New, True Pro Style Offense Vs. Gimmicky Offense Run Now?

[BigRedBuster]

 

Your opinion on what you think we should or shouldn't run can't be proven wrong any more than you can prove it right.

 

But you seem to be discounting that type of offense as valid despite plenty if not overwhelming evidence to the contrary that it can be very successful in college.

Not so. Not my argument. My argument is that if you have the right hosses, you can run it. It is also my opinion that it takes a lot of the decisions out of the QB hands.

 

For example...as I type this Houston has scored something like 28 unanswered points. And Pitt has no answer right now.

 

They've been running it for years now...even when Summin was their head coach. It's unstoppable....only if you have the right pieces in place to run it. And, you have to have a disciplined quarterback to run it.

Here is what I don't get about your point.

 

Your last paragraph. You say that one style requires a disciplined qb and the pieces to run it. That is true with what ever style you run.

 

Now, if you want to say that you think we can recruit one style of players better to Nebraska than another...that I might agree with.

 

But, all styles of offense require you to recruit to that style, disciplined players, especially at QB, and a commitment to run it with coaches that know how to run it.

 

Nebraska has been successful in very different types of offenses in different eras.

 

I still can't figure out the word "gimmicky" in this thread.

[alexhortdog95]

Our offense was gimmicky because we didn't have a set philosophy. We literally played backyard ball with Beck and Bo.

I think this is more my point than anything else. First, I don't think that were at the point where we can recruit just anybody. More success is needed to get players to run this type of system. Next, I'll concede my use of the word gimmicky to this extent:

 

Anything that is not done on the field by a quarterback (and comes from the sidelines) to read a defense when a quarterback should have the skills to read a defense, and get into a set package of plays on his own - that is what I define as gimmicky.

[cg_8]

 

Your opinion on what you think we should or shouldn't run can't be proven wrong any more than you can prove it right.

 

But you seem to be discounting that type of offense as valid despite plenty if not overwhelming evidence to the contrary that it can be very successful in college.

Not so. Not my argument. My argument is that if you have the right hosses, you can run it. It is also my opinion that it takes a lot of the decisions out of the QB hands.

 

For example...as I type this Houston has scored something like 28 unanswered points. And Pitt has no answer right now.

 

They've been running it for years now...even when Summin was their head coach. It's unstoppable....only if you have the right pieces in place to run it. And, you have to have a disciplined quarterback to run it.

Except the guy that continued to run it has been fired and replace by Herman.

 

You're both right and wrong.

 

The Air Raid is a perfect example of a spread system that makes average QBs look like great QBs. Their record breaking numbers are a product of the system.

 

Name a QB under Mike Leachs Air Raid. From his time as OC at Oklahoma to Texas Tech and now at Washington State. If you can, tell me what those QBs have done since. Pretty much nothing.

 

The point is that they weren't great QBs. They were products of a system.

 

Marcus Mariota is a great QB. But he's also running the most refined and proven spread offenses outside of the Air Raid. He deserves winning the Heisman this year, but credit should also be given to the Oregon spread system. Without it, Mariota doesn't shine nearly as bright. There's a reason Oregon has been productive on offense for years with multiple QBs.

 

On the other side, there are also instances of QB being the bright spot. I'm sure you could name numerous.

 

This isn't a "spread vs pro-style" problem here at Nebraska. It's a matter of refinement, proven, and well-preparedness from the coaches. Beck had never been and OC before. That's the issue, because I bet if Chip Kelly had a hand at running our offense with our talent. We're having a totally different conversation.

 

I mean come on. The Eagles somehow won games with Mark Sanchez as their QB. But! They also lost some of those games because of him... In other words, you're both right and wrong.

[alexhortdog95]

Our offense was gimmicky because we didn't have a set philosophy. We literally played backyard ball with Beck and Bo.

I think this is more my point than anything else. First, I don't think that were at the point where we can recruit just anybody. More success is needed to get players to run this type of system. Next, I'll concede my use of the word gimmicky to this extent:

 

Anything that is not done on the field by a quarterback (and comes from the sidelines) to read a defense when a quarterback should have the skills to read a defense, and get into a set package of plays on his own - that is what I define as gimmicky.

