Offense: Simpler + Faster = Better?

[HuskerShark]

There are NFL teams (like the Redskins) with young QBs and lots of other play makers that use this same formula - simplify, speed the tempo, and get the ball to the playmakers. RGIII has a couple read progression on most of his pass plays, and if he can't find anything after his 2nd or 3rd read, he's supposed to bail the pocket and make things happen.

 

Osborne's offense was never complicated. He simply used certain plays to set up others, and he was a genius at doing that. By the end of most games, the other team was so punished that we started to gash them for big plays and do whatever we wanted.

[kchusker_chris]

 

 

How does simpler create more turnovers and mistakes?

I don't know about the mistakes part . . . but if your receivers only run a couple different routes (or the exact same combinations) it's a lot easier for the secondary to be aggressive in jumping routes.

 

That's true. But it should also make the QB reads easier to offset that.

 

It's the "faster" part that I'm worried about. The "simpler" is just and overused offseason word.

[carlfense]

 

 

How does simpler create more turnovers and mistakes?

I don't know about the mistakes part . . . but if your receivers only run a couple different routes (or the exact same combinations) it's a lot easier for the secondary to be aggressive in jumping routes.

 

QB's progression is easier. Thats why teams like Oregon throw 2 routes at 1 guy. He has to take one or the other. They run a lot of fake bubble screens to see how the unblocked DB (Safety) reacts. Does he come up hard because he reads Bubble? because if he does, that guy that is stock blocking the other DB just ran passed him and into the Safety's zone down the sideline for a big gainer (Pass and catch about 15 - 20 yards downfield).

 

If you're talking about combo routes it's not just teams like Oregon . . . everyone uses those. And it's hardly a new phenomenon that requires more simplicity.

[RedDenver]

There are NFL teams (like the Redskins) with young QBs and lots of other play makers that use this same formula - simplify, speed the tempo, and get the ball to the playmakers. RGIII has a couple read progression on most of his pass plays, and if he can't find anything after his 2nd or 3rd read, he's supposed to bail the pocket and make things happen.

 

Osborne's offense was never complicated. He simply used certain plays to set up others, and he was a genius at doing that. By the end of most games, the other team was so punished that we started to gash them for big plays and do whatever we wanted.

Be careful calling TO's offense simple. He had a lot of blocking schemes out of the same formations.

[papersun87]

I'ts funny that you bring up Oregon and "simpler", and here's why.

 

Chip Kelley said once while at Oregon that they had four running plays: inside zone, outside zone, counter and draw. That's it.

Conceptually speaking, and in theory, this makes a ton of sense. He said that it allows for the coaches to put the players in an environment where they can be successful because they understand what they have to do. If the players haven't run a play in a critical situation over a thousand times in practice, the play will not be successful.

The concept definitely works, and Oregon has proven that a million times over. Of course, the "4 plays" is an overgeneralization, because there is probably a dozen variations to those four running plays that involve different blocking schemes and what not. But because there's only 4, that allows for the players to understand their role and become a master of the offense that can take on the problems a defense may throw at you.

 

I think that we proved this also in the 90's with our option. We mastered it. We had masters of the offense run those plays until they got a feel for what it takes to make a simple option play successful.

 

I caution towards simply saying "we only need 4 running plays!! Why are we running more than 4 running plays!?!?" because as Navy has shown, the concept is not always successful. We didn't have success with the option every single year. Oregon had numerous sluggish games during Chip Kelly's time there.

 

Personally, I like the direction of our offense. Personally, I would call Oregon "multiple" with a strong emphasis on the running game. A lot like how we are "multiple" with a strong emphasis on the running game.

 

Last year was tough. Injuries plagued us more than any scheme ever devised. You sure can talk about simplifying an offense, and having the players practice it a thousand times, but that player who practiced it a thousand times is out, and now a player that hasn't practiced it that much. That concept goes out the window. That's why injuries are so huge.

 

It's also important to have all the right pieces. Air Raid was highly successful at Oklahoma and Texas Tech, but how's it doing at Washington St?

 

Anyway, I talked a lot, could talk more, especially when we are actually talking football. But I'll shut up now.

Oregon and Auburn both run a lot of packaged plays. You can run the "same play" over and over but the QB gets to choose whether to keep, hand off, pitch, dump to the flat, or throw deep.

 

I'm sure we have a few of those in the playbook at NU but if we do I haven't noticed. It makes everyone else's jobs a lot simpler (and allows you to move at a blistering pace when you want) but asks a lot of the quarterback.

 

Edit: here, this sums it up way better than I ever could.

 

(And in the long run I think the Air Raid'll do just fine at Washington State. It's just too early.)

