Lets just say. What if offense changes

[Undone]

An offensive change would save this team only if it were changed to a fast scoring scheme to overcome the deficits caused by the defensive scheme. If running teams can hang 50+ points on the defense, then a slow grinding power game against good Big Ten defenses that have been built to stop other power run teams is not going to work.

 

I disagree. See also: Michigan State.

 

As in, the Michigan State that went 11-1 last year, beat Ohio State, and then beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

[Hunter94]

This is not about a coaching change. Its a scheme and player fit talk.

 

So lets just say for some reason we get a nice little change in Offensive schemes and we go to a more power style running game like Wisconsin, Iowa. Where we line up in more I-form, off-set I form. We use the FB and TE's more. And alot less Shotgun read option.

 

Who now excels or becomes the man under center. Fyfe, Stanton ? I don't think its TA, Darlington or the other guy. (cant think of his name)

 

I think we have Tight ends and Wr's that can make the switch to that type of Offense and be successful, definitely have the backs to do it.

 

 

Whats everyone's thoughts.

so, you think Bo is really going to run Beck's ass off??

[Danny Bateman]

Not surprisingly, I suppose, but usually more of an indictment of our offensive line than the actual play being called.

 

When I watch the elite NCAA teams play -- and most NFL teams for that matter -- I see teams throwing on first down. Or three downs You see games won in the trenches by huge, highly recruited linemen.

 

Really nailed it with this post Guy. +1

 

I pared it down to what I care about most. Whatever offense you implement, if you want to be able to do anything with consistency (a trait this offense currently SORELY lacks... They're about as predictable as Charlie Sheen in the middle of a month long bender), you need the best offensive line play you can get.

 

We've done very well recruiting OL during Bo's tenure, but all those stars haven't translated into good play on the field. Once again this year, we've had extremely subpar OL play with AA's ridiculous skills covering up just how poor it has been and instead making it seem passable.

 

I pray whatever happens with the staff, we spare no expense in hiring the absolute best OL coach we can possibly procure. I'm tired of underdeveloped guys not maximizing their potential.

[Glendower]

 

An offensive change would save this team only if it were changed to a fast scoring scheme to overcome the deficits caused by the defensive scheme. If running teams can hang 50+ points on the defense, then a slow grinding power game against good Big Ten defenses that have been built to stop other power run teams is not going to work.

 

I disagree. See also: Michigan State.

 

As in, the Michigan State that went 11-1 last year, beat Ohio State, and then beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

 

Read the whole post. The point is that our defense is the real problem. If we can't stop a ground game, and the OP is only concerned about changing the offense, then the solution is to change to a Leach-style offense that is designed to score rapidly. MSU could do what they did because their defense could stop (almost) anybody from doing (almost) anything. If our D is going to give up ten trillion points to power running teams, we had better find a way to score ten trillion and one points on defenses that are designed to control teams like Wisconsin. If they hold our offense to the normal number of points one would expect to see in a run vs run game (mid 20s?) while they shred our D by, you know, running at them, we're in trouble every single time.

 

My point was really that the offense is, while not great, not the primarily problem. It would be "easier" to find a DC who has a good scheme to stop the run than it would be to find an offense that can answer a 50+ point outing from Wisconsin with 60+.

[Undone]

My point was really that the offense is, while not great, not the primarily problem. It would be "easier" to find a DC who has a good scheme to stop the run than it would be to find an offense that can answer a 50+ point outing from Wisconsin with 60+.

 

I understand that this is your point. And it probably is most fair to say both sides of the ball are struggling, terribly. But this is my point:

 

Against MSU, we scored 16 points of offense (because one TD was from Demornay running back a punt). Against Minnesota, we scored 17 points on offense (because again another TD came from special teams - a miracle in and of itself). We did muster 24 points of offense against Wisconsin, but had some real gifts on field position that gave us 17 of those. But 16 and 17 against MSU & Minnesota? Piss poor.

 

Our offense is a huge problem. And I'd say that Beck is trying to run a "score rapidly" offense. We generally don't huddle, we snap the ball quickly; it's up-tempo. It's not a Leach style offense - I get your point there. But it's nevertheless of a version of what we're currently trying to (and failing miserably to) do.

 

Timmy Beck - just ******* change something. Do something different.

