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Its almost like there is a reason that no team outside of the 3 service academies runs that offense.  But I guess we should trust a guy on the internet more than 120 D1 football coaches.

Absolutely, there are reasons why only they run the Flexbone. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective here. Frost is 15-27 trying spread stuff. That in itself is proof that trying to be like everyone else is not a great idea. We need to be different.

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Remember when every good defense lined up to stop our running quarterback, and dared us to beat them with his arm?

 

For the last 20 years or so?

 

That's what a flexbone will look like in the Big 10. 

 

Even Tom Osborne has said his offense probably wouldn't work against today's defenses. 

 

That doesn't mean we can't run more or better. Every offense will run the ball down an opponent's throat if that's what the defense gives them. 

 

 

This is a good point, but the Flexbone doesn't JUST feature a running quarterback.

Sure, he may run the ball, but there are 3 OTHER guys that could get the ball on any given play. It's not all on the quarterback, and that's the main problem we've had the last several years. Also, like I said, the Flexbone is not the same as Osborne's offense, and there's absolutely no proof that B1G defenses would eat it alive. The only proof I have going for me is the fact that Army marched into Ann Arbor a few years ago and took them to overtime. Who is more talented - Army, or us?

34 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

According to my sources the only offensive scheme that produces these kinds of results, and guarantees wins and a return to glory is... <checks notes> the Flexbone. 

 

 

 

I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to why the Flexbone WOULDN'T work. 

Navy won 11 games 2 years ago. 11 games. The last time Nebraska won 11 games was 2001. I know, I know, Navy's competition was trash. 1)They beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Watch it, it was a thing of beauty. 2)Our level of recruiting is in a different galaxy than theirs. 3)If they can do it, so can we. I would argue that nearly every team they play has more talent on their roster than they do.

4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

So as someone not as familiar wt the Flexbone - tell me the difference.  What are the  benefits of it? why is it hard to defend and prepare for?  Why would it succeed in the Big 10 when our old 1990s version would not?  

 

There - I served up a softball for you to hit out of the park.  Let's see what you can do with it. 

 

We never ran anything close to the Flexbone under Osborne. As many have pointed out, Osborne preferred to work the ball down the field with ISO, Pitch, and Counter. The option look was a change-up to break tendencies. He never had his quarterbacks actually read the defense - it was either a called give to the FB or a QB keep/pitch. 

In the Flexbone, the quarterback is reading a defender most plays. The 'B' back, or what we would call the fullback, dives straight ahead most plays, and either gets the ball, or he doesn't. A guy like Yant would be PERFECT for this. This stresses a defense right away, because they have to take away that immediate threat. Many times, if the B-Back can break a tackle, he gets yards quickly. After that, it's a matter of getting a hat on a hat. If the QB reads the end or tackle crashing, he pulls, and options out like we've seen so much. 

There is a very simple reason as to why it's hard to prepare for. Not only does no one else do it, almost every other defense is built to stop spread offenses, like ours right now. Most defenses, even in the B1G, need to have more defensive backs, more speed on the field, and this necessarily means less size. Also, as a coach, in every other game, you have to teach your players good habits and tendencies when reading twins, trips, Texas route concepts, defending mesh, Y-cross, run leverage against the zone read, and many other things to stop what USED to be new and innovative with the spread. But that's just it. The spread isn't new anymore. Defenses have caught up, and we all know that the red-zone is one of the main weaknesses of the spread. For instance, we gave up 3 field goals to Ohio State's spread on Saturday in the second half. Our defense is built to stop the spread.

They aren't built to sustain blow after blow from a B-Back, working down the field at 4-7 yards a play. They aren't built to recognize if a slot-back is curl-blocking or actually running a route, and this is what leads to many good gains on the outside for the QB and pitch-back. 

It fits right into our recruiting wheel-house. I contend we can always recruit linemen and running backs. We could still get some receivers, but we wouldn't be wasting recruiting time and money trying to beat out the B1G's other heavy-hitters. We're not beating them now, so why play that game? Osborne understood this more than anyone. He recruited the best athletes he could for defense, and focused on linemen and running backs. He focused on development and repetition - the back-up could come in and do a serviceable job if the starter went down. This is a staple of the Flexbone, as well.

