Line thrives on Beck's scheme, more depth

[zoogs]

More important than any of the yardage statistics are the penalties and sacks because of their direct correlation to a failed drive, which ultimately kept us from winning games. Over the past 3 years, playing a top 50 defense hasn't been pretty from a numbers standpoint. Only once have we had a serviceable day, and that was against OU in 2008, when we didn't have a prayer to win.

 

Quoted for emphasis.

 

And to quote the wonderful pre-2010 season BigRedStateofMind...'No more first-and-goal, ending with a freakin' punt.'

 

We've had some hosses on the line and should continue to have them. What needs to stop is the continuing story of failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties, penalties, penalties.

[da skers]

We were a few hundred yards away from having 3-1000 yard rushers in a season? To me, that says our line was doing what they were suppose to be doing. It might not have been pretty but it worked.

Yes but they were still only about 1000 yards off from our championship teams that consistently ran the football in the 90s. And last year's totals include a championship game and the bowl game that they didn't used to count toward statistics. Take for example the 1995 team. In 11 games they averaged 399 yards per game rushing and 156 passing. (4398 rush, 1721 pass) Last years squad over 14 games 247 yards rushing and 150 passing. (3466 rush, 2108 pass). Even our bad teams that sputtered put up stats in 11 games that we now put up in a 14 game season. So...yeah Cotton your guys are coming up with 3 guys that almost hit 1000 yards. But you're doing it in 3 more games and your not having the 2-3 other guys coming up with 500 yards rushing to support that cast.

 

 

C'mon da skers, you're comparing to arguably the best cfb team ever. That's a little tough don't you think?

 

Also, we didn't run the ball as frequently as the 95 team (run/pass ratio) and yet those three guys combined ran for "over" 3,000 yds. Lastly, Callawatts wasn't in the same universe as TO as an OC.

 

Did they run the ball even romotely with the authority the 95 Huskers did? No. However, was it a huge improvement over the 2009 "3 & out" season? Yes.

 

We'll see, but I'm betting we're heading in the right direction.

I realize that was the greatest team ever but it also shows you what a dominate line can do since Cotton is stating we're almost there. If you look at other years in the 90's our production was sill much greater. More than anything I was trying to state that 3000 yards rushing isn't as big a deal when you have 3 extra games to do it in as compared to the days of old. Its bogus accounting. Fair enough?

[ESPY]

More important than any of the yardage statistics are the penalties and sacks because of their direct correlation to a failed drive, which ultimately kept us from winning games. Over the past 3 years, playing a top 50 defense hasn't been pretty from a numbers standpoint. Only once have we had a serviceable day, and that was against OU in 2008, when we didn't have a prayer to win.

 

Quoted for emphasis.

 

And to quote the wonderful pre-2010 season BigRedStateofMind...'No more first-and-goal, ending with a freakin' punt.'

 

We've had some hosses on the line and should continue to have them. What needs to stop is the continuing story of failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties, penalties, penalties.

Couldn't agree more. And last I checked "failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties" falls on the coach. Makes you wonder just how much longer Bo can stand it.

[Stumpy1]

More important than any of the yardage statistics are the penalties and sacks because of their direct correlation to a failed drive, which ultimately kept us from winning games. Over the past 3 years, playing a top 50 defense hasn't been pretty from a numbers standpoint. Only once have we had a serviceable day, and that was against OU in 2008, when we didn't have a prayer to win.

 

Quoted for emphasis.

 

And to quote the wonderful pre-2010 season BigRedStateofMind...'No more first-and-goal, ending with a freakin' punt.'

 

We've had some hosses on the line and should continue to have them. What needs to stop is the continuing story of failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties, penalties, penalties.

Couldn't agree more. And last I checked "failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties" falls on the coach. Makes you wonder just how much longer Bo can stand it.

It wasn't just the oline that got penalties. Are we going to talk about getting rid of the other coaches also that had their guys get penalized?

[caveman99]

We were a few hundred yards away from having 3-1000 yard rushers in a season? To me, that says our line was doing what they were suppose to be doing. It might not have been pretty but it worked.

