Sipple: Coaches say Taylor Martinez ramping up his game

[zoogs]

No, I was responding to Hujan, who said:

 

As for the passing game, the WCO passing game relied on timing. It sounds like this is going to be more sandlot football: Get open and you get the ball

 

It's sort of the like the 'simplify, simplify, simplify' mantra. I think it's rhetoric that is helpful to instill a new system into players, but in truth, it is going to be anything but simpler. Different terminology, but as jliehr mentioned, we're going to ask the offense to do more than it did in the past year or two. I think that's certainly a luxury afforded us by our current state of health and crop of young playmakers...I just hope they stay healthy.

[knapplc]

It's sort of the like the 'simplify, simplify, simplify' mantra. I think it's rhetoric that is helpful to instill a new system into players, but in truth, it is going to be anything but simpler. Different terminology, but as jliehr mentioned, we're going to ask the offense to do more than it did in the past year or two. I think that's certainly a luxury afforded us by our current state of health and crop of young playmakers...I just hope they stay healthy.

 

Now wait one second, sir. If you're going to imply that coaches may use rhetoric, or out-and-out obfuscation in the things they say to the press (and thus to the fans), then I'm going to have to declare a party foul. Our coaches have never been anything but 100% transparent with us, and I'll bet if they even dreamed of coloring the info they give us with hyperbole, a fairy's wings will fall straight off.

 

 

That's why I'm the driver of the wait-and-see bandwagon. I think we're going to see a faster-paced offense, one with simpler terminology and with less complex blocking schemes, but aside from that, I doubt a lot is changed. And I'll just about double-dog guarantee most of us won't know most of the changes, aside from the obvious faster-paced stuff, and the "check with me" stuff that seems to already be getting a bad review around here.

 

I don't think a lot of the rest of what we're hearing, including how great certain players/groups are doing, is info we can rely on. Coach-speak is the name of the game at Nebraska, and I get the impression all of our coaches are well-versed.

[Hunter94]

I am very skeptical about this 'sandlot' offense talk. I think some positive media spin quotes have been taken and carried off to the point where perception is now far from reality. I mean, I would not know, but I'm very worried if we are indeed going to throw a backyard football offense out against D1 defenses.

 

 

i agree, winging it isn't a consistent play calling philosophy....this experiment makes me nervous.

 

What do you mean, "winging it?" Tim Beck is still going to scheme, just the way every football coach in America does. His players simply have the ability to read the defense and react mid-play, which they couldn't do under Watson, because they were bound to the play-call. That's the whole point of teaching concepts and not just plays, is so that the players understand the bigger picture and can adjust on the field when the defense throws something new at them. The way Beck is coaching our offense is more like how Pelini coaches the defense. It's a good thing.

 

It's also not really an experiment, they're not doing crazy new things that nobody else has done. Their teaching methods and schemes have been tested throughout the country and throughout the history of college football.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the rhetoric they're using, except that they may be pushing people to have pretty high expectations a little too soon. But they should have high expectations in general - this is Nebraska, and we want our offense to look a million times better than it has the past few years. There's no point in moping around with the rhetoric just because it might not happen right away.

 

 

i am merely questioning the discipline of Beck's system, which we honestly only "think" we know what it will be like. suddenly we throw in a qb, who is not the most prolific of passers and he is going to watch his receivers change routes based on how the defense sets up and all the while looking to the sidelines for a play call.....that's a damn handful for a guy who made quite a few wrong reads while running the ZR last season...just sayin', it's gonna be hard to execute and ripe for motion penalties as well, but we'll see, it's new for everyone, it may be fast paced and exciting, but the self destruct ratio will be there as well.

[knapplc]

i am merely questioning the discipline of Beck's system, which we honestly only "think" we know what it will be like.

How can you question a system that you have never seen, have barely heard 100 words about, and basically have only rumor and innuendo to go on? I'm cautious, but this isn't even caution - it's complete pessimism, and you have no reason to be pessimistic - YET.