[cg_8]

 

I think this is more my point than anything else. First, I don't think that were at the point where we can recruit just anybody. More success is needed to get players to run this type of system. Next, I'll concede my use of the word gimmicky to this extent:

 

Anything that is not done on the field by a quarterback (and comes from the sidelines) to read a defense when a quarterback should have the skills to read a defense, and get into a set package of plays on his own - that is what I define as gimmicky.

 

Not every QB in College Football can read a defense well. Some can, some can't. Those who can, make mistakes. Those who can't read it correctly sometimes. BUT every QB playing at this level is reading the D.

 

When I see the sideline look that you talk about. I am not seeing a lack of QB. I am seeing a coach taking advantage of something that he sees that his QB might not be able to see. In other words, I see a coach putting his players in the best position to succeed. Imagine having two sets of eyes seeing the field, one set is the QB and the other set is the OC. Both want the same thing. One is smarter than the other.

 

I get what you're saying though. When I saw Missou doing it a whole lot, I was like "LET THEM PLAY!!!" but makes complete sense when you realize that the OC just wants to put the team in the best postion. It is literally their job to do that. Why let a play fly, when you see something the D is doing and you have a play in place for that, without doing anything?

 

Anything not done on the field, is called coaching. The plays are drawn off the field. The preparation is done off the field. The film study is done off the field. What you're describing is the perfect backyard QB. I'm sorry, that's not what I want. I want the system that puts players in the best position to win. That falls on the coach. And a player, a QB only gets better at "reading the D" when they got coached up well enough to know what will work to counter it.

[alexhortdog95]

 

 

 

Your opinion on what you think we should or shouldn't run can't be proven wrong any more than you can prove it right.

 

But you seem to be discounting that type of offense as valid despite plenty if not overwhelming evidence to the contrary that it can be very successful in college.

Not so. Not my argument. My argument is that if you have the right hosses, you can run it. It is also my opinion that it takes a lot of the decisions out of the QB hands.

For example...as I type this Houston has scored something like 28 unanswered points. And Pitt has no answer right now.

They've been running it for years now...even when Summin was their head coach. It's unstoppable....only if you have the right pieces in place to run it. And, you have to have a disciplined quarterback to run it.

Except the guy that continued to run it has been fired and replace by Herman.

You're both right and wrong.

The Air Raid is a perfect example of a spread system that makes average QBs look like great QBs. Their record breaking numbers are a product of the system.

Name a QB under Mike Leachs Air Raid. From his time as OC at Oklahoma to Texas Tech and now at Washington State. If you can, tell me what those QBs have done since. Pretty much nothing.

The point is that they weren't great QBs. They were products of a system.

Marcus Mariota is a great QB. But he's also running the most refined and proven spread offenses outside of the Air Raid. He deserves winning the Heisman this year, but credit should also be given to the Oregon spread system. Without it, Mariota doesn't shine nearly as bright. There's a reason Oregon has been productive on offense for years with multiple QBs.

On the other side, there are also instances of QB being the bright spot. I'm sure you could name numerous.

This isn't a "spread vs pro-style" problem here at Nebraska. It's a matter of refinement, proven, and well-preparedness from the coaches. Beck had never been and OC before. That's the issue, because I bet if Chip Kelly had a hand at running our offense with our talent. We're having a totally different conversation.

I mean come on. The Eagles somehow won games with Mark Sanchez as their QB. But! They also lost some of those games because of him... In other words, you're both right and wrong.

Graham Harrell comes to mind. Tech's current head coach comes from that same type offense. And you are correct...they don't do well after school.

 

Booger Daniel and Brad Smith are also guys from that type of offense. Booger was with the Skins last a I knew, and Smith was playing receiver with the Jets I believe.

 

All good points. Maybe my opinion would be different if some guy (Beck) with little to no experience with the system didn't run it. I think I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Beck.

 

I still, in my heart of hearts, don't believe that it is an offense that just anybody can run. A very strong recruiting base is more than necessary to get the right guys in the system. If you can't recruit properly, you're toast.

[San Diego Husker]

Zac Taylor was probably the toughest quarterback (physically and mentally) we've had here since I've been a fan. We never had a good O line and he took some vicious hits. Eyes were always downfield though, and he stood tall. IMO, he's the only reason the wheels didn't fall off on the Callahan train sooner.

So agree with that one! BC would have been "3 and out" at best without Zac!

