Stanford is NU

[TheSker]

Stanford is a great program. I think we should also realize the media will make them the flavor of the week with their win over Oregon. Stanford is tough.....watching Florida State, the media would be referencing the speed and maybe saying Nebraska needs to get more speed. The correct answer is likely both.....Nebraska needs to get tougher and faster. In other words better. I think the coaching staff has that same desire. We'll see what team the media makes the flavor of the week next week. This week it's probably Stanford.

 

Yes. The important thing to remember is that it's all the players faults. They just aren't good enough, or fast and tough enough like you said. Either way, they just aren't good enough to execute what these coaches want. Sorry ass players.....

 

It's just too bad that these players are holding these coaches back. It's really not fair to these coaches. I mean, here these coaches are busting their butts, just to have these players not be good enough. And I mean really, we have heard multiple, MULTIPE former players say this scheme is not complicated. So what the hell is wrong with these guys? These guys just can't execute it. I mean we hear Bo constantly blame them that they just didn't execute so at this point it is clearly not a scheme problem.

 

Yep, someday Bo will get these players he's been searching for. Once he has four Suh's across that defensive line, then things are going to work great! Then we will see what a great scheme this is! All these naysayers will have to eat it. Clearly these players are just holding this staff back from furthering their careers and becoming head coaches at other universities.

 

Damn players......

 

Our recruiting needed to pick up from Pelini's first few years. There was an emphasis put on recruiting the past couple of years. It looks like there could be a lot to look forward to. At times we play two frosh and two sophs on the DL.....Gregory, Valentine, Curry and Moss. We're getting there.

[JJ Husker]

Both those programs recognized over the past 20 years that they probably couldn’t out-run college football’s big dogs. But they could recruit power.

 

Wisconsin hasn't had that much success. They've been OK...and Nebraska's been OK.

 

Stanford has had that much success. Why? Probably because they had one of the best coaches ever in Harbaugh, handed it off to what looks like a tremendous success in Shaw, and along the way one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the game.

 

That's the "formula" -- identifying incredibly talented program-building coaches and hitting on the hires. Not "recruiting power" and "selecting the right offensive playbook."

 

I agree with some of this (getting a good coach and hitting on hires) but strongly disagree that recruiting power wouldn't work. The whole point of this op is that Stanford today is very similar to what Nebraska was under Osborne. It worked then and it is currently working for Bama and Stanford. I would love to see the Huskers get back to that style of play but, you have to commit to it and create an identity around it. Being mediocre at multiple things isn't doing us any favors. Pick something, recruit for it, and get damned good at it. I guess that is why I am now disillusioned with Bo- I thought that's what he was going to do.

[The Duke]

I firmly believe that when it comes to their offenses, Stanford & Wisconsin are in the same mold, the same DNA if you will of those powerful Nebraska teams in the 90's...minus the option.

 

Nebraska had the identity of being a tough...brutally physical football team that would pound on you for 4 quarters over & over again.

 

Nebraska WAS a multiple offense back in those days. For those that say Nebraska wasn't a multiple offense I would encourage you to watch this short video:

 

For the opposing defense, Nebraska would confuse you with a multitude of different formations, pre-snap motion, and different sub-packages. This is where Nebraska was complex & multiple. Where Nebraska kept things simple for our own players was the number of different type of schemes they would be required to learn & run.

 

In 1996 Nebraska's running game consisted of:

• Inside Zone
  
• Outside Zone
  
• Counter Sweep
  
• Counter Trap
  
• QB Counter
  
• QB / IB Draw
  
• Power
  
• Iso
  
• FB Trap
  
• Toss Sweep with Zone Blocking
  
• 5 Different Options: Arc, Belly, Speed, Veer, and Wall
  

In my opinion Nebraska needs to get back to these 4 things:

1. Physical...Tough Football
   
2. Multiple (confuse the defense with multiple formations, motion, and personnel packages)
   
3. Master a handful of plays instead of being decent at a large number of schemes.
   
4. Give up on the No-Huddle. Go back to huddling as an offense. (Give your defense time to rest, regroup, & recharge.)
   

 

 

 

To add to the discussion, there was a great article about Stanford's offense by Peter King from Sports Illustrated back on September 9th, 2013 http://mmqb.si.com/2...nal-peter-king/. Two quotes from the article stuck out at me...

 

"The future of offensive football doesn't have to be no-huddle, and it doesn't have to be breakneck. It just has to be varied, and it has to put thoughtful pressure on the defense."

 

John Gruden said "What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication, but all in all remain very simple and basic."

