Square Pegs, and Circle Holes

[Hunter94]

Bo's comments about the spring competition and what they are going to do on offense may tie in here...

 

“Going into the bowl game, I think we have the chance to be a little bit more multiple and kind of shape it a little more toward what Tommy does and what Ronnie does,” Pelini said. “But I also think that's what the offseason is going to be for. We'll have a little bit more bulk of work. We'll have a spring ball to have a quarterback competition and see what direction we want to lean toward in our offense.”

 

God only knows how well being multiple has worked since Beck has been here.........

[skersfan]

Serious question.

 

Do you think Coach Osborne, another 9 game winner, ever had a doubt as to what his offense was going to be this time of year. My guess he knew what it was going to be, just did not know who the pieces would be. Hint, that most likely is in play at Bama. I know they lost their QB this year, but my guess is Saben has a clue of what he is going to do. But alas he does ask for help. Kinda reminds me of an old coach we used to have. winning above ego, maybe someday.

[Ed Helms]

If Beck went with one system, and it doesn't work all the time, you idiots would be saying that he needs to be more multiple. This fanbase seems to get a lot of credit for being smart, but almost 2/3 of it is straight up dumb when it comes to football.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If Beck went with one system, and it doesn't work all the time, you idiots would be saying that he needs to be more multiple. This fanbase seems to get a lot of credit for being smart, but almost 2/3 of it is straight up dumb when it comes to football.

 

We want to be a run first team because that's what we were good at when we were really good. Any coordinator who doesn't embrace that philosophy is going to be criticized; especially if that philosophy isn't successful.

[JTrain]

If Beck went with one system, and it doesn't work all the time, you idiots would be saying that he needs to be more multiple. This fanbase seems to get a lot of credit for being smart, but almost 2/3 of it is straight up dumb when it comes to football.

 

Your tenses are multiple.

 

[JTrain]

Really, though, the term "pro-style" has become so vague as to not mean much at all. Same with "the spread". We need a few plays that we can practice a billion times and become great at. We can then recruit and develop athletes for those plays. Whatever we choose to call the system is irrelevant.

[NUance]

Several posters in this thread have said we should just decide on an offense, recruit the athletes to run it, and then continue with that offense no matter what. I guess the logic is, we'd get good at that one offense. But what if we'd done that with the read option offense that was our staple for the past couple years? How would this season have gone if we stuck with that same read option all year, first with a banged up Martinez, then with Armstrong, and finally ending up with RK3 waddling up the middle? Is there any other offense that all three of those guys could have run equally well? Oh, you say, we didn't recruit the athletes for it. But we did. It's just that the other QBs who could have run it---Brion Carnes and Cody Green come to mind---left for greener pastures when they failed to win the starting role. And the injuries. We all know how that went this year. That's just how things are in college ball. You can't predict exactingly how a season will play out, what with injuries, guys leaving the team, and other guys stepping up big time that weren't expected. One size just doesn't fit all. So it seems best for Beck and Pelini to be able to vary the offense to suit the talents of the players they have on hand. I'm not saying they need to try to do everything and be everything. But it just seems a bit oversimplistic to think we can have only a single offense in our playbook, and by gum those guys just better be able to run it. Can you imagine the uproar if we tried to have Kellog run the offense that was designed for a healthy Martinez? That would be a joke.

[NU5XChamps]

I believe that Stanton will be the starter next season. He has a higher up side then TA. With that said, I think we need to return the a power running scheme. It bodes well for any type of weather conditions. With a QB that can throw the ball ACCURATELY, it will only make the running game better. This spread & multiple BS is getting old. I agree with what others have said, get good/great at one thing and use it to do other things. Our offense isn't great at anything right now, but we are closer to being great at running the ball then we are at going pass happy.

 

Stanton is going to be great, we just need to give him time to get his feet wet and get going. Having AA run the ball 20-25 times a game will help him.

 

That's my two cents....

[RedDenver]

I've always thought of Osborne's offenses as being "multiple". That's why the recurring "multiple is bad" discussion always makes me roll my eyes. I agree that a power running game would help us and fits into many offenses - even a dreaded "multiple" offense. Our version of the spread running game incorporates power running plays, and it seemed like a good fit with our ability to run on everyone but Iowa.

[TGHusker]

IMO, it comes down to quit being "multiple" and get great at something. Year 3 with Beck and I still have no idea what the hell we run. I agree with fitting the scheme to the player. This concept, IMO, has been lost on the staff. Making Martinez throw in the pocket, Ronnie trying to run etc......

 

Get a system and recruit for it. Implement a system and plays that the guys can do in their sleep, that won't get stuffed on 3rd and short.

 

IMO, and I might get killed for this, our receiver and TE play is not near what we would need currently to effectively go to a pro style passing attack with a QB under center. Unsure if Beck would even know what to do with a QB under center.

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, if we look at the 'star rating' of our recruits currently - we don't seem to have very many world beaters. Hopefully we can coach them up to being "5 star" on the field. So I think Beck's O lacks an ID because he hasn't had enough star power on the field to build around. AA is a great back as shown by his work this year but wt the injuries were we weren't able to capitalize on developing a power running game. If Stanton is the QB of the future, then recruit talent that can play around him for the next 3 -4 years and develop an O that builds around his strengths.