[cg_8]

Schemes... I think everyone wants to say "POWER RUNNING IN I FORMATION!"

 

Honestly, it doesn't matter.

 

After personally watching our option offense for over a decade, which I still have a fondness for, I was ready to see a change. Then 2004 came around. I was excited about the prospect for west coast concepts and this team becoming a pass oriented team. Well, it was a massive failure in 2004. It didn't catch on until Zac Taylor could come in and actually be productive. Sam Keller had some great games in it, but also some horrendous games in it.

 

Honestly, I love the simple concept put forth by Chip Kelly. When he was at Oregon, he said that they only had 4 running plays. Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Counter, and Draw. I am sure there are different variations of those plays, but the concept of only having those 4 are to allow your players to master them. If your players have not run a certain play in a critical situation over 1000 times in practice, how do you expect them to succeed?

 

I think that's why Minnesota won. They did absolutely nothing special. It wasn't the scheme that beat us. It was the fact that they ran nothing special. They ran plays that they practice a million times, I could go back and watch the game from last year and see Minnesota ran very similar plays. That's why we love the option. Because we mastered it.

 

So my vote is, scheme is meaningless. It's how you coach your team to master it that matters.

 

I thought Beck was a offensive guru. He created some very creative plays for us. But it doesn't matter if you've got a million of them up your sleeve and you don't know how to use them nor you know if the team can run it in a critical situation.

 

Personally, the perfect "scheme" for me would be a hybrid of spread-I with power running concepts. One step passed the "pistol" concepts, and into the "diamond" formation utilization with variations of formations. Plays and concepts stay consistent, but your "diamond" varies. Sort of how we used to see "I-form" and "Power-I" and "Mississippi-I", etc.

 

Also, put the players that have mastered the damn plays in. The reason we threw a pick at the end of MSU was because it was play we probably ran 4 times in practice and neither Hovey nor DPE ran it before. That's a recipe for disaster. Why wasn't Westerkamp put in the position to make a play? Why did we rely on Hovey in a critical situation? That's no knock on Hovey.

[Glendower]

 

My point was really that the offense is, while not great, not the primarily problem. It would be "easier" to find a DC who has a good scheme to stop the run than it would be to find an offense that can answer a 50+ point outing from Wisconsin with 60+.

 

I understand that this is your point. And it probably is most fair to say both sides of the ball are struggling, terribly. But this is my point:

 

Against MSU, we scored 16 points of offense (because one TD was from Demornay running back a punt). Against Minnesota, we scored 17 points on offense (because again another TD came from special teams - a miracle in and of itself). We did muster 24 points of offense against Wisconsin, but had some real gifts on field position that gave us 17 of those. But 16 and 17 against MSU & Minnesota? Piss poor.

 

Our offense is a huge problem. And I'd say that Beck is trying to run a "score rapidly" offense. We generally don't huddle, we snap the ball quickly; it's up-tempo. It's not a Leach style offense - I get your point there. But it's nevertheless of a version of what we're currently trying to (and failing miserably to) do.

 

Timmy Beck - just ******* change something. Do something different.

 

 

Okay, so we are basically in agreement I think we're both addressing the mootness of simply going after one side of the ball or the other.

[lo country]

 

 

 

 

It was when we had Cross in the game. I couldn't figure out why in the hell they pulled him and put Abdullah back in when Cross was getting like 5 Plus yards per carry. And, no I don't think Cross is better when they are healthy but that was stupid and it was obvious that Ameer couldn't handle it.

Or when he was killing between the tackles and we go for the sweep......Pure beck.....Like the 2nd and 1......

 

 

We kill it between the tackles. Except when we don't.

 

The jet sweep is stupid. Except when it works.

 

When you get five yards on one carry, you'll get five yards on the next carry. Duh!

 

The guy who wasn't in the game would always have made the better play, because you can't prove otherwise.

 

Passing the ball when a defense is anticipating the run makes absolutely no sense, except to people who play football.

 

"Multiple" is an idiotic concept that's utilized by most teams in the Top 10.

 

You make a good statement but I would say that if you looked at the "idiotic" concept of "multiple" with the top 10 teams and Nebraska, there is a stark difference between the flow of play calling for them and what Beck does.