Yes but they were still only about 1000 yards off from our championship teams that consistently ran the football in the 90s. And last year's totals include a championship game and the bowl game that they didn't used to count toward statistics. Take for example the 1995 team. In 11 games they averaged 399 yards per game rushing and 156 passing. (4398 rush, 1721 pass) Last years squad over 14 games 247 yards rushing and 150 passing. (3466 rush, 2108 pass). Even our bad teams that sputtered put up stats in 11 games that we now put up in a 14 game season. So...yeah Cotton your guys are coming up with 3 guys that almost hit 1000 yards. But you're doing it in 3 more games and your not having the 2-3 other guys coming up with 500 yards rushing to support that cast.

 

 

C'mon da skers, you're comparing to arguably the best cfb team ever. That's a little tough don't you think?

 

Also, we didn't run the ball as frequently as the 95 team (run/pass ratio) and yet those three guys combined ran for "over" 3,000 yds. Lastly, Callawatts wasn't in the same universe as TO as an OC.

 

Did they run the ball even romotely with the authority the 95 Huskers did? No. However, was it a huge improvement over the 2009 "3 & out" season? Yes.

 

We'll see, but I'm betting we're heading in the right direction.

I realize that was the greatest team ever but it also shows you what a dominate line can do since Cotton is stating we're almost there. If you look at other years in the 90's our production was sill much greater. More than anything I was trying to state that 3000 yards rushing isn't as big a deal when you have 3 extra games to do it in as compared to the days of old. Its bogus accounting. Fair enough?

It depends on what you are trying to measure. If you are implying that 3000 yards doesn't mean an offense was an effective running team just because they played 14 games, then I would disagree. Looking at the national rankings of top rushing O's over the last few years, 3000 yards pretty much means you had a top 10 ranked rushing offense. I would say that means that the team was pretty good toting the rock.

[bshirt]

We were a few hundred yards away from having 3-1000 yard rushers in a season? To me, that says our line was doing what they were suppose to be doing. It might not have been pretty but it worked.

Yes but they were still only about 1000 yards off from our championship teams that consistently ran the football in the 90s. And last year's totals include a championship game and the bowl game that they didn't used to count toward statistics. Take for example the 1995 team. In 11 games they averaged 399 yards per game rushing and 156 passing. (4398 rush, 1721 pass) Last years squad over 14 games 247 yards rushing and 150 passing. (3466 rush, 2108 pass). Even our bad teams that sputtered put up stats in 11 games that we now put up in a 14 game season. So...yeah Cotton your guys are coming up with 3 guys that almost hit 1000 yards. But you're doing it in 3 more games and your not having the 2-3 other guys coming up with 500 yards rushing to support that cast.

 

 

C'mon da skers, you're comparing to arguably the best cfb team ever. That's a little tough don't you think?

 

Also, we didn't run the ball as frequently as the 95 team (run/pass ratio) and yet those three guys combined ran for "over" 3,000 yds. Lastly, Callawatts wasn't in the same universe as TO as an OC.

 

Did they run the ball even romotely with the authority the 95 Huskers did? No. However, was it a huge improvement over the 2009 "3 & out" season? Yes.

 

We'll see, but I'm betting we're heading in the right direction.

I realize that was the greatest team ever but it also shows you what a dominate line can do since Cotton is stating we're almost there. If you look at other years in the 90's our production was sill much greater. More than anything I was trying to state that 3000 yards rushing isn't as big a deal when you have 3 extra games to do it in as compared to the days of old. Its bogus accounting. Fair enough?

 

 

Oh sure, that's fair enough in comparison to our mid 90s teams. You bet.

 

No denying we're light years away from that kind of Oline play. Just hoping we're heading in the right direction. :-)

[ESPY]

More important than any of the yardage statistics are the penalties and sacks because of their direct correlation to a failed drive, which ultimately kept us from winning games. Over the past 3 years, playing a top 50 defense hasn't been pretty from a numbers standpoint. Only once have we had a serviceable day, and that was against OU in 2008, when we didn't have a prayer to win.

 

Quoted for emphasis.

 

And to quote the wonderful pre-2010 season BigRedStateofMind...'No more first-and-goal, ending with a freakin' punt.'

