I want to see the "I"..

[Stuntz 2 Crouch]

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.

 

Good point(s). I think one of the main reasons I want to see the "I" is because without Martinez @ 100%, those split second decisions (reads) he has to make and possibly take off, the defense has had time to react and close down any running lanes. With him @ 100%, agreed it's simple and it works. The "I" just may be a great addition right now as another formation to use to keep defenses guessing.

[zoogs]

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

 

Your hypothesis that disciplined and quick defenses are just shutting down the zone read would be a lot more valid if there aren't at least 2 examples just this year of disciplined/quick defenses (Texas, Oklahoma) with high level schemes, that saw the zone read become a ton more effective the moment Taylor stopped running it and Zac/Rex stepped in.

 

Zone read works, Zac and Rex showed that. If Taylor could read it like Zac, or even like Rex, then he could have killed those teams with it because we all know how his explosiveness/speed compares to those two.

[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

 

Your hypothesis that disciplined and quick defenses are just shutting down the zone read would be a lot more valid if there aren't at least 2 examples just this year of disciplined/quick defenses (Texas, Oklahoma) with high level schemes, that saw the zone read become a ton more effective the moment Taylor stopped running it and Zac/Rex stepped in.

 

Zone read works, Zac and Rex showed that. If Taylor could read it like Zac, or even like Rex, then he could have killed those teams with it because we all know how his explosiveness/speed compares to those two.

I believe a&m shut it down..as well as Okie state, almost all martinez's rushing yards came on scrambles...does SDSU ring a bell? How many yards did he have on Mizzou running the zone read before the injury? It works for Zac because defenses schemes change when he comes in (he's isnt nearly the threat martinez is)..watch the Texas game when Lee comes in...is Lee going to be here next year running the zone read, No...unfortunately martinez isnt burkhead, unless your promoting burkhead for QB next season, and from reading all your responses defending Wats, he wont be. Rex has the ability to find that tiny crease in the defense, break tackles, run with authority, and have a high level football IQ. He is arguably the best football player on the team. Ask Wats "we become too one dimensional when we run the wildcat" therefore we seldom run it. Can you honestly tell me that running the zone read with Martinez at QB in the Big 10 will win us 9 to 10 games. I know how hard the schedule is, but us Husker fans count on at LEAST 9-10 wins. I say we line up, pound the rock, roll the QB out on play action, and incorporate some speed option.

[houseofspears]

The "i" would be great, but burkhead and helu wouldn't be in the backfield at the same time anyway. Like zoogies said, the only way for the two backs to be in is a two back shotgun. Which would be sweet, a zone read triple option would be awesome.

 

I think having legate in as a lead blocker in the "I" would be effective, he does that job very well. My only problem with the "I" is Martinez. I think we can all agree that his footwork isnt great. I dont think watching him drop back every pass play would be pretty..

[Nexus]

The "i" would be great, but burkhead and helu wouldn't be in the backfield at the same time anyway. Like zoogies said, the only way for the two backs to be in is a two back shotgun. Which would be sweet, a zone read triple option would be awesome.

 

I think having legate in as a lead blocker in the "I" would be effective, he does that job very well. My only problem with the "I" is Martinez. I think we can all agree that his footwork isnt great. I dont think watching him drop back every pass play would be pretty..

 

Admittedly I'm not a scout, but my "armchair observation" tells me that Brion Carnes' footwork is pretty good. Watch this clip and tell me if I'm wrong?

[huskerSoldier321]

I think an extra guy in the back field would of help on some of those blitzes. I just have a flash back of Taylor handing of to burkhead and him getting stuffed right away without a chance. The thing that got me is we ran the same plays for the most part, all season. I also remembering I think Carl Palini saying something about the offenses he seen on film changed it up when they played NU Why don't we do the same? Change it up. Evolve to the season. I know easier said then done.(OFF SUBJECT How about Oklahoma's diamond formation they got going on. What do you think about it?)

[zoogs]

Why don't we do the same? Change it up.

 

Because that would be ...m*******?

 

 

I think we did change it up though, all sniping aside. The gameplans we put together to attack teams like Washington, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Missouri, Texas - all very different. If you watch the way we went after those defenses, it was not the same way at all. Of course, down the stretch we were fairly limping at QB and more limited in our options. I could say the Colorado plan with Green was fairly good, given that Green was a third stringer.

 

house/Nexus I honestly don't know anything about different footwork requirements in the I as opposed to the shotgun. Can one of you elaborate? Thanks.

[3rd and long]

Why don't we do the same? Change it up.

 

Because that would be ...m*******?

 

 

I think we did change it up though, all sniping aside. The gameplans we put together to attack teams like Washington, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Missouri, Texas - all very different. If you watch the way we went after those defenses, it was not the same way at all. Of course, down the stretch we were fairly limping at QB and more limited in our options. I could say the Colorado plan with Green was fairly good, given that Green was a third stringer.