[San Diego Husker]

Looks like the gimmick offenses of Oregon and Ohio State really struggled yesterday.

watched all the OR/FSU game, OR didn't run gimmicky offenses unless you call fast gimmicky? What I saw was a very efficient QB who could run but was a passer first. Don't think there is a college team the in country who would not take Marcus Mariota (sp?).

[cg_8]

 

Graham Harrell comes to mind. Tech's current head coach comes from that same type offense. And you are correct...they don't do well after school.

 

Booger Daniel and Brad Smith are also guys from that type of offense. Booger was with the Skins last a I knew, and Smith was playing receiver with the Jets I believe.

 

All good points. Maybe my opinion would be different if some guy (Beck) with little to no experience with the system didn't run it. I think I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Beck.

 

I still, in my heart of hearts, don't believe that it is an offense that just anybody can run. A very strong recruiting base is more than necessary to get the right guys in the system. If you can't recruit properly, you're toast.

 

Agreed.

 

We all have a bad taste in our mouths with Beck. It was a flawed scheme, it's as if it's a decent scheme but needs someone to give it a "once over" to be a scheme that could become good. Could... haha.

 

I personally am very excited to move away from Beck's scheme and into a "pro-style". Not because of the style, but because the coaches behind it. They can coach the scheme, that has been proven, and have system in place that provides for the least amount of mistakes. That to me is more important than the actual style. It's something I envy Minnesota has had the past two years they beat us. Nothing special, just plain coached well enough in a not-special system and executed.

 

Good stuff overall. Love the discussion.

[San Diego Husker]

P.S. - was watching both the playoff games yesterday. The difference between what Meyer/Helfrich does and other teams that run the spread (see Baylor yesterday) do? They don't run that check-with-me BS EVERY DAMN PLAY.

 

Baylor ran it with a 32 year old new coordinator and we see what happened.

yep, HC's son, tell me that 32 year old gets that gig in any other D1 program!

[Count 'Bility]

 

My god

Define "pro style"

Ill wait.

 

Pro style offense, IMHO, is a scheme run at the professional level that uses a balanced attack of run and pass. Utilizes multiple formations and schemes based on match-ups and ball control. It does NOT, however, concentrate NOR funnel all execution through one player. You have to have more than one option.

 

Also, a pro-style offense must have a QB that can read defenses on the field (not from the sidelines), and must manage the game. This comes with experience and teaching.

 

How many times do you see a 'check with me' college style in the pros?

Also - other than a fortunate escape against McNeese, and him being hurt against Purdue, how many times did the Huskers win when Ameer had less than 100 yards - in the last two seasons?

 

I'll do the math for ya. Twice.

 

2013:

UCLA - 98 Yards. Loss.

Varmints - 165 yards. Loss.

Sparty - 123 yards. Loss.

Chicken Hawks - 85 yards. Loss.

 

2014:

Sparty - 45 yards. Loss.

Bucky - 69 yards. Loss.

Varmints - 98 yards. Loss.

USC - 88 yards. Loss.

 

2-6.

 

Shut one dude down, don't let the QB beat you. Doesn't make for good juju.

Oregon lost their #1 receiver on the opening kickoff, was missing a TE to injury. Didn't miss a beat. They got the depth and talent for it (because they're Free Shoes New, lol).

Buckeyes lost two Heisman trophy candidate QBs. Didn't miss a beat. They got the talent and depth AND coaching for it.

 

Not the same for the Huskers.

yeah thats great and all. But to me rhat doesnt define pro style. It defines successful style. And the "check with me" stuff you claim doesnt go on in the pros? Well it does. Do you know what them little green stickers are for?

 

Even Riley himself laughed off the whole prostyle concelt at his introductory presser. I think his exact words were along the lines of "(chuckles) because we huddle and go under center? "

 

Thats the thing with me and this whole pro style thing. Its so undefined and vague. It doesnt really mean anything.

[alexhortdog95]

 

 

My god

Define "pro style"

Ill wait.

Pro style offense, IMHO, is a scheme run at the professional level that uses a balanced attack of run and pass. Utilizes multiple formations and schemes based on match-ups and ball control. It does NOT, however, concentrate NOR funnel all execution through one player. You have to have more than one option.

 

Also, a pro-style offense must have a QB that can read defenses on the field (not from the sidelines), and must manage the game. This comes with experience and teaching.

 

How many times do you see a 'check with me' college style in the pros?