A ball-control offense like this helps the defense by keeping it off the field. It moves the chains, works the clock, and gives the defense a breather. Normally. No offense is without its 3-and-outs, of course.

I really could go on and on, but I don't get why everyone wants to keep doing more of the same, and then expect our offense to do better. 

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The flaw in this argument is we aren't losing to Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan or Michigan State because we can't get good athletes, we're losing because we make bonehead mistakes.

 

The solution to this isn't to switch up the offense, the solution is to stop making bonehead mistakes. 

Bonehead mistakes? True. But why? There is a reason.

The bonehead mistakes come from asking these kids to do things they just aren't capable of. Martinez is a great athlete, but he's not going to pass for 300+ every game, and we would need him to if we wanted to compete for the B1G West. He's definitely not going to light up the scoreboard with the offensive line that we have now. 

You say the solution isn't to switch up the offense, but that's EXACTLY what we're doing right now. We aren't scoring enough points. The defense is on the field too long. The Flexbone fixes at least one of those problems.

6 minutes ago, BigRedN said:

If you have an OL that can block for smash mouth football ... then yes, it can work when you want to run it.  

That is the problem, we can't block to open up those holes when needed ... and we don't have an OT's who can protect any sort of passer to get the necessary time to take in the open reads and deliver.  You have to have those two things established or be able to do ... for there to be consistent effectiveness in the B1G.  The "finesse" stuff does not and will not work in the B1G.  

It makes me think of the offense like what Frost ran for UCF against Auburn.  You can't take on teams like Auburn and be really successful again and again running "finesse" systems.  You can win a game if you have a really sharp offense with a talented QB and the like, sure.  But "fluff" doesn't stand up against stronger, faster defenses who have the DL to win the line of scrimmage.

If the past four years have taught Scott anything, it's that he had no clue to the depth of the OL and DL build that was upon him.  In fact, he was actually a few years late to the dance as he needed more OL help than he imagined, put his eggs in to few baskets and then didn't develop them.  This is why we can't been the bottom dwellers.  Their lines are better and stronger and they don't have our mistakes and special teams.

I contend that while our line is young and somewhat inexperienced, they can ABSOLUTELY run block. We haven't really asked them to really drive block very much. Most of it is outside zone scheme - doubling, moving up, reach-blocking, etc. This, to me, is finesse. We bagged on it back in the Callahan days because you actually don't want to knock defenders over at the line of scrimmage and pancake them because this decreases the number of running lanes for the running back.

We haven't asked our guys to line up and take people on, 1-on-1. I think they can. Benhart, Corcoran, Jurgens, etc - these kids are huge, and have done work in the weight room. The flexbone simply asks the linemen to fire off and drive block a defender, low and hard. This is simple football. Who's going to beat a kid like Prochazka, 1 on 1? 

The flexbone is the opposite of 'finesse.' The stuff we've been trying to do, and failing at? THAT is finesse. Let's line up and drive some teams back. 

18 minutes ago, Husker03 said:

Because it quit working for Solich and that is why we are where we are today. It a fun, albeit dangerous wrinkle, but there is a reason that no P5 contenders run it, and that reason is not that it is unstoppable. 

Army's Flexbone and the offense Solich ran are two COMPLETELY different things. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Georgia Tech all had WAY more success running the Flexbone than we have in the last 5+ years trying pro and spread schemes. The Flexbone is not a perfect offense, but it absolutely fits a place like Lincoln. 

We aren't going to get All-American quarterbacks and receivers. Smith-Njigba, who just set the Ohio State record for single game receiving against us, was set to visit Lincoln a couple years ago. He didn't make it, because the Buckeyes offered him, and he took it on the spot. This happens OVER and OVER. We aren't going to beat Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State on the field while losing to them in recruiting kids from Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

The Flexbone is basic, smashmouth football. It wears defenses down during the course of the game. We have HUGE linemen, and I'd be willing to bet they can push most B1G defensive linemen around, 1-on-1. They haven't shown the ability to pass block the last 4 years, so why keep trying to do that? Why keep trying to run spread pass when we're throwing 4 picks and getting sacked 5 times?

These are just a FEW reasons why we should go to the flexbone. I've been saying it for years. But Nebraska keeps doing this pro/spread crap. And we KEEP LOSING.