 

 

More to the point, the flow worked perfectly well against lesser teams, and the multiple came in handy when those teams decided to go all-in stopping Ameer. Hard to remember, but we were recently among the top rushing, scoring and third down conversion offenses in the country. This same team also notched the highest total offense in a single game in Big 10 history.

 

The flow goes to hell when we match up against stronger, faster defenses. Not surprisingly, I suppose, but usually more of an indictment of our offensive line than the actual play being called. Also, these same offensive players get the same yips at the same time as the defense and special teams. They aren't mentally tough under big game pressure. When your best player coughs up the ball three times on a play he's made a thousand times, the yips are screwing up far more flow than the playcalling. As head coach, these big game yips are on Bo Pelini.

 

To think a cure is as simple as handing it to Ameer more, or less, or as obvious as swapping Cross for Abdullah, or committing to the I-formation, or diamond formation, or abandoning the zone read, or letting Armstrong zone read audible more, or checking down to that safety screen (it's always there!) or letting Ryker Fife start just means we have as many sure-fire no-brainer "multiple" solutions as any armchair OC.

 

When I watch the elite NCAA teams play -- and most NFL teams for that matter -- I see teams throwing on first down. Or three downs in a row. I see their running games rip it up for a quarter, then the offense go "pass happy" for a quarter. Depending on what the defense gives them. I see them rotate quarterbacks and sit star running backs. I see multiple schemes and formations. I see bread and butter plays that work and bread and butter plays that get sniffed out and shut down. I see elite teams that walk all over cupcakes and struggle against peers. Virtually every game these days I see a team inside the 10 yard line and an OC who calls a timing fade route in the end zone rather than trust the run game. Sometimes I see a quarterback like Marcus Mariota or Tom Brady and go "oh yeah. That helps."

 

Watch match ups of Top 10 teams and you rarely see four quarters of offensive flow. You see good defenses making adjustments, a of lot of three and outs and punts, and plenty of slugfests decided by a singular fourth quarter offensive drives. You see games won in the trenches by huge, highly recruited linemen.

 

Nebraska has problems right now. Offensive playcalling is not at the top of my list.

 

I hear ya. You and I just disagree. I am not, nor have I been a Beck fan.....That's just me.

 

The "flow" is better against weaker opponents is there as is the D performing better. That's the key IMO. Good OC's can scheme against better competition. We can't.

 

I don't think that giving it to AA or Cross more is the issue. The issue is that Cross has issues getting to the outside. He is more of a "between the tackles guy". AA is an all around back whereas Cross isn't IMO. Beck doesn't seem to grasp this. Now to avoid telegraphing (no AA), use a 2 back set. The D can't think "inside" as Newby is in and can't think "outside" as Cross is in. Again, this is totally lost on Beck. He has no plan B when A goes.......I don't see any ebb or flow to his play calling nor do I see him set anything up from one game to the next or even series to series. He seems to throw out some stuff and then next series more stuff that is different and doesn't compliment the previous series. His play calling doesn't protect or support the D either IMO. For example, against Wisky, our D has gone up and down the field chasing Gordon, yet Beck comes out and dials up 3 passes in a row to put the D right back on the field with little rest and even less time to be "coached" up on the sidelines.

 

In regards to the top 10 and the NFL, those teams have a few things we do not, yet Beck plays as if we do. This would include a good OL, a QB who can routinely and accurately make the "easier" passes, the use of a FB and TE, OC's who switch up play calling when they get stopped. They also "take what they want" not Beck's, "taking what they give us".......OL play would make a HUGE difference. TA can't even get to a 7 step drop and get set before he's crushed. Back to play calling, if my QB is under pressure within seconds, I'm dialing up quick routes with a 3 step drop, rolling the pocket or jumbo sets to get pass pro. Case in point, 2nd and 1 we go for a pass. Tried to block 4 with 6 and got a sack. On that down, why not run? If you don't, go for a quick bubble screen? beck has also continually shown the inability to beat a stacked box. No misdirection, traps, jumbo sets, limited PA etc....He tries to spread the field, but our QB is no threat to pass so it really doesn't get the safeties out or even widen out the LB's.....Again, IMO, poor play calling.