 

We've had some hosses on the line and should continue to have them. What needs to stop is the continuing story of failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties, penalties, penalties.

Couldn't agree more. And last I checked "failed potential, lack of discipline, and penalties" falls on the coach. Makes you wonder just how much longer Bo can stand it.

It wasn't just the oline that got penalties. Are we going to talk about getting rid of the other coaches also that had their guys get penalized?

Nope, you forgot about the "failed potential" and "lack of discipline" parts

[Hercules]

Comparing the offensive lines that we've had the last few years to the Pipeline is unfair. Pelini spent his first several years focusing on turning around the defense and building depth there, especially on the defensive line (Baker Steinkuhler was an OL coming out of high school). Pelini has only recently focused our resources on attracting a greater number of quality offensive line recruits, and we haven't even begun to see the results of that effort yet.

 

Furthermore, we're never going to have offensive lines like the Pipeline ever again. We were practically 3 or 4 deep every year. If somebody got hurt, we had another future All-American ready to step in. We could rotate 2 or 3 different groups of guys throughout the game, so that people didn't get too tired or beat up. It wasn't just recruiting and development, it was sheer numbers. The walk-on program is never going to be what it was back then, because many of the athletes in Nebraska that would have walked on back then now take scholarships from other schools, including Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, etc.

 

We need to let the players learn the new offense, we need to let Pelini recruit as many offensive linemen as he did this past class, and we need to let them recruit about 3 more classes of linemen that are as talented as this last class, and we need to let both Cotton and Garrison have time to develop those guys within a scheme that doesn't change every stinkin' year. There's been zero stability over the last few years, the offense has changed every season since 2007. It's simply unfair to compare that to the Osborne era, where the offensive system changed relatively little from the Scoring Explosion of the early 80's all the way through Osborne's retirement in 1997.

 

We need stability and continuity, or even the best coaching and best recruiting will have relatively little effect on our o-line's play.

[onlyHskrfaninIL]

I think the line will be great this year. I blame a lot of their struggles on the nincompoop of an OC we had last year. I'm predicting 2 1k yard rushers and another 500 yard rusher and a B1G championship. Barney will be redeemed.

[da skers]

I guess I'm not clear on my point. Barney has pretty much said the line play is solid and stated the offensive totals support that because we're putting up rushing numbers like we did when we were dominate. After his quote came out in the papers, it had to be pointed out to him that he got 3 more games to put those numbers up. He was clueless that the comparison wasn't correct. He's twisting reality a touch.

 

 

My rant:

I don't care if you run a new offense every year which isn't reality.(even though we're on our 3rd base defense this year since Bo came and his coaches have managed to learn it) I realize the production might not be there because of what was being asked of the line last year, so does Bo and that's the main reason he's getting this year. Personally, I'm completely focused on the fact that Cotton says our line has been a strength to anyone who will listen. Privately the man will not admit that he needs to improve. I realize everyone gets defensive over criticism. The guy did not want help on the line. He refused it last year from his OC and Milt. He did not favor Garrison working with him and was hell bent against having a second oline coach this year even though he's tried to play it as he didn't have enough help and welcomes all the extra eyes. He's stated he likes Becks offense because "its what he used to run as OC" which is total BS and has stated the this year will be better because Beck "works well with me". Cotton believes there is no "I" in team but there is an "M and E". That's a problem. He's entitled. The guy is fighting a battle with his comments in the media about his past failures and justifying it because he's trying to keep his job. Its harder to dismiss a coach that the public sympathises with.

[307husker]

Ugh, so not all is well in Oline land... A major coach is in denial and seemingly unwilling to make necessary changes. That's the worst news I've heard about the program in a long time.

[Husker_x]

I guess I'm not clear on my point. Barney has pretty much said the line play is solid and stated the offensive totals support that because we're putting up rushing numbers like we did when we were dominate. After his quote came out in the papers, it had to be pointed out to him that he got 3 more games to put those numbers up. He was clueless that the comparison wasn't correct. He's twisting reality a touch.