 

house/Nexus I honestly don't know anything about different footwork requirements in the I as opposed to the shotgun. Can one of you elaborate? Thanks.

 

I agree with you up to a point here Zoogie, our gameplans were varied and different going into the games, but it didn't appear they were adapted at all during the game. We seem to be an offense that, when the defense takes something away, we insist that we are not going to something different. Maybe the overall offensive scheme is "stubborness".

[zoogs]

I think part of the perceived stubbornness goes back to the limited options we have available to us. It isn't as if in any given week we have all these different plays that we can go to or rely on in a situation, because the offense has to be kept simple around Taylor. And many of the adjustments that we might make are going to be invisible to at least my untrained eyes, like OL blocking schemes. "Adjustments" of the kind that are obvious to me and I can see are the kind where there are different formations or new plays being called. So adjustments within the context of a given week's gameplan, can be less noticeable and I couldn't tell you what is going on or not. Adjustments of the kind where we abandon the current week's gameplan are acts of desperation, and almost always of the "get simpler" variety, so nobody is happy about them anyways.

 

Additionally, in any offense it's going to be on the QB to make pre-snap adjustments based on reading what the defense is showing, not the OC. Sometimes he just changes his protection, or sometimes he has to call an audible, or sometimes he just has to note to himself where pressure is going to come from, or what mismatches he should be exploiting. No college QB is going to play with the consistency and expertise in this area of Tom Brady, but it's an area that Taylor is supposed to be very new to, at this level of play, which is hardly his fault given his youth and past experience. It isn't just about the playcalling. Making adjustments on the fly, at the line of scrimmage is an important part of the game, and when we don't have that out of the QB, it makes it hard on the offense and on the playcalling.

 

I don't know much about this playcalling stuff so I won't go too hard in either direction, but I will say I hated the playcalling decisions at the end of the game against OU.

 

I agree with you up to a point here Zoogie, our gameplans were varied and different going into the games, but it didn't appear they were adapted at all during the game. We seem to be an offense that, when the defense takes something away, we insist that we are not going to something different. Maybe the overall offensive scheme is "stubborness".

 

Now, I just really wanted to put up that bold part in your quote because it does happen to be just about the exact opposite of what everyone else is saying about this last game. I just can't figure out if Watson is being stubborn and refusing to change it up, or if Watson is too arrogant and has to get cute/outsmart himself by constantly changing from what is working, with no rhyme or reason to it. What we really need to do is be adaptive. Er, I mean, find an identity and stick with it. One of those two. Or maybe both, I don't know.

[3rd and long]

I think part of the perceived stubbornness goes back to the limited options we have available to us. It isn't as if in any given week we have all these different plays that we can go to or rely on in a situation, because the offense has to be kept simple around Taylor. And many of the adjustments that we might make are going to be invisible to at least my untrained eyes, like OL blocking schemes. "Adjustments" of the kind that are obvious to me and I can see are the kind where there are different formations or new plays being called. So adjustments within the context of a given week's gameplan, can be less noticeable and I couldn't tell you what is going on or not. Adjustments of the kind where we abandon the current week's gameplan are acts of desperation, and almost always of the "get simpler" variety, so nobody is happy about them anyways.

 

Additionally, in any offense it's going to be on the QB to make pre-snap adjustments based on reading what the defense is showing, not the OC. Sometimes he just changes his protection, or sometimes he has to call an audible, or sometimes he just has to note to himself where pressure is going to come from, or what mismatches he should be exploiting. No college QB is going to play with the consistency and expertise in this area of Tom Brady, but it's an area that Taylor is supposed to be very new to, at this level of play, which is hardly his fault given his youth and past experience. It isn't just about the playcalling. Making adjustments on the fly, at the line of scrimmage is an important part of the game, and when we don't have that out of the QB, it makes it hard on the offense and on the playcalling.

 

I don't know much about this playcalling stuff so I won't go too hard in either direction, but I will say I hated the playcalling decisions at the end of the game against OU.

 

I agree with you up to a point here Zoogie, our gameplans were varied and different going into the games, but it didn't appear they were adapted at all during the game. We seem to be an offense that, when the defense takes something away, we insist that we are not going to something different. Maybe the overall offensive scheme is "stubborness".

 

Now, I just really wanted to put up that bold part in your quote because it does happen to be just about the exact opposite of what everyone else is saying about this last game. I just can't figure out if Watson is being stubborn and refusing to change it up, or if Watson is too arrogant and has to get cute/outsmart himself by constantly changing from what is working, with no rhyme or reason to it. What we really need to do is be adaptive. Er, I mean, find an identity and stick with it. One of those two. Or maybe both, I don't know.

