Why the option?

[husker B-rent]

Every program in the country like us who has tradition and is at or even close to the 800+ ncaa win club has the tradition because of a heritage or a mantra or identity that works. Nebraska has never won a national title throwing passes. We have sucked trying to but never succeeded. Point is regardless of ESPN or anyone else's analysis ....they don't know husker football. They talk out of their rear ends and think they know but don't. See callahan experiment. We recruit well for speed option and power running. Not pro style anything. Pound the rock.

 

actually you are incorrect. we have won 2 national titles as a primarily passing team. we ran more of a pro set in both 70 and 71. in fact we didnt really transition to the option style offense until the late 70s early 80s and we didnt transition to the style played in the 90s until the early 90s.

 

so yes we have won national titles as a pro style team.

[Ratt Mhule]

Got Carl? your making some really good points. I don't think we should go back to the triple option like we ran in the 90's, but with that said, Oregon's version of the spread option is very entertaining to watch. They did not perform well in the MNC game bc Auburn was able to shut down their run game and Thomas isn't a very effective passer. The option is always evolving. Rich Rod's WVU version is different from Florida's which is different from Oregon's. Every coach who runs that offense tweaks it a bit to fit with the style of his player's.

 

I think we will see some versions of Oregon's offense this season. A little pistol formation and lots of play action passing. I am fine with a "run first" team, but like you said Got Carl? we need to be somewhat balanced passing and running. I hope we are about 55/45 run-pass ratio this season. IMO, there is nothing more exciting than throwing the deep ball.

[flatwaterfan]

Option football or any other offense will work if you block and execute. Can it be the only thing you run? No. But it certainly can be the base.

 

I am going to guess that power football is our base and option is just a package.

 

I also think they could get innovative with that diamond formation. I noticed in a practice clip when Tmart handed the ball off to one of the side backs, with that horizontal action the back with the ball stays in perfect pitch relation with the deep back. It would be real easy to do option action off of that. So basically your doing triple option but with 2 qb's instead of 1. There's some risk in that your doubling your ball handling which could lead to fumbles, but I don't see why it couldnt work with someone like turner as one of the flanker backs. Not sure if you gain much other than that would be a good play if your QB wasnt the greatest pitch guy or was not a speedy guy.

[The Dude]

This is crazy. Do people forget so easily, or did they just not pay attention last year?

 

Taylor was not just fast, he was very good at making reads in the zone read play, and he was not just good but brilliant at the point of handoff. Houdini-like, I would go so far to say. Look at those exchanges in the first part of the year between Taylor and the running back. Look at how long Taylor held the ball in the running back's gut. The longer the ball stays in the running back's gut, the more difficult it is for the defensive end to make the decision on who to tackle. Taylor mastered the art of holding the ball in there for a ridiculous amount of time and that's one of the major reasons it was so successful, not just because he was so fast.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the question in the OP, I really don't care what offense we run, or what we call it. If it matches our personnel and we can run it effectively, then let's run that.

 

 

I will definitely agree with Got Carl?'s notion that we must be able to effectively pass the ball when a team shuts down the run game. That was a HUGE gripe back in the day.

 

When comparing this Nebraska team to teams from the past we're often guilty of a Husker-esque form of Godwin's Law, where we make reference to the version of the team that we all most readily remember - the championship teams of the mid-90s. A far better comparison for our current squad would be the Huskers of the late 80s and early 90s, when Osborne was mired in his 0-for-7 slump in bowl games. As great as those teams were - and they were darned good - the fatal flaw was always the over-reliance on the run game. Far too often a team would simply load up the box, and when they were solid up front, they'd be able to shut down our run game.

 

Over and over and over back then (when people weren't calling for Charlie McBride's head) they were griping about Osborne's ineffective offense and denouncing our lack of a passing game. The mid-90s success, based on that crazy-good series of offensive linemen we had, seems to have largely erased that era from everyone's mind. For certain the younger folks whose first Husker QB they can remember is Tommie Frazier have little incentive to pay attention to those teams, but they are by far the more applicable to who we are today - a team with ability and skill, but full of fatal flaws.

 

So let's gear up for a run-based offense. Like GBRsal said, "Pound the rock and chew the clock." But BY ALL MEANS we had better have the ability to pass when necessary, because we're never going to have another line like we had in the mid-90s.

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

[Scarlet Overkill]

That diamond formation someone on here did the diagram for looked pretty sweet. Me likey the potential of it.