 

 

My rant:

I don't care if you run a new offense every year which isn't reality.(even though we're on our 3rd base defense this year since Bo came and his coaches have managed to learn it) I realize the production might not be there because of what was being asked of the line last year, so does Bo and that's the main reason he's getting this year. Personally, I'm completely focused on the fact that Cotton says our line has been a strength to anyone who will listen. Privately the man will not admit that he needs to improve. I realize everyone gets defensive over criticism. The guy did not want help on the line. He refused it last year from his OC and Milt. He did not favor Garrison working with him and was hell bent against having a second oline coach this year even though he's tried to play it as he didn't have enough help and welcomes all the extra eyes. He's stated he likes Becks offense because "its what he used to run as OC" which is total BS and has stated the this year will be better because Beck "works well with me". Cotton believes there is no "I" in team but there is an "M and E". That's a problem. He's entitled. The guy is fighting a battle with his comments in the media about his past failures and justifying it because he's trying to keep his job. Its harder to dismiss a coach that the public sympathises with.

 

So here's the million dollar question. If Bo knows this––and obviously he's aware of the terrible showings the line has had in the past few years––why is Cotton still here? More importantly, is Bo going to boot Cotton if we have another dismal year up front?

[ESPY]

I won't go so far as to say Pelini shares the same type of bond with Cotton that we saw between Callahan and Cosgrove. BUT, Bo definitely likes Cotton, and if the HC likes him I can't help but think he'll stick around even if he flounders and fails to deliver.

[Husker_x]

I won't go so far as to say Pelini shares the same type of bond with Cotton that we saw between Callahan and Cosgrove. BUT, Bo definitely likes Cotton, and if the HC likes him I can't help but think he'll stick around even if he flounders and fails to deliver.

 

There was talk last season of 'retiring' Cotton to an administrative role within the University, probably in the athletic department. Basically the nice way of fixing the problem.

[Hercules]

I guess I'm not clear on my point. Barney has pretty much said the line play is solid and stated the offensive totals support that because we're putting up rushing numbers like we did when we were dominate. After his quote came out in the papers, it had to be pointed out to him that he got 3 more games to put those numbers up. He was clueless that the comparison wasn't correct. He's twisting reality a touch.

 

 

My rant:

I don't care if you run a new offense every year which isn't reality.(even though we're on our 3rd base defense this year since Bo came and his coaches have managed to learn it) I realize the production might not be there because of what was being asked of the line last year, so does Bo and that's the main reason he's getting this year. Personally, I'm completely focused on the fact that Cotton says our line has been a strength to anyone who will listen. Privately the man will not admit that he needs to improve. I realize everyone gets defensive over criticism. The guy did not want help on the line. He refused it last year from his OC and Milt. He did not favor Garrison working with him and was hell bent against having a second oline coach this year even though he's tried to play it as he didn't have enough help and welcomes all the extra eyes. He's stated he likes Becks offense because "its what he used to run as OC" which is total BS and has stated the this year will be better because Beck "works well with me". Cotton believes there is no "I" in team but there is an "M and E". That's a problem. He's entitled. The guy is fighting a battle with his comments in the media about his past failures and justifying it because he's trying to keep his job. Its harder to dismiss a coach that the public sympathises with.

 

Most fans couldn't care less about what Cotton says in the media. If Bo wants to dismiss Cotton, there is nothing stopping him. Certainly not public sympathy, of which there is very little for Cotton. At this point, people trust in Bo enough that if he decides to make a change with personnel, people are going to back him up on that. Just look at this past round of staff changes - most people were disappointed that Cotton wasn't included.

 

With that being said, the defense has been in the same scheme for four years now, they've been studying the same concept, even if Pelini changes the "base." Changing the base isn't a big deal if the players are already familiar with the concepts at work and they're already part of the culture. Our offense hasn't had even remotely an identity since 2007. We went from West Coast, to ball-control spread, to 2 TE I Formation, to Spread Option/West Coast Hybrid, and now to whatever Beck is trying to run. There are different concepts at work for every one of those offenses.

 

Anyways, I couldn't care less about what Cotton says in the media, or about the inside politics of the coaching staff/athletic department. If Bo decides to make a change, that's fine, but at this point I think they've only just begun to commit the resources necessary to building a great offensive line, and it will take years of doing that in a stable system in order to get the offensive line where it really needs to be.