[Scratchtown]

 

 

 

How does simpler create more turnovers and mistakes?

I don't know about the mistakes part . . . but if your receivers only run a couple different routes (or the exact same combinations) it's a lot easier for the secondary to be aggressive in jumping routes.

 

QB's progression is easier. Thats why teams like Oregon throw 2 routes at 1 guy. He has to take one or the other. They run a lot of fake bubble screens to see how the unblocked DB (Safety) reacts. Does he come up hard because he reads Bubble? because if he does, that guy that is stock blocking the other DB just ran passed him and into the Safety's zone down the sideline for a big gainer (Pass and catch about 15 - 20 yards downfield).

 

If you're talking about combo routes it's not just teams like Oregon . . . everyone uses those. And it's hardly a new phenomenon that requires more simplicity.

 

you must take me for an idiot. Oregon is just my example. They do it a ton and are the easiest example to discuss because they get so much attention. And you put words in my mouth about the "new phenomenon". Thanks for mistaking me with an idiot.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

How does simpler create more turnovers and mistakes?

I don't know about the mistakes part . . . but if your receivers only run a couple different routes (or the exact same combinations) it's a lot easier for the secondary to be aggressive in jumping routes.

 

QB's progression is easier. Thats why teams like Oregon throw 2 routes at 1 guy. He has to take one or the other. They run a lot of fake bubble screens to see how the unblocked DB (Safety) reacts. Does he come up hard because he reads Bubble? because if he does, that guy that is stock blocking the other DB just ran passed him and into the Safety's zone down the sideline for a big gainer (Pass and catch about 15 - 20 yards downfield).

 

If you're talking about combo routes it's not just teams like Oregon . . . everyone uses those. And it's hardly a new phenomenon that requires more simplicity.

 

you must take me for an idiot. Oregon is just my example. They do it a ton and are the easiest example to discuss because they get so much attention. And you put words in my mouth about the "new phenomenon". Thanks for mistaking me with an idiot.

 

you must take me for an idiot. Over-explaining a simple and common concept that Oregon and everyone else uses. Thanks for mistaking me with an idiot.

 

 

Perhaps later you'd like to repackage that comment and include references to your coaching/playing experience?

[Scratchtown]

I don't take you for an idiot, and I was merely expanding on what you said originally about routes/concepts. I quoted you, yes, but I merely spoke in terms as to "why". You may get it, others may not. I never put words in your mouth and then you jump me for "over explaining" ok. Noted.

Good grief, I know I'm not the smartest guy in here and don't claim to be but their are others on here that like the explanation.

[True2tRA]

Not trying to be rude, so if I come off that way, all apologies, but I just feel like we have had this discussion about a hundred times already.

 

To me it now comes down to whether this is all just talk, or if the coaches are actually implementing these changes they speak of. Really there is only one way to find out.

[JJ Husker]

Simpler=easier to execute and/or easier to defend

Faster=possibly an advantage over the defense and/or more and faster mistakes, turnovers, and blown execution.

Better? Still depends on the players, playcalling, situations, and timing. In other words, it's all coach speak and lip service until it actually shows improvement on the field in games.

 

We'll start finding out in a few weeks.

[carlfense]

We'll start finding out in a few weeks.

[Hoosker]

In addition to the faster pace, I expect to see a lot more speed sweeps featuring Bell, Turner, Newby, Moore, Pierson-El, and Irons.

 

We saw it quite a bit in the Gator Bowl, but in order to really stretch the defense and get them on their heels, we might be incorporating more motion plays into the offense this year. Instead of simply handing it off to Ameer up the gut, why not have one of our speedy wideouts be the third option?

 

Those plays would put Tommy in situations where he is at his best, reading and reacting.

Not only would it do the job of feeding our best offensive threat (Ameer), it would also take a defender out of the box, opening up bigger holes.

Plus, anytime Tommy can get it into the hands of other playmakers without even throwing it sounds like a good thing to me.

[KazLong]

A no huddle would be awesome. Way to shake the the competition. Use it while in division than against OH State go back to slow mo to throw them, in conf champ game. I am all in favor of us going no huddle and practicing that way. If they huddle great gives us not needed rest time. If they dont who cares we are ready. We are fast enough we are strong enough.

[mnhusker]

I like the idea of focusing on execution before quantity of plays. If a team has a dozen base plays with a few variations to each play that is enough to get the job done the second part of the equation is play calling, an elite play caller just needs enough perfect execution to destroy the opposition and keep them guessing.

[papersun87]

From Hail Varsity: Less Is More in 2014

 

Paps and Beck both talk simplifying.