I want to see the "I"..

[Stuntz 2 Crouch]

After dissapointing results from the last games of the season including the CCG loss to Oklahoma, many topics were started debating what went wrong. There are almost as many topics as opinions regarding what went wrong. The offense and lack of offensive production and play calling have been hot topics.

 

In response to those topics I ask again, why aren't we running the "I" ? In my opinion with Martinez at less than 100%, the "I" makes sense.

 

It would allow two very outstanding running backs in Burkhead and Helu to be in the backfield at the same time. With Martinez under center, there are numerous offensive plays that can be ran in that formation including pass plays.

 

Even with Martinez at 100%, the "zone read" takes time execute or develop. Too much time against speedy defenses such as Oklahoma, especially with Martinez at less than 100%. Much of the success that Nebraska has had running the "zone read" this year was with Martinez at full strength, and only his unique athleticism and quickness made many plays and that offensive scheme successful.

 

Nebraska's glourious past was achieved using great athletes, running the "I" formation. Names like Gill, Redwine, Rozier, Frazier, Craig, Rathman, Crouch, Rodgers, Green, Makovicka and many others, acquired success that translated to NEBRASKA VICTORIES running out of the "I" formation.

 

Quick hitting, mis-directional plays are what's needed and on order for the Nebraska offense. I'm not saying that we have to run the option on every down out of the "I", but it's my opinion at this point in time considering the health and lack of productivity in the offense, it's time to line up in the "I" like days of old and send a message to defenses: "WERE NEBRASKA, WERE GOING TO LINE UP AND PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH, AND RUN THE BALL. TRY AND STOP US".

 

So again why not the "I" ? All comments and discussion welcome.

[zoogs]

You have very colorful posts Literally! (I like it, just observing) Interesting question! My thoughts--

 

I think the I is something we would have seen more of with Cody Green. We saw some formations with Cotton behind the line of scrimmage in that H-back/TE/FB role, not really sure what to call it, but basically being a blocker for the tailback, except the QB was in the shotgun. So it's kind of like a weak/strong look, only in the shotgun, and with the "FB" guy in front of rather than behind the QB. I don't remember where the "I" back was, but I believe there are times when Roy/Rex are level with Taylor and other times when they are behind him - either directly, or offset. A number of times I've seen the QB take a shotgun snap and turn around to handoff or fake-handoff to our RB. So to me this is kind of an analogous formation as far as strengths go, but with a different look. I am far from knowledgeable here, so someone can correct this assessment if it is off-base. EDIT, and I forgot to add, but we saw the I at least once against OU. It's not a lot, just saying.

 

I also think the only time we ever see two outstanding running backs on the field is when Burkhead is in the Wildcat, and even then sometimes it seems to be Marlowe instead of Helu (which is appropriate, given Helu seems less useful stretching to the outside on those sweeps that Marlowe does). The I formation is never traditionally a two-running back formation. When we do see an I, the lead back is the fullback and mostly a blocker/check-down option in the passing game, or on occasion a change-up runner when you want to surprise defenses. FB running is not something we seem to do much period though, and I figure that has something to do with personnel, but am not sure. In either case, neither Roy nor Rex seem to be best served trying to be a fullback. Either Wildcat or 2RB shotgun formation (not sure if we do that) would seem to be best way to go.

 

I think we would see the "I" formation more with Green in there at QB, since that plays to his strengths more.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the zone read against Oklahoma if Martinez is healthy, makes the right reads. Neither were the case when we played them, but there were some plays in the first half when the zone read busted open big gains for us, even with Taylor. Of course, the zone read with Rex was the only thing that worked at all consistently for us last night, which I think really goes to show that the speedy defense thing is a bit of a myth here. Rex, making the right reads, consistently made stuff happen out of that package. If you are asking for misdirection plays though, you are really asking for the ZR since that's what it is, and straight up traditional runs from the I formation are going to be less so. Doesn't mean we wouldn't be well served with a straightforward and simple attack like that, if it came down to it. But in that case I think you have to go with Cody, as Martinez's strengths are elsewhere, and injured Martinez's strengths are pretty few. (Not really Taylor's fault, that last one)

[NUance]

If we did run the I it would not be with both Burkhead and Helu. We'd have a fullback to block. Somebody who could hit the hole and blow up a LB.

[HuskerNMO]

This isn't an xbox, you can't just draw plays in the dirt and expect them to work. It takes practice and repetition to become skilled at anything, the formations and schemes weren't the problem, it was the lack of execution, fumbles and sacks that doomed us. The I formation doesn't have some magical property that would make the offense do the basic things that it failed at against OU.