[TGHusker]

Several posters in this thread have said we should just decide on an offense, recruit the athletes to run it, and then continue with that offense no matter what. I guess the logic is, we'd get good at that one offense. But what if we'd done that with the read option offense that was our staple for the past couple years? How would this season have gone if we stuck with that same read option all year, first with a banged up Martinez, then with Armstrong, and finally ending up with RK3 waddling up the middle? Is there any other offense that all three of those guys could have run equally well? Oh, you say, we didn't recruit the athletes for it. But we did. It's just that the other QBs who could have run it---Brion Carnes and Cody Green come to mind---left for greener pastures when they failed to win the starting role. And the injuries. We all know how that went this year. That's just how things are in college ball. You can't predict exactingly how a season will play out, what with injuries, guys leaving the team, and other guys stepping up big time that weren't expected. One size just doesn't fit all. So it seems best for Beck and Pelini to be able to vary the offense to suit the talents of the players they have on hand. I'm not saying they need to try to do everything and be everything. But it just seems a bit oversimplistic to think we can have only a single offense in our playbook, and by gum those guys just better be able to run it. Can you imagine the uproar if we tried to have Kellog run the offense that was designed for a healthy Martinez? That would be a joke.

I think if we start with the offensive ID in mind when we recruit, then if injuries occur we have back ups (at QB, skill and line positions) that match the O id. It seems that we went after the best available players and we end up wt a mixture of skill sets but nothing to build a solid identity around. Tom Osborne had a certain O in mind and recruit towards it - he then turned 3 start players into 5 star players on the field because they kept it simple - repetitive practice of a few plays ran out of multiple sets and the players get very good at it. Every D knew what was coming but they had a hard time stopping us because of the superior execution. Bo often berated the players about execution after games - but execution is a reflection of practice habits and the repetitiveness of doing simple things well each time.

[JTrain]

Several posters in this thread have said we should just decide on an offense, recruit the athletes to run it, and then continue with that offense no matter what. I guess the logic is, we'd get good at that one offense. But what if we'd done that with the read option offense that was our staple for the past couple years? How would this season have gone if we stuck with that same read option all year, first with a banged up Martinez, then with Armstrong, and finally ending up with RK3 waddling up the middle? Is there any other offense that all three of those guys could have run equally well? Oh, you say, we didn't recruit the athletes for it. But we did. It's just that the other QBs who could have run it---Brion Carnes and Cody Green come to mind---left for greener pastures when they failed to win the starting role. And the injuries. We all know how that went this year. That's just how things are in college ball. You can't predict exactingly how a season will play out, what with injuries, guys leaving the team, and other guys stepping up big time that weren't expected. One size just doesn't fit all. So it seems best for Beck and Pelini to be able to vary the offense to suit the talents of the players they have on hand. I'm not saying they need to try to do everything and be everything. But it just seems a bit oversimplistic to think we can have only a single offense in our playbook, and by gum those guys just better be able to run it. Can you imagine the uproar if we tried to have Kellog run the offense that was designed for a healthy Martinez? That would be a joke.

 

Having a well-defined system still allows for diversity of plays which may be called based on your specific circumstances. But I don't think any system or non-system is going to do much for you if, through attrition and injury, you end up with an overweight, third-string walk-on QB at the helm. I don't see how Beck's offense was better suited for this unfortunate scenario than, say, Bill Walsh's or Tom Osborne's. After all, Osborne's system adjusted quite well when substituting the more pro-style QB (Berringer) for the classic option QB (Frazier). It wasn't that he had to scrap the system for something new, it's just that he was more likely to use different plays within his system in similar situations.

[JTrain]

I've always thought of Osborne's offenses as being "multiple". That's why the recurring "multiple is bad" discussion always makes me roll my eyes. I agree that a power running game would help us and fits into many offenses - even a dreaded "multiple" offense. Our version of the spread running game incorporates power running plays, and it seemed like a good fit with our ability to run on everyone but Iowa.

 

I think the term is as watered down as "pro-style" or "spread". But, as I understand its original meaning, the word "multiple" doesn't fit Osborne's offense. They had a relatively small amount of basic play concepts (although they could run them out of many formations) that they practiced thousands and thousands of times. I've heard former players recall how boring the offensive practices sometimes seemed because of the insane amount of repetition. Multiple, as far as I understand it, means broadening your play concepts, and I don't think there's any way to get to that level of repetition in a truly multiple system, at least not at the college level.

 

If you look at the systems that have been consistently successful in the past several years (Oregon, Stanford, Meyer, RichRod, Malzahn) they are quite simple and well-confined conceptually.

[Count 'Bility]

I've always thought of Osborne's offenses as being "multiple". That's why the recurring "multiple is bad" discussion always makes me roll my eyes. I agree that a power running game would help us and fits into many offenses - even a dreaded "multiple" offense. Our version of the spread running game incorporates power running plays, and it seemed like a good fit with our ability to run on everyone but Iowa.

the multiple you speak of in regards to Osborne is different than that of the one people are complaining of with Beck. Sure, Osborne didnt come out in an I set every play, and would often spread it out and such, but you knew what was coming with him as well. Run first. Play Action and so on. It's not the multiplicity of playcalling and formation that's the problem. It's the whole philosphy. There's no identity. Our offense is a jack of all trades, master of none unit, and when need be, there is not one single individual facet of our offense that can be fully leaned upon in any sort of critical moment. Without a 5th years senior qb with priceless experience and gamebreaking ability in his legs, Beck's total lack of identity was severely exposed this year.

[huskerinacaveman]

We are pretty much right back to where we started, but just using different terms.

 

Are we multiple in the scheme?

Are we multiple with the players?

 

I agree that the offense was tailored to much to TM skills and not so much to the QB members collectively. TA was a better fit to keep it close to what it was with TM, (that was evident when the option game became a fixture of the offense during the TA games)but RK3 isn't a duel threat QB and that hurt us in the Iowa game.

 

Recruit players that fit within the system that you want to employ, but if your system is multiple, then recruit the best talent you can get, and tailor the system around your key players.

 

But as we saw in Northwestern this year, they suffered through some big injuries and played a much harder schedule then we did.

 

Georgia on the other hand has a pretty solid system of recruiting for their system, and are having success though less than desired.