Vanilla Your Favorite Flavor?

[Husker_x]

I have a discussion question I'd love some knowledgable opinions on. Is it better to go vanilla in the nonconference schedule when you're playing a team you just flat out talent, or is it better to open up the offense (even gradually) early on so your team has additional time to practice (live) the more complicated parts of your scheme?

 

I imagine there's a diversity of opinion. From my basically ignorant standpoint it looks like one of those situations where a case could be made for either option.

 

Any coaches on board?

[Goal-line]

Going "Vanilla" is a description overly optimistic fans make up when their high expectations are not met. Every head coach plays to win, whatever it takes. Plays are called depending on the offense or defense of the opposing teams. Sometimes the talent on one team greatly trumps the talent on the opposition, but the plays remain the same. Schemes are planned depending on the weaknesses of the opponent. I do not think any coach deliberately plans a vanilla game plan. Coaches devise game strategies on a weekly basis. Lots of things play into that, especially injuries.

 

And yes, I have coached for many years.

[Husker_x]

Going "Vanilla" is a description overly optimistic fans make up when their high expectations are not met. Every head coach plays to win, whatever it takes. Plays are called depending on the offense or defense of the opposing teams. Sometimes the talent on one team greatly trumps the talent on the opposition, but the plays remain the same. Schemes are planned depending on the weaknesses of the opponent. I do not think any coach deliberately plans a vanilla game plan. Coaches devise game strategies on a weekly basis. Lots of things play into that, especially injuries.

 

And yes, I have coached for many years.

 

Very cool. Does that apply for all position groups? Sometimes people talk about how "the D-line played vanilla." Is there actually such a thing, or is that just more hooey?

[jsneb83]

I prefer chocolate over vanilla.

[Enhance]

I think Goal-line makes a good point about fan use of this word, but it's not entirely their fault. Coaches will come out and say they played very "vanilla", perhaps to make the opposition believe they've got something great up the sleeve, or to keep the fans at bay after an uninteresting performance. Either way, fans will piggy back on this idea as justification for whatever argument they're trying to make. Of course, sometimes it's easy to see a team play simple, like spring games, because most of the running plays are similar, many of the pass plays are similar, and the defense doesn't show all it's blitz packages.

 

I believe whatever we see in the first couple of games is pretty much what we'll see called all year. There will be some leeway game-to-game, but it's not going to drastically change. We saw that pitch right, pitch left play early last year and we stuck with it all year.

[HuskerShark]

I think that a lot of coaches go vanilla on offense for the easier games on the schedule, but I would rather that we didn't.

[Undone]

I have a discussion question I'd love some knowledgable opinions on.

 

Who could possibly be more knowledgeable than an eclectic group of fanatics shotgunning ideas anonymously from behind a computer screen?

 

I feel like if I take an average of the typically dominant teams in any given season, if the majority of their pieces are already in place coming out of fall camp, it doesn't really matter. Whether they're grinding out their bread and butter, or flashing some of their bigger stuff...their quality opponents down the schedule have to be on top of their game either way. Showing a diversity in the team's playbook doesn't ever seem to be a huge factor.

 

This also manifests itself pretty clearly in struggling teams down the stretch when a fan base forks off into two main camps: Those that feel that failure is a result of a poor playbook/poor playbook selection, and those that feel that plays just aren't being executed.

 

Good teams seem to have success by mere execution. That doesn't mean their playbooks are "vanilla" or that they were wise or unwise to play it safe in the non-conference stretch. It just means they can have it their way, either way.

[zeWilbur]

A lot of the 'complex/creative' takes a long time to install in any system. Those types of plays are successful because they build on the 'simple' stuff so you have to install things in order. Hence, you won't see a few bells and whistles until mid to late season because they need enough practices to get them in without having to concentrate on fundamentals which should be the bulk of fall camp.

 

The other side is that if it isn't on film the other team can not prepare for it(see double option against Michigan last year). If your team is good enough then you can keep a few tricks up your sleeve for the more challenging games where one or two big plays could mean the the game.

[TYMYSHOE]

we need to be shooting for the opposition knows whats coming but can't stop it. full throttle all the way no more excuses!

[brophog]

I don't even know what being vanilla means.

 

I do know it is a tasty ice cream flavor, though.

[knapplc]

Vanilla = not opening up the playbook.

 

I think last year we couldn't afford to play the non-con vanilla. It was a new offense, new offensive groups, new OC, new everything. They tried to run last year's non-con like this was a five-year established offense, and it didn't work. They did play the starters nearly all the time to get them in-game experience, but even that rubbed some people the wrong way.

 

I think this philosophy has to be a season-by-season thing. In general I'm against it, ESPECIALLY when we have 1,000 plays and formations, and the kids need time to work out the wrinkles. Beck held too much back, and in general tried to get too cute too often last year. He admitted that to a degree in some interviews this off-season, so here's hoping they've learned that lesson and they'll stop doing it.

 

Still, the only thing that's going to fix this offense is time and experience. We'll see what we have in four days when we take on Southern Miss, who will have a fine defense to test ourselves against.

[NUance]

In case nobody noticed, Bo is pretty secretive. No depth charts. Getting football related info out of him at press conferences is like pulling teeth. Sometimes on the Bo Show--especially early on--it looked like he'd rather be anywhere else in the universe than sitting in that chair talking about Husker football. So I'd be surprised if Bo shows his complete hand during our non-conf games.

[HuskerShark]

Vanilla = not opening up the playbook.

 

I think last year we couldn't afford to play the non-con vanilla. It was a new offense, new offensive groups, new OC, new everything. They tried to run last year's non-con like this was a five-year established offense, and it didn't work. They did play the starters nearly all the time to get them in-game experience, but even that rubbed some people the wrong way.

 

I think this philosophy has to be a season-by-season thing. In general I'm against it, ESPECIALLY when we have 1,000 plays and formations, and the kids need time to work out the wrinkles. Beck held too much back, and in general tried to get too cute too often last year. He admitted that to a degree in some interviews this off-season, so here's hoping they've learned that lesson and they'll stop doing it.

 

Still, the only thing that's going to fix this offense is time and experience. We'll see what we have in four days when we take on Southern Miss, who will have a fine defense to test ourselves against.

 

You and I see eye to eye on all of these things you mentioned.

[brophog]

Vanilla = not opening up the playbook.

 

I don't know what this has to do with ice cream, but I do know I've never read a book without opening it first.

[BigRedBuster]

There is a big difference between starting off with Southern Miss/UCLA and Chattanooga and Fresno State like we did last year.

 

I like this year's non-con because are going to have an idea of where this team is within the first couple weeks. It drives me crazy when we have a year where we play two or three games against nobodies and still don't know if we have a good team or not.

 

This year, the coaching staff is going to have to hit the ground running. USM is going to be difficult being a first year coach and first game of the season and they obviously have talent on their team.

 

This is not a year where we can afford to go through a couple games not showing anything.