BIG ERN

March 11

Idaho, Ohio State, Nebraska, Oregon State, Purdue, Southern Miss, Tennessee, & TCU.

For the statuses on the right side of the homepage. They need a LIKE button, similar to facebook.

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

 

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

 

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

 

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

 

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

 

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

 

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

 

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

 

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

 

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

 

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

 

Who would be a better fit for the flexbone? LaMichael James or John Clay? Now for the spread? Flexbone you have RB's blocking LB's and and the FB kicking out the DE's if they aren't getting the ball. RB's go in motion (horizontally) which alone is stupid IMO. It's just a big cluster F***. No coach would ever run this if they were recruiting just speed, and you obviously can't tell when someone is exaggerating a statement. Never said this offense couldn't work, just stating if you were recruiting Green, Abdullah, and Heard this is one of the worst O's to run. I still think the Pro Style offense is the best, but again it's just an opinion. If the flexbone was so good then why don't more teams run it? Exactly. Get out of the olden days bro.

Who would be better between LaMichael James and John Clay? Easy. If you are talking full back, John Clay. If you are talking slot back, LaMichael James.

 

Why don't more coaches run it? Because there are only two at the moment who know HOW to run it. (Paul Johnson and Ken Niumatololo.) It's the same reason why no one is running Tom Osborne's offense at the moment. It's not because it doesn't work . . . it's because Tom Osborne isn't coaching any more and no one else can run it successfully.

 

Get out of the "olden days?" The flexbone is a lot newer than your pro style offense "bro."

 

Glad to see that you admit that your "worst offense ever if you have speed" comment was utter BS. Sometimes people surprise me.

Only 2 coaches in Div. 1 football know this offense? Or there are only 2 coaches dumb enough to run this offense? How is this a speed offense? Please explain. Because everyone is side by side and they can run verticals? Terrible explanation in earlier post.

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

 

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

 

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

 

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

 

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

 

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

 

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

 

Anything to back up your claim that my argument is poor logic? I just gave you two reasons why your own argument is flawed. Perhaps you'd be able to do likewise? Or, perhaps not.

 

Let's start simply. The flexbone formation gives the defense the threat of 4 vertical routes on every play (the same as . . . GASP . . . the 4 wide spread). Look at the diagram posted earlier. 2 WR (eligible receivers) and 2 SB (eligible receivers). The defense is forced to choose between bringing 1 or more safeties up into run support where they are absolutely necessary to stop the option . . . but doing so leaves the middle or one side of the field unprotected for one of the 4 verticals. This, on top of the threat of being outflanked to either side of the field is a real conundrum for a defense. You can't be everywhere at once. Either one or more of the four verticals will be open or you won't have enough bodies in run coverage. Keep in mind that this is only the base formation. The same basic concepts can be used with both WR to the same side, with TEs, etc.

 

Plus, add on the fact that most teams in the country face 6+ spread offenses per season . . . while playing at MOST 1 triple option team. Do you think teams are better at defending an offense they see every week or at defending an offense they MIGHT see once per year? Rhetorical question. You don't actually need to answer.

 

You said "worst offense ever if you have speed." Please. Defend that. When you make an allegation it helps to include facts to support it. You've done nothing so far but say that the last 5 national champions ran a version of the spread or pro style and informed us that you ran some extraordinarily simplified version of the triple option in high school. Those don't support your claim. Perhaps you'd like to cite the superiority of Missouri's spread offense? The offense that disappears every time it faces a defense with a pulse? They get those receivers out in space don't they . . . oh wait? They can't break a real coverage scheme? Interesting.

Who would be a better fit for the flexbone? LaMichael James or John Clay? Now for the spread? Flexbone you have RB's blocking LB's and and the FB kicking out the DE's if they aren't getting the ball. RB's go in motion (horizontally) which alone is stupid IMO. It's just a big cluster F***. No coach would ever run this if they were recruiting just speed, and you obviously can't tell when someone is exaggerating a statement. Never said this offense couldn't work, just stating if you were recruiting Green, Abdullah, and Heard this is one of the worst O's to run. I still think the Pro Style offense is the best, but again it's just an opinion. If the flexbone was so good then why don't more teams run it? Exactly. Get out of the olden days bro.

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

 

The whole POINT of the flexbone is getting your playmakers in space. I think you are confusing the flexbone with the wishbone . . . which was a very constrained, power running, 3 yards and a cloud of dust type offense.

 

Your argument about the last 5 national champions is one of the most ridiculous excuses for logic that I've seen in a long, long, time.

 

2005 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the spread offense. We'd better not try it.

 

1969 Texas: Well . . . no one has ever won the MNC while running the wishbone. We'd better not try it.

 

See the problem with your logic? I'll explain further if you'd like. (Also, I'd be willing to guess that a large percentage of HB posters, myself included, had 4 years of high school football experience.)