 

suddenly we throw in a qb, who is not the most prolific of passers and he is going to watch his receivers change routes based on how the defense sets up and all the while looking to the sidelines for a play call.....that's a damn handful for a guy who made quite a few wrong reads while running the ZR last season...just sayin', it's gonna be hard to execute and ripe for motion penalties as well, but we'll see, it's new for everyone, it may be fast paced and exciting, but the self destruct ratio will be there as well.

 

Except for the fact that this was the offense Taylor ran in High School, so he's got a fair understanding of what's going on - likely far more than he understood what was going on last year (as he's mentioned in after-practice interviews). And in that offense he was a pretty good passer, so at the moment we probably don't need to be hitting the panic button. Further, if Taylor fails we have Cody with another year of maturity, and (allegedly) a dynamic guy in Carnes as well. Maybe all three fail or get injured, but I think we'll find someone in there with the ability to run the show.

 

There's also a chance for self-destruction in every offense. Probably the most complicated offense run at Nebraska in the last 50 years was Osborne's triple option, with it's multitude of reads being made by not only the QB, but each lineman every single play, not to mention the audibles which changed everything just prior to snap. For all that complication, that offense often ran like a well-oiled machine. But later on when Frank was running the show and we didn't have the coaching and the players like we had back in the day, the self-destruct factor ramped up, big-time.

 

Caution is one thing. Don't get so cautious you lose hope before the season even starts. Let's see what we've got before throwing in the towel.

[Hercules]

I am very skeptical about this 'sandlot' offense talk. I think some positive media spin quotes have been taken and carried off to the point where perception is now far from reality. I mean, I would not know, but I'm very worried if we are indeed going to throw a backyard football offense out against D1 defenses.

 

 

i agree, winging it isn't a consistent play calling philosophy....this experiment makes me nervous.

 

What do you mean, "winging it?" Tim Beck is still going to scheme, just the way every football coach in America does. His players simply have the ability to read the defense and react mid-play, which they couldn't do under Watson, because they were bound to the play-call. That's the whole point of teaching concepts and not just plays, is so that the players understand the bigger picture and can adjust on the field when the defense throws something new at them. The way Beck is coaching our offense is more like how Pelini coaches the defense. It's a good thing.

 

It's also not really an experiment, they're not doing crazy new things that nobody else has done. Their teaching methods and schemes have been tested throughout the country and throughout the history of college football.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the rhetoric they're using, except that they may be pushing people to have pretty high expectations a little too soon. But they should have high expectations in general - this is Nebraska, and we want our offense to look a million times better than it has the past few years. There's no point in moping around with the rhetoric just because it might not happen right away.

 

 

i am merely questioning the discipline of Beck's system, which we honestly only "think" we know what it will be like. suddenly we throw in a qb, who is not the most prolific of passers and he is going to watch his receivers change routes based on how the defense sets up and all the while looking to the sidelines for a play call.....that's a damn handful for a guy who made quite a few wrong reads while running the ZR last season...just sayin', it's gonna be hard to execute and ripe for motion penalties as well, but we'll see, it's new for everyone, it may be fast paced and exciting, but the self destruct ratio will be there as well.

 

We'll see. But "winging it" implies that guys are just going out there and running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to get open, and you used it in a way that implies that Beck won't do any planning before games with regard to his playcalling. There will be a method to Beck's playcalling, and there will be a method to what the players are doing out on the field.

 

As for "discipline," I have no trouble believing that our offense this year will be more disciplined than last year, if only because it can't be much less disciplined. I mean, I just don't think we're actually going to fumble the ball as often as we did last year, just because of how ridiculous last year was.

 

As for the ability to improvise once the play has started, that will rely upon players understanding the offense. If we were running the same offense as last year, that would be a problem, but instead we are simplifying it in a way that allows our players to understand it on a deeper level, or at least that's the whole idea.

 

The skeptics keep saying that they think our offense sounds more complex this year than it was last year, because we're allowing players to do more on their own. But we want our players to do more on their own, that was the whole point of simplifying our offense. It's not that the coaches are expecting the players to learn a more complex offense, it's that they're expecting the players to have a more sophisticated understanding of a simpler offense.