[Hercules]

This is crazy. Do people forget so easily, or did they just not pay attention last year?

 

Taylor was not just fast, he was very good at making reads in the zone read play, and he was not just good but brilliant at the point of handoff. Houdini-like, I would go so far to say. Look at those exchanges in the first part of the year between Taylor and the running back. Look at how long Taylor held the ball in the running back's gut. The longer the ball stays in the running back's gut, the more difficult it is for the defensive end to make the decision on who to tackle. Taylor mastered the art of holding the ball in there for a ridiculous amount of time and that's one of the major reasons it was so successful, not just because he was so fast.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the question in the OP, I really don't care what offense we run, or what we call it. If it matches our personnel and we can run it effectively, then let's run that.

 

 

I will definitely agree with Got Carl?'s notion that we must be able to effectively pass the ball when a team shuts down the run game. That was a HUGE gripe back in the day.

 

When comparing this Nebraska team to teams from the past we're often guilty of a Husker-esque form of Godwin's Law, where we make reference to the version of the team that we all most readily remember - the championship teams of the mid-90s. A far better comparison for our current squad would be the Huskers of the late 80s and early 90s, when Osborne was mired in his 0-for-7 slump in bowl games. As great as those teams were - and they were darned good - the fatal flaw was always the over-reliance on the run game. Far too often a team would simply load up the box, and when they were solid up front, they'd be able to shut down our run game.

 

Over and over and over back then (when people weren't calling for Charlie McBride's head) they were griping about Osborne's ineffective offense and denouncing our lack of a passing game. The mid-90s success, based on that crazy-good series of offensive linemen we had, seems to have largely erased that era from everyone's mind. For certain the younger folks whose first Husker QB they can remember is Tommie Frazier have little incentive to pay attention to those teams, but they are by far the more applicable to who we are today - a team with ability and skill, but full of fatal flaws.

 

So let's gear up for a run-based offense. Like GBRsal said, "Pound the rock and chew the clock." But BY ALL MEANS we had better have the ability to pass when necessary, because we're never going to have another line like we had in the mid-90s.

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

 

Exactly. Even Osborne has said this in public. He has said that while everybody was saying we should pass the ball more like Miami and Florida State (the teams we were losing to in the late 80's and early 90's), he wished we played defense more like them.

 

The switch to the 4-3 defense and the huge emphasis in recruiting speed on both sides of the ball is what got the team over the hump. The offensive scheme on those 94-95 teams was not any different from those late 80's teams. In fact, the offensive system was pretty consistent going all the way back to 82-83, with the Triplets.

 

Anyways, the whole, "We have to pass the ball when necessary," is kind of a "duh" argument. Of course we have to be able to throw the ball when necessary. You have to do that in any offense, just like you have to run the ball in any offense to be successful. Running the option isn't going to prevent us from throwing the football - we're just going to do it differently than a pro-style attack. If our attack is like Osborne's offense, it'll be option, iso, trap, option, iso, dive, and BAM Kyler Reed over the top on playaction for a TD.

[Saunders]

That diamond formation someone on here did the diagram for looked pretty sweet. Me likey the potential of it.

We are going to use it. There's already been sightings in practice videos. Expect to see a triple option look out of the Diamond.

[Hercules]

That diamond formation someone on here did the diagram for looked pretty sweet. Me likey the potential of it.

We are going to use it. There's already been sightings in practice videos. Expect to see a triple option look out of the Diamond.

 

Kinda like these guys used to do in Osborne's double wing? (Start at 3:23)

 

 

God I loved that offense.

[knapplc]

This is crazy. Do people forget so easily, or did they just not pay attention last year?

 

Taylor was not just fast, he was very good at making reads in the zone read play, and he was not just good but brilliant at the point of handoff. Houdini-like, I would go so far to say. Look at those exchanges in the first part of the year between Taylor and the running back. Look at how long Taylor held the ball in the running back's gut. The longer the ball stays in the running back's gut, the more difficult it is for the defensive end to make the decision on who to tackle. Taylor mastered the art of holding the ball in there for a ridiculous amount of time and that's one of the major reasons it was so successful, not just because he was so fast.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the question in the OP, I really don't care what offense we run, or what we call it. If it matches our personnel and we can run it effectively, then let's run that.