Flexbone is getting your playmakers in space? Worst logic I've ever heard. If you want to have success with the flexbone you HAVE to have a good offensive line. It's about playing sound football and being patient to bust open a big play. The spread is about getting the ball out quick and letting backs and receivers make a guy miss and they're gone because its a lot of one-on-one coverage from being spread out. Florida, Oregon, & Nebraska aren't recruiting John Clay type backs but Jeff Demps, LaMichael James, Aaron Green. Also smaller receivers who are fast are going to thrive in the spread more so than Pro Style and other offenses because of speed alone.

By stating that I ran the offense for 4 years didn't mean that I was Montana or Vick. Just saying if you have SPEED it wasn't a good offense to run. For speed you want to SPREAD teams out and get your playmakers in space. The double wing everyone is bunched together. Don't say yeah I would post something, but you wouldn't get it like you are more educated at football than I am. Get serious

Here's what I want to see . . . which will never happen . . . and probably for good reasons.

 

I want to see a flexbone formation with Martinez under center, Burkhead as the fullback, and 2 out of Abdullah/Green/Heard lined up as slotbacks.

 

 

My goodness I love the triple option.

 

 

I was QB in high school and this is the offense we ran. Worst offense ever if you have speed! Its for little kids and teams like Navy.

I'm comfortable in saying that this comment shows that you have much to learn about football . . . extensive high school experience notwithstanding.

 

"Worst offense ever if you have speed?!" Wow.

 

You can start the learning here. Continue by delving into one of my favorite examples here. Finally, educate yourself here.

Get educated here <national champions last 5 years> ----> 2010 - Auburn (Spread) 2009 Alabama (Pro) 2008 Florida (Spread) 2007 LSU (Pro) 2006 Florida (Spread) 2005 Texas (Spread)

Here's what I want to see . . . which will never happen . . . and probably for good reasons.

 

I want to see a flexbone formation with Martinez under center, Burkhead as the fullback, and 2 out of Abdullah/Green/Heard lined up as slotbacks.

 

 

My goodness I love the triple option.

I was QB in high school and this is the offense we ran. Worst offense ever if you have speed! Its for little kids and teams like Navy.

I agree when Crouch said the team gave up on him. The other rumors who cares they are "rumors." Looking at the facts it was obvious when no one came to celebrate when he scored and he never went to anyone else when they did. This IS a problem no matter what anyone says. The QB has to have respect of the players and Martinez didn't last year. He was only a fresh so lets hope something changes otherwise even being talented get him out.

The question was - Who would YOU choose - Not opinions and analysis from others. Just because Kiper says something doesn't mean he's right.

Peterson. I love Prince, but think he's slightly overrated. IMO Dennard is a better CB than Prince.

He forgot to mention Daimion Stafford who I guarantee will start. This kid is a flat out playmaker at FS, nickel, or kick/punt returns.

Regardless we recruited them from California whether it was JC or HS.

Top 10 in no real specific order

I was curious what were the best states we were recruiting from over the past 10 years and the future kids from there. Only noted states with kids that had at least 2 relevant guys.

Oklahoma - Zac Taylor, Phillip Dillard

Tennessee - Josh Bullocks, Daniel Bullocks, Barry Turner

Colorado – Pierre Allen, Matt Slauson, Ross Pilkington

(Future) - Kenny Bell, Mike Moudy

Illinois - Joe Ganz, Corey McKeon

(Future) - Corey Cooper, Ryan Klachko

Florida – Lavonte David, Fabian Washington, Steve Octavien

(Future) - Brion Carnes, Mauro Bondi

Minnesota – Lydon Murtha, Nate Swift

(Future) - Tobi Okuyemi

Missouri – Mike McNeill, Brandon Kinnie, Will Compton

(Future) - Chase Rome

Arizona - Prince Amukamara, Eric Hagg, Richie Incognito

(Future) - Todd Peat

California - Dejon Gomes, Roy Helu Jr, Jacob Hickman, Marlon Lucky, Taylor Martinez, Carl Nicks, Cameron Meredith, Maurice Purify

(Future) - Daimion Stafford, Joseph Carter, Quincy Enunwa

Texas - Rex Burkhead, Quentin Castille, Cody Glenn, Adi Kunalic, Terrence Nunn, DeMorrio Williams, Courtney Osborne

(Future) - Aaron Green, Jamal Turner, David Santos, Givens Price, Charles Jackson, Ciante Evans

Nebraska - Barrett Ruud, Jared Crick, Alex Henery, Matt Herian, David Horne, Niles Paul, Baker Steinkuhler, Titus Adams

(Future) - Andrew Rodriguez, Zach Sterup, Ryne Reeves, Daniel Davie

I never made any claims that Iowa was the superior team. My claim was that Nebraska absolutely does not have any superior talent or coaching than Iowa does. They are quite even teams that will match up will against each other. So this should be a close rivalry.