[bshirt]

I am very skeptical about this 'sandlot' offense talk. I think some positive media spin quotes have been taken and carried off to the point where perception is now far from reality. I mean, I would not know, but I'm very worried if we are indeed going to throw a backyard football offense out against D1 defenses.

 

 

i agree, winging it isn't a consistent play calling philosophy....this experiment makes me nervous.

 

What do you mean, "winging it?" Tim Beck is still going to scheme, just the way every football coach in America does. His players simply have the ability to read the defense and react mid-play, which they couldn't do under Watson, because they were bound to the play-call. That's the whole point of teaching concepts and not just plays, is so that the players understand the bigger picture and can adjust on the field when the defense throws something new at them. The way Beck is coaching our offense is more like how Pelini coaches the defense. It's a good thing.

 

It's also not really an experiment, they're not doing crazy new things that nobody else has done. Their teaching methods and schemes have been tested throughout the country and throughout the history of college football.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the rhetoric they're using, except that they may be pushing people to have pretty high expectations a little too soon. But they should have high expectations in general - this is Nebraska, and we want our offense to look a million times better than it has the past few years. There's no point in moping around with the rhetoric just because it might not happen right away.

 

 

i am merely questioning the discipline of Beck's system, which we honestly only "think" we know what it will be like. suddenly we throw in a qb, who is not the most prolific of passers and he is going to watch his receivers change routes based on how the defense sets up and all the while looking to the sidelines for a play call.....that's a damn handful for a guy who made quite a few wrong reads while running the ZR last season...just sayin', it's gonna be hard to execute and ripe for motion penalties as well, but we'll see, it's new for everyone, it may be fast paced and exciting, but the self destruct ratio will be there as well.

 

We'll see. But "winging it" implies that guys are just going out there and running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to get open, and you used it in a way that implies that Beck won't do any planning before games with regard to his playcalling. There will be a method to Beck's playcalling, and there will be a method to what the players are doing out on the field.

 

As for "discipline," I have no trouble believing that our offense this year will be more disciplined than last year, if only because it can't be much less disciplined. I mean, I just don't think we're actually going to fumble the ball as often as we did last year, just because of how ridiculous last year was.

 

As for the ability to improvise once the play has started, that will rely upon players understanding the offense. If we were running the same offense as last year, that would be a problem, but instead we are simplifying it in a way that allows our players to understand it on a deeper level, or at least that's the whole idea.

 

The skeptics keep saying that they think our offense sounds more complex this year than it was last year, because we're allowing players to do more on their own. But we want our players to do more on their own, that was the whole point of simplifying our offense. It's not that the coaches are expecting the players to learn a more complex offense, it's that they're expecting the players to have a more sophisticated understanding of a simpler offense.

 

That's what it sounds like to me. If true, I don't see why it's referred to as "sandlot" football. Players having a simpler system that allows them some room for inititive gives me no problem.

 

But once again, it would be almost impossible to do worse than the last couple of years. Let's bring it on.

[blasted_imposter]

I am very skeptical about this 'sandlot' offense talk. I think some positive media spin quotes have been taken and carried off to the point where perception is now far from reality. I mean, I would not know, but I'm very worried if we are indeed going to throw a backyard football offense out against D1 defenses.

 

 

i agree, winging it isn't a consistent play calling philosophy....this experiment makes me nervous.

 

What do you mean, "winging it?" Tim Beck is still going to scheme, just the way every football coach in America does. His players simply have the ability to read the defense and react mid-play, which they couldn't do under Watson, because they were bound to the play-call. That's the whole point of teaching concepts and not just plays, is so that the players understand the bigger picture and can adjust on the field when the defense throws something new at them. The way Beck is coaching our offense is more like how Pelini coaches the defense. It's a good thing.

 

It's also not really an experiment, they're not doing crazy new things that nobody else has done. Their teaching methods and schemes have been tested throughout the country and throughout the history of college football.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the rhetoric they're using, except that they may be pushing people to have pretty high expectations a little too soon. But they should have high expectations in general - this is Nebraska, and we want our offense to look a million times better than it has the past few years. There's no point in moping around with the rhetoric just because it might not happen right away.