 

I will agree, with better OL play we would be leaps and bounds better. Same with better QB play. Unfortunately, we really haven't either in several years. Instead of adjusting to a style and scheme that we can use our players to properly execute, we continue to try and be what Beck wants. The whole square peg round hole philosophy. I also think it hurts our recruiting to a degree. i.e. We try to find a lineman who is quick enough to pull, big enough to block hat on hat, good in pass pro, ability to run inside/outside blocking schemes etc....We simply (IMO) ask too much and get to little. The "option pass routes", asking the OL to read the defense upon the snap to see if they are defending the pass or run and hope the QB makes the same read along with the RB (Corn Nation interview with Beck)....etc....We just don't have the players to match what Beck wants and this is year 4 of his "vision" and we are no further along than we were then. That's my frustration with the O.

[True2tRA]

Schemes... I think everyone wants to say "POWER RUNNING IN I FORMATION!"

 

Honestly, it doesn't matter.

 

After personally watching our option offense for over a decade, which I still have a fondness for, I was ready to see a change. Then 2004 came around. I was excited about the prospect for west coast concepts and this team becoming a pass oriented team. Well, it was a massive failure in 2004. It didn't catch on until Zac Taylor could come in and actually be productive. Sam Keller had some great games in it, but also some horrendous games in it.

 

Honestly, I love the simple concept put forth by Chip Kelly. When he was at Oregon, he said that they only had 4 running plays. Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Counter, and Draw. I am sure there are different variations of those plays, but the concept of only having those 4 are to allow your players to master them. If your players have not run a certain play in a critical situation over 1000 times in practice, how do you expect them to succeed?

 

I think that's why Minnesota won. They did absolutely nothing special. It wasn't the scheme that beat us. It was the fact that they ran nothing special. They ran plays that they practice a million times, I could go back and watch the game from last year and see Minnesota ran very similar plays. That's why we love the option. Because we mastered it.

 

So my vote is, scheme is meaningless. It's how you coach your team to master it that matters.

 

I thought Beck was a offensive guru. He created some very creative plays for us. But it doesn't matter if you've got a million of them up your sleeve and you don't know how to use them nor you know if the team can run it in a critical situation.

 

Personally, the perfect "scheme" for me would be a hybrid of spread-I with power running concepts. One step passed the "pistol" concepts, and into the "diamond" formation utilization with variations of formations. Plays and concepts stay consistent, but your "diamond" varies. Sort of how we used to see "I-form" and "Power-I" and "Mississippi-I", etc.

 

Also, put the players that have mastered the damn plays in. The reason we threw a pick at the end of MSU was because it was play we probably ran 4 times in practice and neither Hovey nor DPE ran it before. That's a recipe for disaster. Why wasn't Westerkamp put in the position to make a play? Why did we rely on Hovey in a critical situation? That's no knock on Hovey.

I'm 100% with you on this. Great post.

 

You don't ask for a coach to be fired because "he's not running the type of offense I like!". Boo.....hoo....hoo.

 

Sure, I would prefer a Minnesota type of offense simply as a personal preference. At this point though, personal preference means jack.

 

Run an offense that these players like. How about that for a change. Talk to the kids. Work with them. As if in recruiting you didn't already know their strengths and weaknesses (maybe not with this staff) but build an offense that highlights those strengths.

 

To hell with multiple. Who are we trying to fool? Ourselves? Beck is far too into the idea of out scheming and out coaching. How about out executing and out playing?

 

This is a problem on both sides of the ball.

 

Regardless, do what the kids can do and do well. Identify that. Right now I don't even think we know what that is.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

In regards to the top 10 and the NFL, those teams have a few things we do not, yet Beck plays as if we do.

 

Agree. And that is a problem. Beck has often seemed like he's auditioning for someone else.

They also "take what they want" not Beck's, "taking what they give us".......

Can't go there, my friend. You can only declare and impose your will against a weaker opponent. Which we do a few times a year.

The "take what they give us" strategy is practiced game by game, quarter by quarter, play by play by virtually every coach and coordinator out there.

It's not a weakness. It's just football. Or any sport, really.

 

 

[HuskerNation1]

First, we have more problems than just the offense. Our defense is not good, especially against stronger teams.

 

Second, as many have pointed out, Pelini has had 7 years to hire whoever he wanted to run the offense and defense, and if he can't do it in 7 years, what makes you think he can do it in an 8th year.