 

I guess I'm confused here Zoogie, are you saying everyone is saying we changed things up offensively? Because it looked to me like we continued to run either the zone read with Taylor, or straight drop back pass with him, which didn't look anything different to me.

 

I 100% agree with you that it appears Watson also gets too cute/Outsmarting (don't know if that's a real word or not), when he did (on the rare occasion) change things up (Wildcat) and it worked two or three plays in a row, he immediately then went back to Martinez in the shotgun, and usually ran the ZR.

[zoogs]

"Going away from what was working" has almost been a rally cry, with "what was working" often meaning running between the tackles, and the replacement being Taylor and the Wildcat, or passing.

 

I can't argue with that to some extent.

 

To me though, all these are sort of just generic criticisms that have been perfected for hurling at any OC over decades of practice, that will be flung all over the place as a response to general dissatisfaction. There are tons of these lines reserved for criticizing coaches in tons of situations. "Always blames stuff on the players, never takes responsibility." "Random playcalling, always changing." "Stubborn playcalling, never changes." "The greatest folly is to continue trying the same thing and expecting different results." "Square peg, round hole coaches." "Coaches lacking an identity in what they are running." "Always playing not to lose." "Taking too many stupid risks." "Incapable of making adjustments!" "Incapable of showing up in big games." "Playing checkers while the other team plays chess." "Playcalling just to try to show everyone how smart he is." Could go on.

 

Usually you can apply one or more or even conflicting ones at the same time to any situation. Some of it is fair and some of it isn't, I am just amused because it seems to be the common line is frustration about something like our offense (and all of us are frustrated), and throwing every possible criticism ever out there is the response. I have my opinions/guesses on root causes that are not any more educated than anyone else's, but it seems that most are just saying "Watson is the problem, we know it now, and he must go," and not thinking one step beyond that. A discussion on the underlying causes here would be great, as it's probably hard/impossible to pin down the answer for sure, but instead we have mostly a list of varying reasons for one overly simple answer.

 

That's just a rant now, and it's not really directed at you or anyone in particular.

[huskerSoldier321]

When I posted change it up I didn't mean changing a few things on a zone read and saying its a different play. I'm talking about I formations. HB toss, screen pass, options etc. It just seems like the offense is too predictable. Defenses started catching onto the zone read after the Texas game. Being an adaptive offense can be an identity in its self.

[zoogs]

I agree that being a multiple offense is an identity.

 

I think if we had a more veteran and savvy quarterback instead of a freshman that already has more than he can handle on his plate, we would be able to see more creativity instead of having to rely on the same things over and over. When we are limited as we are, then we have to be multiple within a narrow scope, which is more difficult. Whole premise of starting Taylor is that while it could cut down the playbook, he will use his legs and do damage enough to make it worth it, and that's been true enough before he got hurt.

 

I also think you don't need dozens of completely different formations or types of plays (what RB would we have that specializes in a toss sweep, for instance? If Helu and Burkhead are both better up-the-middle in their own way) to really change it up - but smaller things might just be too invisible to notice. Like, I could not tell you about the new completely looks and new routes we threw out against Texas that they were unprepared for, before reading someone else say it's the case. Opinions can vary on some of that stuff, but I can't help but try to piece my own opinions from that rather than my own limited knowledge of the game.

[huskerSoldier321]

I agree that being a multiple offense is an identity.

 

I think if we had a more veteran and savvy quarterback instead of a freshman that already has more than he can handle on his plate, we would be able to see more creativity instead of having to rely on the same things over and over. When we are limited as we are, then we have to be multiple within a narrow scope, which is more difficult. Whole premise of starting Taylor is that while it could cut down the playbook, he will use his legs and do damage enough to make it worth it, and that's been true enough before he got hurt.

 

I also think you don't need dozens of completely different formations or types of plays (what RB would we have that specializes in a toss sweep, for instance? If Helu and Burkhead are both better up-the-middle in their own way) to really change it up - but smaller things might just be too invisible to notice. Like, I could not tell you about the new completely looks and new routes we threw out against Texas that they were unprepared for, before reading someone else say it's the case. Opinions can vary on some of that stuff, but I can't help but try to piece my own opinions from that rather than my own limited knowledge of the game.

I agree with you that having a freshmen QB will limit your play calling. But its always nice to have a few plays in your back pocket. Also I think Rex burkhead can take any play you throw at him. Sweep, throw, catch hell probably even kick a field goal. But I my self am no expert at football. I was just pointing out what I have seen this season in terms of play calling. I don't think it takes a play calling guru to see that NU offensive plays got snuft out last Sat. OU made in game adjustments. Ofcourse new plays take pratice. I'm sure we'll see a lot new stuff next season.(I HOPE)

[bshirt]

Yeah, being multiple is our identity alright. We can do all kinds of things and none of them well. Our "indentity" indeed.