 

 

I will definitely agree with Got Carl?'s notion that we must be able to effectively pass the ball when a team shuts down the run game. That was a HUGE gripe back in the day.

 

When comparing this Nebraska team to teams from the past we're often guilty of a Husker-esque form of Godwin's Law, where we make reference to the version of the team that we all most readily remember - the championship teams of the mid-90s. A far better comparison for our current squad would be the Huskers of the late 80s and early 90s, when Osborne was mired in his 0-for-7 slump in bowl games. As great as those teams were - and they were darned good - the fatal flaw was always the over-reliance on the run game. Far too often a team would simply load up the box, and when they were solid up front, they'd be able to shut down our run game.

 

Over and over and over back then (when people weren't calling for Charlie McBride's head) they were griping about Osborne's ineffective offense and denouncing our lack of a passing game. The mid-90s success, based on that crazy-good series of offensive linemen we had, seems to have largely erased that era from everyone's mind. For certain the younger folks whose first Husker QB they can remember is Tommie Frazier have little incentive to pay attention to those teams, but they are by far the more applicable to who we are today - a team with ability and skill, but full of fatal flaws.

 

So let's gear up for a run-based offense. Like GBRsal said, "Pound the rock and chew the clock." But BY ALL MEANS we had better have the ability to pass when necessary, because we're never going to have another line like we had in the mid-90s.

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

 

That is very much an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Absolutely the defense improved, but it wasn't simply due to a difference in scheme, it was due to a fundamental change in philosophy, from strength sacrificing speed to speed adding strength. We changed everything about that defense from the ground up.

 

In the seven straight bowl games we lost from 1988-1994 we gave up an average of thirty points a game, then dropped that to just 20 points a game in the ensuing four straight wins. That's a pretty big change.

 

But it wasn't just the defense that changed, getting us over the hump - the offense in that time went from pedestrian to high-octane, as evidenced by those same bowl game results. In the seven losses from 88-94 we averaged 22 points per game. In the ensuing four straight wins we averaged 42 points a game. That offensive leap blows anything we did on defense out of the water.

 

So absolutely the defense's changes contributed to our improved performance, but by no means was it the only change, and stats show it may not have even been the biggest change.

[The Dude]

This is crazy. Do people forget so easily, or did they just not pay attention last year?

 

Taylor was not just fast, he was very good at making reads in the zone read play, and he was not just good but brilliant at the point of handoff. Houdini-like, I would go so far to say. Look at those exchanges in the first part of the year between Taylor and the running back. Look at how long Taylor held the ball in the running back's gut. The longer the ball stays in the running back's gut, the more difficult it is for the defensive end to make the decision on who to tackle. Taylor mastered the art of holding the ball in there for a ridiculous amount of time and that's one of the major reasons it was so successful, not just because he was so fast.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the question in the OP, I really don't care what offense we run, or what we call it. If it matches our personnel and we can run it effectively, then let's run that.

 

 

I will definitely agree with Got Carl?'s notion that we must be able to effectively pass the ball when a team shuts down the run game. That was a HUGE gripe back in the day.

 

When comparing this Nebraska team to teams from the past we're often guilty of a Husker-esque form of Godwin's Law, where we make reference to the version of the team that we all most readily remember - the championship teams of the mid-90s. A far better comparison for our current squad would be the Huskers of the late 80s and early 90s, when Osborne was mired in his 0-for-7 slump in bowl games. As great as those teams were - and they were darned good - the fatal flaw was always the over-reliance on the run game. Far too often a team would simply load up the box, and when they were solid up front, they'd be able to shut down our run game.

 

Over and over and over back then (when people weren't calling for Charlie McBride's head) they were griping about Osborne's ineffective offense and denouncing our lack of a passing game. The mid-90s success, based on that crazy-good series of offensive linemen we had, seems to have largely erased that era from everyone's mind. For certain the younger folks whose first Husker QB they can remember is Tommie Frazier have little incentive to pay attention to those teams, but they are by far the more applicable to who we are today - a team with ability and skill, but full of fatal flaws.

 

So let's gear up for a run-based offense. Like GBRsal said, "Pound the rock and chew the clock." But BY ALL MEANS we had better have the ability to pass when necessary, because we're never going to have another line like we had in the mid-90s.

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

 

That is very much an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Absolutely the defense improved, but it wasn't simply due to a difference in scheme, it was due to a fundamental change in philosophy, from strength sacrificing speed to speed adding strength. We changed everything about that defense from the ground up.

