EZ-E Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 People are overreacting big time to this. Pulled offers happen. Beck should have called him sooner, but at least they told him before he made a decision. This doesn't mean Nebraska is going to go "SEC" and start oversigning and pulling offers everywhere. The last time this happened and it was a somewhat significant deal I think was in '09 with the Pennsylvania kid who played FB/C, and if I remember right, he had actually committed and we pulled it. Recruiting sucks sometimes, but that's just how it is. As others have said, this probably spells good news for someone who would be just as capable as Vandenburg, but would be a true freshman. That was a whole different deal. Kid did not do some things that the staff let him know he needed to do in order to keep his offer (a lot like a MInter this year) and thus the offer got pulled. Turns out it was a good decision: http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/521710/shawn-bodtmann In my opinion the staff learned a ton from that example. Quote Link to comment
ndobney Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 My assumption is that Nebraska will be running the zone read a lot more out of the Pistol formation next year which is a much better way to run the offense in my opinion anyways. Think about it. In the Pistol you run it with 3 backs and 2 wrs. In reality you would think taking a TE off the field and replacing him with a back makes it a less powerful running game. That is not the case however. First of all from the pistol you can run the zone read to either direction, plus you can also had it off up the middle. This will spread out the defense. In addition you can run some misdirection with it. Also you can have two lead backs blocking as well. It is a much better way to run the offense. Plus if you run a back 3 times in a row you don't have to take him off the field, cause you have two other backs to hand it off to. You can also don't a lot of different things motion wise with it. So you don't need a TE in the running plays. In the passing plays most of the time TE are your check down receivers. In a pistol your back run check downs. They can run screens, wheel route, flares, ect. So you don't need them for passing plays either. You have built in max protection with it as well. Don't think that this offense is purely running. The passing game in a pistol is very potent, it is an extremely balanced. It is a high powered offense you need a lot of good players at skill position which we have. It also focuses on cutting down on turning the ball over as well. Ran correctly with the players that we have it is virtually unstoppable by any conventional college defense. It is very high speed since you don't have to run backs and WR's on and off the field so it wears down defenses extremely fast. Beck wanted to run 10-15 more plays a game, this would be the way to do it. 1 Quote Link to comment
ndobney Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 We actually ran this some against Georgia and it was working until Ameer fumbled it and we lost momentum. With Adam Taylor and Newby coming in this year. It would not surprise me if we saw a ton of the pistol. I don't think we use it exclusively though. Quote Link to comment
The King Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 what does Paiste think of the zone read in the pistol? Quote Link to comment
ndobney Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 what does Paiste think of the zone read in the pistol? good one!!!! How long did it take to think of that one? Quote Link to comment
dylan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not seeing any overreaction. It just doesn't look good. Especially when "we" do try to claim to be better than the others. I wouldn't mind seeing our niche be that we don't "pull" offers (even if thats not the full story in this case). The only way we could make sure we don't pull any offers is to only offer as many kids as we have scholarships available and then wait until each kid turns us down before offering another kid. That's a ridiculous recipe for either tiny classes or recruiting kids that no one else wants. These kids know that most offers aren't indefinite. Spots fill up and needs change. If you take your time deciding, you run the risk that a spot may not still be there for you. It's really no different from a job offer. Just because three companies offer me a job doesn't mean I have a right to take as long as I want to decide and expect that job opening will be there for me no matter what. Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This sounds like sour grapes too me.... The kid had probably planned to eventually commit to Nebraska, and we pulled the rug.... He wasn't committed, and signing day is still a month away, so there is no issue here.... Quote Link to comment
zeWilbur Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This sounds like sour grapes too me.... The kid had probably planned to eventually commit to Nebraska, and we pulled the rug.... He wasn't committed, and signing day is still a month away, so there is no issue here.... Possibly, but some of these kids are very methodical and process driven. Cancelling a few days before a trip means having to vet someone else in a limited time frame to maximize your options. With only so many weekends left for scheduling trips and other classes filling up it can be very stressful to complicate the process like that. Without any insider knowledge it seems like no one is really wrong here. Just a personality difference in how they like to handle things. If I had to guess. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Honestly, I don't get our coach's strategy in all of this. They put out the full court press on the #1 JUCO TE. They really wanted him and I have to believe they were disappointed they didn't get him. SO....we are sitting in the driver's seat with the #2 JUCO TE and pull the plug and don't want him. Meanwhile, we are graduating our two top TEs. I really hope they have something good in mind. Quote Link to comment
Fuzzy Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Maybe we will get lucky with a walk-on like we did with Janovich Quote Link to comment
HuskerFowler Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I hear ya. I see it as either 1) something threw up a red flag either on film, in the classroom, etc. something turned us off because from everything I could tell, we were ready to take a JUCO TE 2) We have someone we want more that's ready to go. He was also publicly saying..."he doesnt like how we use our TEs" so it could be something to do with that. I personally think they cooled on him, and Beck made up a bad excuse instead of just telling him hey were going in a different direction. Also Cethan Carter is a HUGE sleeper that both BAMA and LSU are trying to make work, but i dont think they will. Quote Link to comment
KidCuti Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 People are overreacting big time to this. Pulled offers happen. Beck should have called him sooner, but at least they told him before he made a decision. This doesn't mean Nebraska is going to go "SEC" and start oversigning and pulling offers everywhere. The last time this happened and it was a somewhat significant deal I think was in '09 with the Pennsylvania kid who played FB/C, and if I remember right, he had actually committed and we pulled it. Recruiting sucks sometimes, but that's just how it is. As others have said, this probably spells good news for someone who would be just as capable as Vandenburg, but would be a true freshman. That was a whole different deal. Kid did not do some things that the staff let him know he needed to do in order to keep his offer (a lot like a MInter this year) and thus the offer got pulled. Turns out it was a good decision: http://espn.go.com/c.../shawn-bodtmann Thanks, couldn't remember that guy's name! Quote Link to comment
Amac3309 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Anyone think the coaches though he would commit somewhere else so rather than the bad press about loosing another guy they were proactive about it being our decision? Kinda conspiracy theory ish, but otherwise I don't get it Quote Link to comment
nebraskafaninwi Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Anyone think the coaches though he would commit somewhere else so rather than the bad press about loosing another guy they were proactive about it being our decision? Kinda conspiracy theory ish, but otherwise I don't get it I felt he wasn't going to be commiting to us anyways. We can bring in the TE from the SEC country that Alabama is showing interest in as well and see what he can do. Maybe he will be commiting on Sunday or next week? Hopefully anyways. Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Anyone think the coaches though he would commit somewhere else so rather than the bad press about loosing another guy they were proactive about it being our decision? Kinda conspiracy theory ish, but otherwise I don't get it I felt he wasn't going to be commiting to us anyways. We can bring in the TE from the SEC country that Alabama is showing interest in as well and see what he can do. Maybe he will be commiting on Sunday or next week? Hopefully anyways. It will be interesting to see what kind of tweets come from Vandenburg if we do end up taking Carter after we told BV that we would not be taking a JUCO TE. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.