Husker Offense

[Mavric]

1 minute ago, gossamorharpy said:

lol, at least its more relevant than completely changing your original point around? 

 

I haven't changed my point at all.  You're the one who brought up stacked boxes in the NFL, not me.  I already said I don't think it's really relevant to the original conversation.  I'm just trying to see if you have any facts or you just want people to accept your assertions at face value.

[gossamorharpy]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I haven't changed my point at all.  You're the one who brought up stacked boxes in the NFL, not me.  I already said I don't think it's really relevant to the original conversation.  I'm just trying to see if you have any facts or you just want people to accept your assertions at face value.

Let me break this down:

You originally said: "This is why it makes me shake my head when people drool over fullbacks and tight ends.  All you do when you go to a heavy formation is bring more defenders into the box.  Which is more guys to block, more blocks to not screw up and just generally more traffic to work through."

 

The topic of this thread was a pie in the sky model our offense after SF idea.  You know, one of the only teams in the NFL that still uses a FULLBACK and TE regularly on the same play formation.  The niners seem to have zero issue combatting a stacked box.  Kyle Shanahan has been on record many a times saying he loves seeing a stacked box because thats exactly what he wants to trick the defnese into.... have them expect the run and gash them on a pass play out of the same exact formation they've seen a run from many times in that game.  Its one of the major reasons as to why Deebo, Kittle and CMC all lead their respective positions in RAC yardage (how's that for stats?).

 

You then disregard my response and try and morph the argument into an NFL vs. college conversation.  

 

Then when I acknowledge some differences in the game, you basically say unless i back things up with stats I'm lying, but its ok for you to drop zero stats and make a point where we have to accept your assertion at face value. 

 

Lastly, what about this exchange is not relevant to the original conversation?  SFs success is due to a multitude of things- one of the biggest tho is how multiple they are in play formations and plays they can out of it.  You literally responded saying it makes you shake your head when people drool over FB and TEs.  This is why I said you r stuck in 2004.  You act as if the offense has a play, see's what the defense runs and goes "aww shucks, they have 8 or 9 in the box, we're stuck with what we designed, lets hike it anyways".  

 

 

[Undone]

 

18 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

Kyle Shanahan has been on record many a times saying he loves seeing a stacked box because thats exactly what he wants to trick the defnese into.... have them expect the run and gash them on a pass play out of the same exact formation they've seen a run from many times in that game.

 

I do think this is exactly the kind of thing Rhule & Satterfield want to do.

 

I think  that we've had negative outcomes of playing against heavy defensive fronts when we're rolling out the B Grade or even C Grade dual threat QB's that aren't actually a threat with their arm. I could pick out specific seasons where this happened under Bo, Riley, Frost, and obviously in Rhule's first year.

 

You tend to get heavy pressure there because there's lots of game film that shows your QB can't stand strong in the pocket and dial in a good throw when the blitz is coming, so opposing defenses have a lot of success playing you this way.

 

It's probably not smart to pour over the San Francisco comments too much, but also it's the offseason. I still say we'd need better talent at running back to implement a clone of what the niners do, but then again I doubt Rhule intends to try to do exactly what Shanahan does on offense.

 

The bottom line to me is that once Raiola is up to speed and if his arm is as good as I think it's going to be, it'll be a waste of what he can give us if we don't toss the ball around the field quite a bit more than what our fan base probably has in their mind as their ideal run/pass ratio.

 

And it's like our program has some actual allergic reaction to anything considered a "spread offense." I think that's lame. But, we did go four guys wide in some 3rd down situations this season, so there's hope.     

[gossamorharpy]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

 

And I do think this is exactly the kind of thing Rhule & Satterfield want to do, also.

 

I think  that we've had the issue of playing against heavy defensive fronts when we're rolling out the B Grade or even C Grade dual threat QB's that aren't actually a threat with their arm. You tend to get heavy pressure there because there's lots of game film that shows your QB can't stand strong in the pocket and dial in a good throw when the blitz is coming.

 

It's probably not smart to pour over the San Francisco comments too much, but also it's the offseason. I still say we'd need better talent at running back to implement a clone of what the niners do, but then again I doubt Rhule intends to try to do exactly what Shanahan does on offense.

 

The bottom line to me is that once Raiola is up to speed and if his arm is as good as I think it's going to be, it'll be a waste of what he can give us if we don't toss the ball around the field quite a bit more than what our fan base probably has in their mind as their ideal run/pass ratio.

 

And it's like our program has some actual allergic reaction to anything considered a "spread offense." I think that's lame.

What about when we roll out F and D+ grade dual threats like we did this past year?

 

Love me the offseason.  I kind of said the same thing in another post with an analogy to Fred Hoiberg.  Waiting for his press conference when he announces he  just gonna do what the 2017 warriors and 96 bulls did.  