 

In the seven straight bowl games we lost from 1988-1994 we gave up an average of thirty points a game, then dropped that to just 20 points a game in the ensuing four straight wins. That's a pretty big change.

 

But it wasn't just the defense that changed, getting us over the hump - the offense in that time went from pedestrian to high-octane, as evidenced by those same bowl game results. In the seven losses from 88-94 we averaged 22 points per game. In the ensuing four straight wins we averaged 42 points a game. That offensive leap blows anything we did on defense out of the water.

 

So absolutely the defense's changes contributed to our improved performance, but by no means was it the only change, and stats show it may not have even been the biggest change.

That offensive leap was largely credited to the defensive leap, according to Osborne. He said it was easy to put up that many points because the offense was constantly starting with great field position. It is a team sport afterall.

[knapplc]

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

 

That is very much an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Absolutely the defense improved, but it wasn't simply due to a difference in scheme, it was due to a fundamental change in philosophy, from strength sacrificing speed to speed adding strength. We changed everything about that defense from the ground up.

 

In the seven straight bowl games we lost from 1988-1994 we gave up an average of thirty points a game, then dropped that to just 20 points a game in the ensuing four straight wins. That's a pretty big change.

 

But it wasn't just the defense that changed, getting us over the hump - the offense in that time went from pedestrian to high-octane, as evidenced by those same bowl game results. In the seven losses from 88-94 we averaged 22 points per game. In the ensuing four straight wins we averaged 42 points a game. That offensive leap blows anything we did on defense out of the water.

 

So absolutely the defense's changes contributed to our improved performance, but by no means was it the only change, and stats show it may not have even been the biggest change.

That offensive leap was largely credited to the defensive leap, according to Osborne. He said it was easy to put up that many points because the offense was constantly starting in great field position. It is a team sport afterall.

 

When Osborne talked about the switch to the 4-3, he gave as much credit to the dime package as the base switch. He also, in the same breath, described fundamental changes to the recruiting philosophy, focusing on speed. You cannot find a quote where Osborne attributed our 90s success to a switch to the 4-3 defense alone, nor do I believe there is a quote out there supporting the notion that our offensive success came from the switch to the 4-3.

 

What you will find is Osborne saying things like:

 

"Once we got the dime package and found we could stop the run with that defense as well, we went to the 4-3 defense in 1992. We recruited people who could cover man-to-man, went to smaller, quicker defensive people up front and made the switch away from the 5-2 defense for the first time in almost 30 years. When you can pressure on defense, get the ball back to your offense, you can do a lot of things with the offense. "

 

Dr. Tom was not solely crediting the 4-3 switch with our success as you seem to be implying (and if that's not what you're implying, forgive my misunderstanding). It was a combination of things, including recruiting speed and better coverage people. All kinds of things.

 

My point is that, no matter how good our defense is, without a good offense we're never going to improve. Nothing earth-shattering about that. And the basis for your offense is your offensive line - again, not breaking any new ground with this thought.

[VA Husker Fan]

Every program in the country like us who has tradition and is at or even close to the 800+ ncaa win club has the tradition because of a heritage or a mantra or identity that works. Nebraska has never won a national title throwing passes. We have sucked trying to but never succeeded. Point is regardless of ESPN or anyone else's analysis ....they don't know husker football. They talk out of their rear ends and think they know but don't. See callahan experiment. We recruit well for speed option and power running. Not pro style anything. Pound the rock.

Not really.

 

I don't know what Oklahoma ran in the Wilkinson era, but it wasn't Switzer's wishbone, which isn't anything close to their passing offense these days.

 

Texas followed a similar path of change.

 

USC used to be Tailback U, but under Carroll they are much more balanced, if not pass oriented, and usually feature a QB ready to step right into the pros--unless he's Matt Leinart, who should've been ready.

 

Ohio State hasn't been "3 yards and a cloud of dust" in years.

 

These teams all evolved over the years, and sometimes made dramatic changes away from what they were. Osborne certainly evolved, as others pointed out. Anybody who thinks we had 25 years of power option is dead wrong.

[The Dude]

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

 

That is very much an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Absolutely the defense improved, but it wasn't simply due to a difference in scheme, it was due to a fundamental change in philosophy, from strength sacrificing speed to speed adding strength. We changed everything about that defense from the ground up.