 

 

Nebraska can still use the zone-read like we have the past few years, and Nebraska can still use some of their spread sets, but in my opinion we would be best served by giving up on the no-huddle, and started playing a more physical, grind-it-out, clock chewing type of game.

 

I'm not suggestion we do this the remainder of this season, but certainly when we get into bowl practices, I think we need to start making the transition back to our roots...physical football.

[corncraze]

The greatest of all time came from there.

 

But Joe Montana went to Notre Dame... Hahaha.

[True2tRA]

Ah yes......and this is where we learn how valuable McBride was to those great 90's teams. Football is so offense oriented these days.

 

Fact is, you don't get to play football like Standord without playing defense that is equally as tough and physical.

[The Duke]

Ah yes......and this is where we learn how valuable McBride was to those great 90's teams. Football is so offense oriented these days.

 

Fact is, you don't get to play football like Standord without playing defense that is equally as tough and physical.

+1!

 

You're absolutely spot on with that statement.

[TheSker]

Ah yes......and this is where we learn how valuable McBride was to those great 90's teams. Football is so offense oriented these days.

 

Fact is, you don't get to play football like Standord without playing defense that is equally as tough and physical.

McBride got plenty of criticism at times. Especially when we lost 7 straight bowl games and had trouble containing the speed of Florida teams. Recruiting differently helped a lot on the defensive side of the ball.

[JJ Husker]

Duke- I did not mean to imply that the Nebraska of old did not do many things (multiple) but it was significantly different than what most people interpret as "multiple" today. Sure on the surface it looked simple and much of it like the same ole thing but, when you delve into it, it was extremely complex, required flawless execution, and was 100xthe more multiple than anything Beck has shown. I would love to get back to some smashmouth football like Stanford played last night. Oregon knew exactly what they were going to do and could not stop it. I don't think that would be all that hard to recapture.

[The Duke]

Ah yes......and this is where we learn how valuable McBride was to those great 90's teams. Football is so offense oriented these days.

 

Fact is, you don't get to play football like Standord without playing defense that is equally as tough and physical.

McBride got plenty of criticism at times. Especially when we lost 7 straight bowl games and had trouble containing the speed of Florida teams. Recruiting differently helped a lot on the defensive side of the ball.

Oh he certainly did, and you're right recruiting did help, especially recruiting speed for the transition to the 4-3 defense.

[The Duke]

Duke- I did not mean to imply that the Nebraska of old did not do many things (multiple) but it was significantly different than what most people interpret as "multiple" today. Sure on the surface it looked simple and much of it like the same ole thing but, when you delve into it, it was extremely complex, required flawless execution, and was 100xthe more multiple than anything Beck has shown. I would love to get back to some smashmouth football like Stanford played last night. Oregon knew exactly what they were going to do and could not stop it. I don't think that would be all that hard to recapture.

I agree with you JJHusker1. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I think where Nebraska kept things simple was specifically for the offensive line with the use of zone blocking, which led to being able to have more multiple formations. The plays stayed pretty consistent, the formations were just the window dressing to give the defenses different looks to think about.

 

I think the problem with Beck's multiple offense the past few seasons is that it has become a "Jack of All Trades, Master of None" type of playbook.

[lo country]

I firmly believe that when it comes to their offenses, Stanford & Wisconsin are in the same mold, the same DNA if you will of those powerful Nebraska teams in the 90's...minus the option.

 

Nebraska had the identity of being a tough...brutally physical football team that would pound on you for 4 quarters over & over again.

 

Nebraska WAS a multiple offense back in those days. For those that say Nebraska wasn't a multiple offense I would encourage you to watch this short video:

 

For the opposing defense, Nebraska would confuse you with a multitude of different formations, pre-snap motion, and different sub-packages. This is where Nebraska was complex & multiple. Where Nebraska kept things simple for our own players was the number of different type of schemes they would be required to learn & run.

 

In 1996 Nebraska's running game consisted of:

• Inside Zone
  
• Outside Zone
  
• Counter Sweep
  
• Counter Trap
  
• QB Counter
  
• QB / IB Draw
  
• Power
  
• Iso
  
• FB Trap
  
• Toss Sweep with Zone Blocking
  
• 5 Different Options: Arc, Belly, Speed, Veer, and Wall
  

In my opinion Nebraska needs to get back to these 4 things:

1. Physical...Tough Football
   
2. Multiple (confuse the defense with multiple formations, motion, and personnel packages)
   
3. Master a handful of plays instead of being decent at a large number of schemes.
   
4. Give up on the No-Huddle. Go back to huddling as an offense. (Give your defense time to rest, regroup, & recharge.)
   

 

 

 

To add to the discussion, there was a great article about Stanford's offense by Peter King from Sports Illustrated back on September 9th, 2013 http://mmqb.si.com/2...nal-peter-king/. Two quotes from the article stuck out at me...