 

Third, we've lost our biggest offensive weapons after this season, and we have 2 decent WR's returning, but our backup RB's have not shown much promise this year. Cross has been just ok, and Newby fumbles all the time.

 

We need to eliminate the coaching staff who has these team playing below it's potential, and bring in a new staff that can get the team playing at least to their potential, and hopefully above their potential.

[True2tRA]

 

In regards to the top 10 and the NFL, those teams have a few things we do not, yet Beck plays as if we do.

 

Agree. And that is a problem. Beck has often seemed like he's auditioning for someone else.

 

 

 

They also "take what they want" not Beck's, "taking what they give us".......

 

Can't go there, my friend. You can only declare and impose your will against a weaker opponent. Which we do a few times a year.

The "take what they give us" strategy is practiced game by game, quarter by quarter, play by play by virtually every coach and coordinator out there.

It's not a weakness. It's just football. Or any sport, really.

There's a difference between "strategizing" as in game planning week to week and developing a plan your team can execute, versus the "strategizing" we do which is: look at the defense, look at the sideline, signal in one of the 200 plays we practice every week, and execute it half assed like we do with the rest of our playbook, all based upon the alignment of the defense on that given play.

 

It's a joke.

[EmeraldIngot]

Perhaps the coaches are stressing too much? I mean, seriously, just disregard a difference in talent levels for a minute and just look at how well the O and D were executing against Fresno State, or Miami, or even Illinois. Do you know what the difference was? I think it was because they weren't feeling as pressured as they have been later in the season. They played loose and looked like they were having fun out there. Seriously, when Cotton was saying he was so worried about doing all the little things right on each and every play that he started making big mistakes, that says that these kids have been placed under too much pressure. At this point, the season is moot point, and people will be calling for Bo's head whether we beat Iowa or not. So why not just tell the players, "Hey, what do you say we just go out there and have fun? Let's not worry about messing up and just play. This game doesn't matter, the wins and losses don't matter, what matters is playing hard, competing with the other team, and having fun." I think that kind of mindset will allow the players to play at their best.

 

People here and in the Huskers staff from top to bottom need to step back and remember that this is just a game. Sure it makes money and is a source of pride, but is that how you want it to be? A business? A duty? I for one want to see those kids go out there and play with passion. Playing with passing means having fun. Having fun means letting go of your worries, forgetting about the score or the W/L record, training hard in practice and the offseasons to be the best player you can be, and just playing the game the way it's meant to be played.

 

So, no, it shouldn't be about winning conference or national championships. It shouldn't be about the money. It needs to be about individual development, not just into good football players (though the players should be encourged to be the best football players they can be) but about getting an education, building life long relationships, coming together as a team, and having fun every Saturday when you and your team can take the field, compete with passion and skill, and show the world what Husker football is all about.

 

If you can do that, the wins and the hardware and the money will take care of themselves.

[Count 'Bility]

120 teams in big boy college football. Id say roughly 50 dont have the stupid ass problems we do on a week to week basis. If these guys are crumbling under the "pressure", well then thats another cultural problem stemming from the top. This is big boy football. No pressure? Jesus. Thats like 7 year old sh#t.

 

You can either just play football or be good at it. But here, were gonna play to win the game. Thats what we do. Cuz football is a heck of a lot funner when youre good at it and winning. If you wanna just play, well then you can just stay home and PLAY your video game.

[kchusker_chris]

Bottom line, offense or defense - it doesn't matter. I've never watched a team that rides higher on momentum or falls so far when faced with a little adversity. This offense is spectacular 1 quarter of almost every game until something happens then it crumbles. The defense with momentum (Miami) is unstoppable, but it crumbles as quickly as it dominates.

 

A scheme (both sides of the ball) that has little margin for error certainly contributes to these swings, but at the end of the day it's something far bigger than X's and O's at this point. At this point, you can watch a game and know when the wheels are getting ready to fall off. I've turned to my wife the last couple of weeks (after the Gordon run to bring it to 17-10, and after the couple of sacks on Armstrong and short punt that set up Minnesota's 3rd quarter score) and said "here we go"...and sure enough, one or both sides of the ball begin to crumble shortly after.