 

In the seven straight bowl games we lost from 1988-1994 we gave up an average of thirty points a game, then dropped that to just 20 points a game in the ensuing four straight wins. That's a pretty big change.

 

But it wasn't just the defense that changed, getting us over the hump - the offense in that time went from pedestrian to high-octane, as evidenced by those same bowl game results. In the seven losses from 88-94 we averaged 22 points per game. In the ensuing four straight wins we averaged 42 points a game. That offensive leap blows anything we did on defense out of the water.

 

So absolutely the defense's changes contributed to our improved performance, but by no means was it the only change, and stats show it may not have even been the biggest change.

That offensive leap was largely credited to the defensive leap, according to Osborne. He said it was easy to put up that many points because the offense was constantly starting in great field position. It is a team sport afterall.

 

When Osborne talked about the switch to the 4-3, he gave as much credit to the dime package as the base switch. He also, in the same breath, described fundamental changes to the recruiting philosophy, focusing on speed. You cannot find a quote where Osborne attributed our 90s success to a switch to the 4-3 defense alone, nor do I believe there is a quote out there supporting the notion that our offensive success came from the switch to the 4-3.

 

What you will find is Osborne saying things like:

 

"Once we got the dime package and found we could stop the run with that defense as well, we went to the 4-3 defense in 1992. We recruited people who could cover man-to-man, went to smaller, quicker defensive people up front and made the switch away from the 5-2 defense for the first time in almost 30 years. When you can pressure on defense, get the ball back to your offense, you can do a lot of things with the offense. "

 

Dr. Tom was not solely crediting the 4-3 switch with our success as you seem to be implying (and if that's not what you're implying, forgive my misunderstanding). It was a combination of things, including recruiting speed and better coverage people. All kinds of things.

 

My point is that, no matter how good our defense is, without a good offense we're never going to improve. Nothing earth-shattering about that. And the basis for your offense is your offensive line - again, not breaking any new ground with this thought.

I think we agree, I just didn't have time to elaborate on what I was trying to say earlier. Or now, really. Damn HuskerBoard addiction.

[bshirt]

Every program in the country like us who has tradition and is at or even close to the 800+ ncaa win club has the tradition because of a heritage or a mantra or identity that works. Nebraska has never won a national title throwing passes. We have sucked trying to but never succeeded. Point is regardless of ESPN or anyone else's analysis ....they don't know husker football. They talk out of their rear ends and think they know but don't. See callahan experiment. We recruit well for speed option and power running. Not pro style anything. Pound the rock.

Not really.

 

I don't know what Oklahoma ran in the Wilkinson era, but it wasn't Switzer's wishbone, which isn't anything close to their passing offense these days.

 

Texas followed a similar path of change.

 

USC used to be Tailback U, but under Carroll they are much more balanced, if not pass oriented, and usually feature a QB ready to step right into the pros--unless he's Matt Leinart, who should've been ready.

 

Ohio State hasn't been "3 yards and a cloud of dust" in years.

 

These teams all evolved over the years, and sometimes made dramatic changes away from what they were. Osborne certainly evolved, as others pointed out. Anybody who thinks we had 25 years of power option is dead wrong.

 

What? 1980 - 2003 is pretty damn close to 25 years.

 

How often does NU get recruiting classes rated as high as Texas, Ohio State, USC & Oklahoma? Duh! Surely I don't need to type out why?

 

We tried being a "balanced" offense like everyone else under Callahan with truly massive disastrous results. How much total failure do you really want?

 

NU proved for decades we can run the ball with authority with some good rbs and well developed road-graders. Trying to "pretend" we can stand toe to toe with Ohio State, Texas, ect and play the same type of NFL offense is a losing game for NU. We've got our nitch, our identity, our tradition with smashmouth. We can win and win big with it. I think Bo will.

 

GBR!!

 

ps.....yeah Devaney won big without it due to two reasons...."Devaney" & the Jet. Imo, we haven't had anyone as good as the Jet since his last year (1972). Dudes like him don't grow on trees.

[Paul in WI]

I'd like to see a return to the 90's just to prove to the twenty something's that the older generation isn't as daft as they think we are.

 

Seriously though........returning to that kind of football requires absolute commitment from the coaching and recruiting staff. TO was a master of moving those offensive chess pieces, but he didn't get there overnight. The staff had better not make a half-assed stab at it, or it will fail. You don't just dip your toe into that kind of football.