 

On your last part.  Its hard to say, frosty's offense was largely predicated on spread concepts but I'd argue he was a bit too horizontal and didnt have the line to work with.  I'm hopeful Rhule will find the right balance of being a power run first team but also being able to throw the ball downfield when they do throw it to.  While we dont have the skill athletes of ohio state/bamas of the world, we certainly can get the right players to make it work and be in the running in the big10 consistently.

 

I really think the biggest thing we're allergic to as of late is quality line play.  This isnt a knock on raiola (ol coach)- but in general, we've disregarded the importance of the line to the point where no offense would be successful. 

[Undone]

10 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

I really think the biggest thing we're allergic to as of late is quality line play.  This isnt a knock on raiola (ol coach)- but in general, we've disregarded the importance of the line to the point where no offense would be successful.

 

Husker fans seem to go to this blame pretty quickly. If we had put Georgia's offensive line in front of Haarberg, would the results have been that different?

 

Or to rephrase it, which would have given us more wins in 2023?

 

• Having Georgia's offensive line
• Having Michael Penix at QB in all 12 games

 

[gossamorharpy]

25 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Husker fans seem to go to this blame pretty quickly. If we had put Georgia's offensive line in front of Haarberg, would the results have been that different?

 

Or to rephrase it, which would have given us more wins in 2023?

 

• Having Georgia's offensive line
• Having Michael Penix at QB in all 12 games

 

When you present it that way, I think we would have had more wins in 23 with Penix.  I mean, you can easily make the argument we're a 10-2/11-1 team with Penix with the only losses being Michigan and then an inevitable wtf stumble against someone else.  

 

Assuming we dont have a heisman finalist at qb, i think a top line gives you more to work with and a more consistent chance of success (assuming your other position groups aren't trash).  

 

 

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, gossamorharpy said:

The topic of this thread was a pie in the sky model our offense after SF idea.  You know, one of the only teams in the NFL that still uses a FULLBACK and TE regularly on the same play formation.  The niners seem to have zero issue combatting a stacked box. 

 

At the very least this is hyperbole.  At best, you're still just claiming things without any justification.

 

And, again, college and NFL are not the same.

 

1 hour ago, gossamorharpy said:

Kyle Shanahan has been on record many a times saying he loves seeing a stacked box because thats exactly what he wants to trick the defnese into.... have them expect the run and gash them on a pass play out of the same exact formation they've seen a run from many times in that game.  Its one of the major reasons as to why Deebo, Kittle and CMC all lead their respective positions in RAC yardage (how's that for stats?).

 

It's a false stat, but that's seems to be what you're making your living on right now.

 

1 hour ago, gossamorharpy said:

You then disregard my response and try and morph the argument into an NFL vs. college conversation.  

 

This seems appropriate being as how Nebraska doesn't play in the NFL.

 

1 hour ago, gossamorharpy said:

Then when I acknowledge some differences in the game, you basically say unless i back things up with stats I'm lying, but its ok for you to drop zero stats and make a point where we have to accept your assertion at face value. 

 

Good deflection.

 

1 hour ago, gossamorharpy said:

Lastly, what about this exchange is not relevant to the original conversation?  SFs success is due to a multitude of things- one of the biggest tho is how multiple they are in play formations and plays they can out of it.  You literally responded saying it makes you shake your head when people drool over FB and TEs.  This is why I said you r stuck in 2004. 

 

We're just talking about the stuff that you brought up.  So you tell me.

 

1 hour ago, gossamorharpy said:

You act as if the offense has a play, see's what the defense runs and goes "aww shucks, they have 8 or 9 in the box, we're stuck with what we designed, lets hike it anyways".  

 

Yep, that's exactly what I said.  You can tell by the part where I never said anything like that.

[gossamorharpy]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

At the very least this is hyperbole.  At best, you're still just claiming things without any justification.

 

And, again, college and NFL are not the same.

 

 

It's a false stat, but that's seems to be what you're making your living on right now.

 

 

This seems appropriate being as how Nebraska doesn't play in the NFL.

 

 

Good deflection.

 

 

We're just talking about the stuff that you brought up.  So you tell me.

 

 

Yep, that's exactly what I said.  You can tell by the part where I never said anything like that.

Sorry, I meant Yards after catch.  And heading into this past week Deebo, Kittle and CMC were all leaders at their respective positions in this category.

 

The fact that you selectively say this isnt an NFL convo and nebraska doesnt play in the NFL doesnt make any sense when literally the content of the OP (WHICH YOU POSTED) was mimicing a very successful NFL team.  The posts after were discussing how SF brings in TEs and 2 back sets, so when you say "i shake my head when people drool over FBs and TEs" I assume it had some kind of connection to the original post and posters before. 

 

As far as deflections go- you've literally cherry picked words you either said or meant in another way after the fact.   You literally posted this a day before I did lol.  You had zero response to me calling that out, outside of moving the goal posts and then questioning credibility.  Great exchange, for an admin, you're really providing a great leading example what this board should be.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Oh Trent Williams is definitely a difference maker. And he actually does get tons of credit and replays – probably more than any other OL in the league. But as a whole the Niner OL has been considered good, not great for a few years now. It’s mostly about Shanahan being a mad genius about pre-snap motion and misdirection. For all the complexity and finesse, he uses it to run one of the best smashmouth between the tackles running games in the league. 
 