Also - other than a fortunate escape against McNeese, and him being hurt against Purdue, how many times did the Huskers win when Ameer had less than 100 yards - in the last two seasons?

 

I'll do the math for ya. Twice.

 

2013:

UCLA - 98 Yards. Loss.

Varmints - 165 yards. Loss.

Sparty - 123 yards. Loss.

Chicken Hawks - 85 yards. Loss.

 

2014:

Sparty - 45 yards. Loss.

Bucky - 69 yards. Loss.

Varmints - 98 yards. Loss.

USC - 88 yards. Loss.

 

2-6.

 

Shut one dude down, don't let the QB beat you. Doesn't make for good juju.

Oregon lost their #1 receiver on the opening kickoff, was missing a TE to injury. Didn't miss a beat. They got the depth and talent for it (because they're Free Shoes New, lol).

Buckeyes lost two Heisman trophy candidate QBs. Didn't miss a beat. They got the talent and depth AND coaching for it.

 

Not the same for the Huskers.

yeah thats great and all. But to me rhat doesnt define pro style. It defines successful style. And the "check with me" stuff you claim doesnt go on in the pros? Well it does. Do you know what them little green stickers are for?

Even Riley himself laughed off the whole prostyle concelt at his introductory presser. I think his exact words were along the lines of "(chuckles) because we huddle and go under center? "

Thats the thing with me and this whole pro style thing. Its so undefined and vague. It doesnt really mean anything.

By "green stickers" are you referring to QB helmets (and one other player)? The ones with radios on them? That are shut off with 15 seconds on the play clock?

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

My god

Define "pro style"

Ill wait.

Pro style offense, IMHO, is a scheme run at the professional level that uses a balanced attack of run and pass. Utilizes multiple formations and schemes based on match-ups and ball control. It does NOT, however, concentrate NOR funnel all execution through one player. You have to have more than one option.

 

Also, a pro-style offense must have a QB that can read defenses on the field (not from the sidelines), and must manage the game. This comes with experience and teaching.

 

How many times do you see a 'check with me' college style in the pros?

Also - other than a fortunate escape against McNeese, and him being hurt against Purdue, how many times did the Huskers win when Ameer had less than 100 yards - in the last two seasons?

 

I'll do the math for ya. Twice.

 

2013:

UCLA - 98 Yards. Loss.

Varmints - 165 yards. Loss.

Sparty - 123 yards. Loss.

Chicken Hawks - 85 yards. Loss.

 

2014:

Sparty - 45 yards. Loss.

Bucky - 69 yards. Loss.

Varmints - 98 yards. Loss.

USC - 88 yards. Loss.

 

2-6.

 

Shut one dude down, don't let the QB beat you. Doesn't make for good juju.

Oregon lost their #1 receiver on the opening kickoff, was missing a TE to injury. Didn't miss a beat. They got the depth and talent for it (because they're Free Shoes New, lol).

Buckeyes lost two Heisman trophy candidate QBs. Didn't miss a beat. They got the talent and depth AND coaching for it.

 

Not the same for the Huskers.

yeah thats great and all. But to me rhat doesnt define pro style. It defines successful style. And the "check with me" stuff you claim doesnt go on in the pros? Well it does. Do you know what them little green stickers are for?

Even Riley himself laughed off the whole prostyle concelt at his introductory presser. I think his exact words were along the lines of "(chuckles) because we huddle and go under center? "

Thats the thing with me and this whole pro style thing. Its so undefined and vague. It doesnt really mean anything.

By "green stickers" are you referring to QB helmets (and one other player)? The ones with radios on them? That are shut off with 15 seconds on the play clock?

15 seconds or 40?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

I think we ran an offense like Oregon with the spread but with just less tempo and of course did not execute like Oregon does. I think the pro set with Riley is going to benefit Nebraska with good quarterback play.

Ask Bucky what they think of their offense. Their QB was horrendous yesterday (cept for the last two possessions they had). And they still won the game.

If Cardale Jones has a terrible game, the Buckeyes don't win that game.

I guess I'm having a hard time following you in this thread.

 

An offensive system isn't gimmicky if you know how to run it and see successful. It's gimmicky if you try to run a system but don't have the success of others.

 

It's gimmicky if it's based on the QB being really good and is successful. OSUs offense isn't gimmicky because it is a power run system but last night they would have never won in the QB didn't have good game even though you said he was horrendous.