[mnhusker]

The Zone read can be great for the healthy Martinez and I love the power I ...... makes me want to meet friends at the "road side bar" and talk about the "Glory Days" when the the Huskers could run the option and "make you look like a fool"

[Stuntz 2 Crouch]

Great responses so far all with good points. In trying not to write a novel in the opening I agree that the "I" may not be THE answer. And as pointed out, it's not an X-Box and there could be great combinations of backs used in the formation.. so as mentioned "Helu and Burkhead" back there at the same time wouldn't work, I ask or would it? As quick as that combinations potential success was dismissed...it would/could cause confussion in the defense. And as quick as a defense might "load the box" in expectation of the run, Aha! fake run or power dive and pass to keep them honest. Especially if those backs "rotated" in and out in combination with other backs in quick succession. And yes Helu is great at making a move, getting outside and blasting downfield exactly what happens when running the "I". Again read the first..MANY plays can be run from the "I". And I'm not saying to abandon the zone read, just add the "I".. mix it up, keep em' guessing.

 

Again not saying it is THE answer or should be the only formation or combination, I would just love to see it used more and think running plays that are designed for the back to hit the hole quick and get the back at least to the "second level" of the defense, could be and has been successful.

 

Great discussion. Please proceed (insert Billy Madison voice and hand gesture)...

[huskerscott]

I wouldve like to see the I formation or single back inplanted into our offense a little bit more, pretty much like Alabama does it. Imagine we run up gut or off tackle then BAM hit'em with play action to wake the defense up from their nap. I think minumizes the mistakes a QB can make, plus we have 2 healthy backs rotate in, throw Kyler Reed in TE. Hell we could run alittle bit of option out it to keep Taylor happy.

 

We did this against KU last year and it worked pretty good. I know KU traditionally has a terrible defense, but its not about yards its about points.

 

It sounds boring, but I think it couldve won 2 out of 3 games we lost this year.

[zoogs]

Stuntz, the value of the I as opposed to a single-back is that there's a lead blocker there for Helu, which if you put in Burkhead as that lead blocker, isn't really the same as a road-grading Legate. So it sort of negates the value it is supposed to bring.

 

Is it very different when we run a shotgun formation with a single running back? It isn't as if we use the shotgun formation as a gun passing formation so much as an alternative to putting Taylor under center, it seems. Other than that, it pretty much is a lot of single back with Reed/Cotton on the field as TE, some playaction, and 2 rotating backs. Additionally, stripping down the offense is all about minimizing the mistakes that Taylor can make, including simplifying the passing game for him, and at times zone reads being designed keepers or handoffs. I don't know how much simpler we can go, it already seems to be a bit of a handicap, not that it isn't worth it when Taylor is full speed and explosive.

[bshirt]

We need a power running game is the very, very worst way. If we get that we don't need to always see 3rd & 2 incomplete passes for yet another 3 & out.

 

The "I" works for me!

[Enhance]

You can power run out of the shotgun just as effectively as you power run out of the I formation. Problem is, we aren't as much as we probably should be.

 

As effective as the zone read can be, it's just not powerful enough to base an entire offense off of imho. Too much lateral movement, a lot of pressure on the linemen to pull/stretch the field.

 

Plus, athletic defenses have been apt to shutting down our zone read this year. If I'm not mistaken, Oklahoma held us to something 9 yards on 7 carries out of the zone read in the second half Saturday night.

[jsneb83]

The only way that having Burkhead and Helu in the I is if we would run triple options out of it. Like others have stated, if we ran isos or powers then we don't have that dominate lead blocker like we do with Legate.

[zoogs]

Two things with that Enhance. Do you have stats for the first half? And the second half stats are problematic because it obviously doesn't include the Wildcat ZR numbers. The only difference there is really Taylor running it, or Rex running it. The athletic defense of OU being a common to both cases. All that points to is Rex running the zone read a lot better than Taylor running it.

[JTrain]

This isn't an xbox, you can't just draw plays in the dirt and expect them to work. It takes practice and repetition to become skilled at anything, the formations and schemes weren't the problem, it was the lack of execution, fumbles and sacks that doomed us. The I formation doesn't have some magical property that would make the offense do the basic things that it failed at against OU.

 

I agree, Watson's schemes were flawless. Just a shame our guys suck so hard.

[vero regi]

The I formation may not be the single answer to the offense's woes, but I have to agree it has been successful in the past. With the right combination of backs and recievers it could be an additional formation to the run game and right now variety of any kind wouldn't hurt. Passing plays can be called from the I, or even a split-back formation with the quarterback lining up under center as opposed to a shotgun formation. Variety is the key and we have the athletes to make this work (2 running back backfield with quarterback under center).

[wiby_NU]

I just dont understand how some people still think this zone read offense will work if Watson stays. Im tired of hearing excuses about how Martinez isn't making the right reads. Well then he must have just "coincidentally" made the wrong reads against disciplined and quick defenses...yes, its only a coincidence...these defenses werent necessarily good (SDSU), they just knew how to defend the ever so slow developing zone read. I absolutely does not work against a DECENT defense. Take Texas for example, great speed on the perimeter yet vunerable up the middle, Kansas State ran it all over them with the "pound the rock" scheme. Yet Wats runs zone read, after zone read, after zone read, its gotta work eventually, right? So what im hoping for is the Big 10 to just suddenly become a below average defensive conference, that we can zone read the crap out of. Sounds like a good wish, but it sure as hell wont happen