 

 

i am merely questioning the discipline of Beck's system, which we honestly only "think" we know what it will be like. suddenly we throw in a qb, who is not the most prolific of passers and he is going to watch his receivers change routes based on how the defense sets up and all the while looking to the sidelines for a play call.....that's a damn handful for a guy who made quite a few wrong reads while running the ZR last season...just sayin', it's gonna be hard to execute and ripe for motion penalties as well, but we'll see, it's new for everyone, it may be fast paced and exciting, but the self destruct ratio will be there as well.

 

We'll see. But "winging it" implies that guys are just going out there and running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to get open, and you used it in a way that implies that Beck won't do any planning before games with regard to his playcalling. There will be a method to Beck's playcalling, and there will be a method to what the players are doing out on the field.

 

As for "discipline," I have no trouble believing that our offense this year will be more disciplined than last year, if only because it can't be much less disciplined. I mean, I just don't think we're actually going to fumble the ball as often as we did last year, just because of how ridiculous last year was.

 

As for the ability to improvise once the play has started, that will rely upon players understanding the offense. If we were running the same offense as last year, that would be a problem, but instead we are simplifying it in a way that allows our players to understand it on a deeper level, or at least that's the whole idea.

 

The skeptics keep saying that they think our offense sounds more complex this year than it was last year, because we're allowing players to do more on their own. But we want our players to do more on their own, that was the whole point of simplifying our offense. It's not that the coaches are expecting the players to learn a more complex offense, it's that they're expecting the players to have a more sophisticated understanding of a simpler offense.

 

That's what it sounds like to me. If true, I don't see why it's referred to as "sandlot" football. Players having a simpler system that allows them some room for inititive gives me no problem.

 

But once again, it would be almost impossible to do worse than the last couple of years. Let's bring it on.

 

ditto.

[da skers]

I am very skeptical about this 'sandlot' offense talk. I think some positive media spin quotes have been taken and carried off to the point where perception is now far from reality. I mean, I would not know, but I'm very worried if we are indeed going to throw a backyard football offense out against D1 defenses.

I think your a little confused on what the offense will be like. Its not going to look a lot different that what we were seeing. Yes there will be a few new plays but by and large its going to look pretty similar to what we were already running. The difference is the receiver concepts of being able to change a route mid play instead of running to a spot. We'll also make a lot of calls at the line so we can see how the defense is set up. That will speed up the tempo some since we might not huddle all the time. But the plays themselves, that's not a lot different than TO sending in the play back in the day and once the defense was set the QB called the play to the left or right with an occasion play change. Its not like we'll have 5 receiver sets and running back flank out for a pass. Its very far from anything on a sand lot.

 

 

Yeah, I didn't think it would be all that different. The way the talk has been though, people are getting the perception of a night-and-day change, sandlot football, etc, which I don't think is what we will actually be trotting onto the field, in spite of any soundbites.

 

So will we be signalling in audibles from the sidelines ( I guess this was what was done at KU) still?

 

Also, on Spano... Ouch. Sorry guyz. That's some amount of misfortunate for one guy...

The majority of the time the play will be called at the line from the sidelines. (This is probably the biggest change and gives us the chance to speed up the offense so we're not wasting 10-15 seconds sending a play in and walking from the huddle to the line.) The QB can still audible at the line based on the defense after the play is called to change recieving routed from deep to short, direction, and probably other things won't pretend to understand.

 

I hope we stop seeing the players look up at the big screen to see where the play is going and have the line actually hold a block past when the RB, QB etc have gone by them. I don't know how many times last year an LB or rush end was engaged with our line only to have our guy quit and then the other guy was in on the stop later on.

 

 

As far as Spano and his shoulder. I think its up to him as to if he wants to try to give it another go or just hang up the cleats. I have no idea what he'll do, but I feel for the kid. He's a husker through and through. Before the last knee blow out I believe he wins the starting job and we never know who Lee really is.