 

"The future of offensive football doesn't have to be no-huddle, and it doesn't have to be breakneck. It just has to be varied, and it has to put thoughtful pressure on the defense."

 

John Gruden said "What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication, but all in all remain very simple and basic."

 

 

Nebraska can still use the zone-read like we have the past few years, and Nebraska can still use some of their spread sets, but in my opinion we would be best served by giving up on the no-huddle, and started playing a more physical, grind-it-out, clock chewing type of game.

 

I'm not suggestion we do this the remainder of this season, but certainly when we get into bowl practices, I think we need to start making the transition back to our roots...physical football.

Great stuff. That was what was so amazing about the offense under TO. Multiple looks, but a stable of plays that were successfully run out of different formations. I really miss those counters you mentioned above as well as the trap. Great way to slow up a D.

 

I think the only identity we have is multiple. Multiple stuff that we really do not execute to perfection. We need to get back to a simple in your face O that smashes the other team, opposes our will and beats them into submission. The D needs to be mean, nasty and fundamentally sound. We miss this.

 

Speaking of base plays from different formations, IIRC, Paps said after the NW game they had to explain that the plays they were running were ones they had seen before. NW was running them out of different formations.

 

The beauty of TO's was the simplicity of the "plays" hidden in the complexity of the motions and formations.

 

Today, so many "premier" teams are simply replicating what NU did in the 90's ie Bama, Stanford, Wisky. I do not know why we do not stick with what works now and worked then.

[JJ Husker]

I agree with you JJHusker1. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I think where Nebraska kept things simple was specifically for the offensive line with the use of zone blocking, which led to being able to have more multiple formations. The plays stayed pretty consistent, the formations were just the window dressing to give the defenses different looks to think about.

 

I think the problem with Beck's multiple offense the past few seasons is that it has become a "Jack of All Trades, Master of None" type of playbook.

 

Absolutely. And "jack of all trades, master of none" is the best description of this current offense that I've ever seen. I'm really feeling nostalgic after watching every play of that Stanford game. I just like hard-nosed, in your face football.

[walksalone]

I firmly believe that when it comes to their offenses, Stanford & Wisconsin are in the same mold, the same DNA if you will of those powerful Nebraska teams in the 90's...minus the option.

 

Nebraska had the identity of being a tough...brutally physical football team that would pound on you for 4 quarters over & over again.

 

For the opposing defense, Nebraska would confuse you with a multitude of different formations, pre-snap motion, and different sub-packages. This is where Nebraska was complex & multiple. Where Nebraska kept things simple for our own players was the number of different type of schemes they would be required to learn & run.

 

In 1996 Nebraska's running game consisted of:

• Inside Zone
  
• Outside Zone
  
• Counter Sweep
  
• Counter Trap
  
• QB Counter
  
• QB / IB Draw
  
• Power
  
• Iso
  
• FB Trap
  
• Toss Sweep with Zone Blocking
  
• 5 Different Options: Arc, Belly, Speed, Veer, and Wall
  

In my opinion Nebraska needs to get back to these 4 things:

1. Physical...Tough Football
   
2. Multiple (confuse the defense with multiple formations, motion, and personnel packages)
   
3. Master a handful of plays instead of being decent at a large number of schemes.
   
4. Give up on the No-Huddle. Go back to huddling as an offense. (Give your defense time to rest, regroup, & recharge.)
   

 

[Mavric]

Ah yes......and this is where we learn how valuable McBride was to those great 90's teams. Football is so offense oriented these days.

 

Fact is, you don't get to play football like Standord without playing defense that is equally as tough and physical.

McBride got plenty of criticism at times. Especially when we lost 7 straight bowl games and had trouble containing the speed of Florida teams. Recruiting differently helped a lot on the defensive side of the ball.

Oh he certainly did, and you're right recruiting did help, especially recruiting speed for the transition to the 4-3 defense.

This.

 

There were plenty of people who were convinced that Osborne would never win a National Title until he got rid of McBride.

[NUpolo8]

The greatest of all time came from there. That's a good football team, well coached. At the end of the day.

 

 

When Elway was there, they were a PAC 10 doormat.

 

This lie that Stanford is a perennial power and not the result of proper coaching desicions in the past half decade is flipping ridiculous.