Will Nebraska run through Iowa over the next 10 years? No. will they win 6 or 7 out of the 10? Yes. I think the offenses will be equal this season while the defenses, well they aren't even comparable. You only have 4 relevant players on defense and don't start name dropping random players who are gaining experience because I know them all.

You have a inexperienced QB (again, don't give me oh he played good a year ago against OSU...barely lead Iowa to a win over Minnesota the next week). He is from Iowa and I have seen him play in High School, throws a good ball, but don't think he will be anything too great. Trust me I know your going to rip on Martinez ect. I can't argue the fact that he played TERRIBLE the last few games of the season along with almost everyone else on offense (and coaches). Before he was injured he was breaking records though. RBs - Coker will initially be better than anyone on Nebraska unless Aaron Green emerges quickly which I think he will. Our depth is far and beyond Iowa's at this position. OL - IA has an edge in this unit for sure, but I think we have a solid one as well. TE - You have young guys that can def. be all-big 10 in a few years, but I'll take Kyler Reed and Cotton for next season. WR - Right now I will favor IA with McNutt and Davis, but only slightly for now because Kinnie is even with them, but we need someone young to fill this void. So going into the season I think the offenses will be equal, but as I stated defenses aren't close IMO. It will come down to off-season coaching and changes to see what happens next fall. We can talk all we want, but it isn't going to matter, but pre-season wise. Neb has the edge.

http://www.kuathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/warinner_ed00.html

Pretty solid resume'

He would HAVE to be either CO-...or OC. Yes it would be a lateral move at best despite Nebraska roots. Oregon just went to the national title and he recruited 3 more solid WRs.

Missing the point. To a Nebraska guy....Nebraska > Oregon. Period. Recent success doesn't change history.

I kind of agree with you here, but not fully. Scott Frost started his college career at Stanford University. He attended Stanford for two years before transferring to Nebraska (not loyal or knew he wouldn't start first 2 seasons?). Would it be a big deal to coach Nebraska when you're from and played for Nebraska --huge deal, can't disagree, but someone who has the competitive edge like Frost you play/coach to WIN. Period. I would love to have Frost and I think we have a solid chance of getting him, but people who think its a simple decision to pack up and leave Oregon right now just because you played for Nebraska are mistaken IMO.

I am a Nebraska fan that lives in Iowa and most all my friends and family are all Hawkeye fans. I hear this talk all the time. I know CFB inside out from coaching, recruiting, facilities, players yadda yadda. We will talk PRESENT. Is Iowa going to come to Lincoln next fall and beat Nebraska? The answer is NO my friend.

He would HAVE to be either CO-...or OC. Yes it would be a lateral move at best despite Nebraska roots. Oregon just went to the national title and he recruited 3 more solid WRs.

No one on Huskerboard would play football if you were in his shoes. Ya im 18/19 years old and am going to make bank son! Whats up MLB.

Read a post on another board that ESPN liked what they saw of Lockhart at an All-Star game a few weeks ago and bumped him up to a :star :star

 

Apparently that was the reason why VaTech and Nebraska came into the picture late.

 

Robert Lockhart ESPN

Nice. If ESPN is bouncing you up he must have played a really solid all-star game. I guess WR looks like his calling.

Looks like he would be more productive at DB than WR

I would hope that we are still going after this guy extremely hard, considering how small this class is getting and even the potential of losing our other prize CB recruit, which would be a disaster. We need a guy like Frankie regardless. Who cares if he's committed. He's not signed yet.

Are we going to participate in the whole don't go after other committed big ten players unwritten rule? The Big Ten schools all seem to follow by that and it really causes an uproar when one of the member schools break it. A few years ago Eric Gordon committed to Bruce Weber and the Fighting Illini and then Sampson got in there and did some dirty recruiting and got him to Indiana. He not only felt the wrath of Illi but the other member schools were very peeved at Indy's recruiting tactics too. It seems like we would want to start our Big Ten tenure on a positive note, and I suspect we won't try to poach from other member schools unless the kid calls us first.

 

Tevin Mitchell, Aaryn Bouzos, Ameer Abdullah etc. etc. etc. It happens in every conference all the time and is all fair game until signed. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!

 

So when Arkansas steals Tevin Mitchel, they're dirty and liars and shady. When we do it, we do it cause we want to win.

 

Wait...

I never said Arkansas was dirty. It's called recruiting. Tevin can decommit all he wants, because its his decision. Just because you weren't the first to call the kid doesn't mean anything.

Best LB name we've had in a LONG time. Maybe ever.

Thats what I was thinkin. BOSS