Okay friend - here's basically what I'm saying:

 

Spread:

1. If you are a team that uses this spread and you lack a certain level of execution - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

2. If you are a team that uses this spread and your QB lacks a certain level of discipline - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

3. If you are a team that uses this spread and you can't recruit the most top level talent - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

4. If you are a team that uses this spread and you aren't physical off the ball 100% of the time on offense - maybe you shouldn't be running it (See Nebraska)

 

A pro-style offense can erase most of a QB's deficiencies (cept yesterday in the case of Winston, LOLZ). The reason why both Bammer and Free Shoes got to the championship (even though both their QBs played like garbage at different times during the year) is because of the level of true multiple sets they run out of their pro style offenses. It doesn't get guys recruited (unless you live in Ohio or you give out free shoes like Oregon) to your school in an area that isn't talent rich traditionally (see Baylor).

 

The offense that both Bucky and Sparty played yesterday kept both their QBs in the game, even though both of their QBs had moments where they went full retard (Stave and his picks and that GAWD AWFUL pick by Shaw yesterday). If the wheels fall off when running the spread, they're off.

 

When Bo, on the day he got hired, said he wanted to run an offense like Florida's, I cringed.

Here's the thing. I think I can agree with you but say if in a strange enough way that I can't.

 

You want an offense that works here at Nebraska with a QB that knows how to be a QB and people around him that are good football players for that system.

 

You believe that system should be a more pro style offense that utilizes a power running game.

[alexhortdog95]

 

 

 

 

My god

Define "pro style"

Ill wait.

Pro style offense, IMHO, is a scheme run at the professional level that uses a balanced attack of run and pass. Utilizes multiple formations and schemes based on match-ups and ball control. It does NOT, however, concentrate NOR funnel all execution through one player. You have to have more than one option.

 

Also, a pro-style offense must have a QB that can read defenses on the field (not from the sidelines), and must manage the game. This comes with experience and teaching.

 

How many times do you see a 'check with me' college style in the pros?

Also - other than a fortunate escape against McNeese, and him being hurt against Purdue, how many times did the Huskers win when Ameer had less than 100 yards - in the last two seasons?

 

I'll do the math for ya. Twice.

 

2013:

UCLA - 98 Yards. Loss.

Varmints - 165 yards. Loss.

Sparty - 123 yards. Loss.

Chicken Hawks - 85 yards. Loss.

 

2014:

Sparty - 45 yards. Loss.

Bucky - 69 yards. Loss.

Varmints - 98 yards. Loss.

USC - 88 yards. Loss.

 

2-6.

 

Shut one dude down, don't let the QB beat you. Doesn't make for good juju.

Oregon lost their #1 receiver on the opening kickoff, was missing a TE to injury. Didn't miss a beat. They got the depth and talent for it (because they're Free Shoes New, lol).

Buckeyes lost two Heisman trophy candidate QBs. Didn't miss a beat. They got the talent and depth AND coaching for it.

 

Not the same for the Huskers.

yeah thats great and all. But to me rhat doesnt define pro style. It defines successful style. And the "check with me" stuff you claim doesnt go on in the pros? Well it does. Do you know what them little green stickers are for?

Even Riley himself laughed off the whole prostyle concelt at his introductory presser. I think his exact words were along the lines of "(chuckles) because we huddle and go under center? "

Thats the thing with me and this whole pro style thing. Its so undefined and vague. It doesnt really mean anything.

By "green stickers" are you referring to QB helmets (and one other player)? The ones with radios on them? That are shut off with 15 seconds on the play clock?

15 seconds or 40?

 

 

I believe it's 15 seconds left on the play clock. So, at :15 or :10 on the clock, radio off.

 

However, this is what RGIII (who came from a spread offense, coincidentally) said in 2012:

 

 

Robert Griffin III claimed to have a helmet malfunction late in Sunday’s Redskins-Buccaneers game, causing his headset to go out. Even without the proper communication, the rookie quarterback led his team 56 yards in less than 2 minutes to set up Billy Cundiff’s game-winning field goal.

 

“The whole drive was a little complicated,” Griffin said afterward. “In practice, every week we always practice me calling the plays in two-minute acting as if the headset goes out. The funny thing was the headset did go out on that drive.”

 

Just him and the D. Like it should be