McCaffrey is something special, no doubt, but most RBs in the Shanahan system have been getting five yards a carry for years. 
 
Don’t know if you’ve watched the last couple Niners games, but there have been three or four touchdown passes where the receiver was so wide open it could only be blown coverage or assignments. But after the game the other team – and the analysts – credited coaching. Shanahan watches tons of game film and knows the other team’s tendencies. He called those plays knowing the DC would have to make a choice, knew which one he’d make, and knew which of Purdy’s options would be wide open. 
 
Other thing that gets talked about with the Niners – like it used to with the Huskers – is that everyone blocks. No prima donna WRs. You take just as much pride in your downfield blocking as you do your own stats. The coaching staff definitely notices, as do the game announcers. 
 
And the Niners Yards After Catch is just insane. None of these guys runs out of bounds. They turn back into the field and deliver their own hit. 

[chamrocck]

6 hours ago, gossamorharpy said:

This is an insult to Brock Purdy and what good qb play should look like.  

B. Purdy is a good QB, efficient, smart. Kudos to him playing how the coaches need him so SF keeps winning games. But no he is not a dynamic QB and benefits due to all the talent and weapons he has around him. He’s like a McCord. Let’s see how McCord does with Syracuse players instead of OSU.  That’s why I didn’t really understand the premise of the article as Raiola is very different than a game manager QB. I think we could have gone with a game manager but instead I think we are going to be exciting and throw deep and there will be growing pains but it sure will be fun to watch. 

[gossamorharpy]

13 minutes ago, chamrocck said:

B. Purdy is a good QB, efficient, smart. Kudos to him playing how the coaches need him so SF keeps winning games. But no he is not a dynamic QB and benefits due to all the talent and weapons he has around him. He’s like a McCord. Let’s see how McCord does with Syracuse players instead of OSU.  That’s why I didn’t really understand the premise of the article as Raiola is very different than a game manager QB. I think we could have gone with a game manager but instead I think we are going to be exciting and throw deep and there will be growing pains but it sure will be fun to watch. 

I am so incredibly excited to see what we have to work with.

 

We gotta give Brock some credit tho.  Jimmy G had this same talent and the offense was nowhere near as explosive.  

 

The Mccord situation is so puzzling.  Sounds like we never offered him a spot-- im shocked syracuse was where he landed.

[GlobalHusker]

6 hours ago, gossamorharpy said:

lol, same.  as I was typing my response i was like, i hope this doesnt confuse ppl and should use the HCSF acronym standard moving forward

Please, brother, remove San Fran out of the lexicon.  we hate it when ppl use that term.  Its like when I see nebraska referred on other boards as UN or neb or nebby.   

Bay Area…if you know, you know…

 

forgot to add that Frisco is in Texas, not in NorCal. At least the NorCal I know.

[Born N Bled Red]

4 hours ago, gossamorharpy said:

Let me break this down:

You originally said: "This is why it makes me shake my head when people drool over fullbacks and tight ends.  All you do when you go to a heavy formation is bring more defenders into the box.  Which is more guys to block, more blocks to not screw up and just generally more traffic to work through."

 

The topic of this thread was a pie in the sky model our offense after SF idea.  You know, one of the only teams in the NFL that still uses a FULLBACK and TE regularly on the same play formation.  The niners seem to have zero issue combatting a stacked box.  Kyle Shanahan has been on record many a times saying he loves seeing a stacked box because thats exactly what he wants to trick the defnese into.... have them expect the run and gash them on a pass play out of the same exact formation they've seen a run from many times in that game.  Its one of the major reasons as to why Deebo, Kittle and CMC all lead their respective positions in RAC yardage (how's that for stats?).

 

You then disregard my response and try and morph the argument into an NFL vs. college conversation.  

 

Then when I acknowledge some differences in the game, you basically say unless i back things up with stats I'm lying, but its ok for you to drop zero stats and make a point where we have to accept your assertion at face value. 

 

Lastly, what about this exchange is not relevant to the original conversation?  SFs success is due to a multitude of things- one of the biggest tho is how multiple they are in play formations and plays they can out of it.  You literally responded saying it makes you shake your head when people drool over FB and TEs.  This is why I said you r stuck in 2004.  You act as if the offense has a play, see's what the defense runs and goes "aww shucks, they have 8 or 9 in the box, we're stuck with what we designed, lets hike it anyways".  

 

 

 

It makes sense if your goal is to attack the perimeter. 

[DefenderAO]

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Am I the only one in this thread that gets half way through reading a post thinking SF is referring to a former coach?

"HCMR" also gives me chills.

 

Time for Ice Cream!

 

 

[pleh]

15 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

At the very least this is hyperbole.  At best, you're still just claiming things without any justification.

No that is what you are doing. Just stop. You lost. Don't dig yourself in deeper. Its embarrassing to watch.