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

[alexhortdog95]

And the same two coaches' thoughts on which one they'd use:

 

 

 

 

And that's why Glen Mason does games, and Gerry DiNardo is in the cushy studio job. Dude was right on all accounts, especially about Urban Meyer.

[Stumpy1]

Joe Ganz was every bit the quarterback that Zac was, and ran essentially the same system.

 

This is a good post though. Refreshing perspective.

Ummm...No

[BigRedBuster]

Was suggested I put this in its own thread.

 

Here's my take on this (and also on Coach Riley):

 

Since when does a QB have to do this every play:

 

 

I am sick of the newer, 'check with me' style of offense. It's the kind of offense you run with little 10 - 12 year old youth who are still learning how to play the game. Hell, it's not even how check-with-me originally worked. QB would have two or three plays. Guys would check with the QB at the LOC on what was being run. It was up to the QB to make the call. Today's 'check with me' doesn't do that.

 

It handcuffs the thought process of a quarterback. It doesn't require discipline of a QB to know what he's seeing. He just goes out there, and reacts the way the coaches want him to - after looking to the sideline for help. How does that help him see the robber, or quarters coverage, or properly read a zone blitzing back who is about to blast him into next week?

 

Simple. It doesn't. It makes simpletons of a game that is complex.

 

You know why we have had QBs that have been so loose with the ball? Because they aren't being taught to read a defense. I'm not talking just about our guys - I'm talking about guys like a RGIII, or a guy like Johnny Football a/k/a the Money Badger. I like RGIII, but the skillset to read a D isn't there. Wasn't asked to do it in college - the coaches did it for him. In the pro game, you don't get that luxury.

 

My father used to always say, "There are some old things that we do which make no sense to do, but there are some old things we do that make perfect sense to do."

 

Can we please stop worrying about the current players and how they're going to adjust to the game?

 

Armstrong is a quarterback.

Stanton is a quarterback.

Fyfe is a quarterback.

 

Last I checked, the definition of a quarterback is to be the guy out on the field that puts players in the right position. Can we say our QBs have done that? If so, when was the last time we saw that?

 

I know when (damn me for putting this out there)....

 

 

 

 

No matter what anybody says - this dude was one of the most UNDERRATED QBs in school history, and in my opinion, the last guy who actually was a prototypical QB.

 

Line up. Read the D. Audible if need be. Call out protections. Understand the game. That's the job of a QB, and it is what they will be asked to do by the new head coach.

 

I applaud the guy and hope he does well.

I agree and have always hated the meerkat act before a play.

 

Sam Bradford was the first QB I remember doing this against Nebraska and it drove me nuts. I always said that I doubted he would have a really successful NFL career because it was clear the coaches don't trust him to read a defense.

 

Seems like that has been a problem ever since he got to the NFL.

[cg_8]

We do know that Tommy does call audibles. He does read the defenses before and during the plays. As Taylor did before him.

 

There are a lot of examples of him calling audibles, but the one I remember is 2013 Michigan. It was 4th and 2 on the game winning drive, he called an audible that resulted in Kenny Bell being wide open and gaining 26 yards. There are plenty more too.

 

It's hard for me to comprehend the notion that a QB playing at that level is not reading the D. Even the worst QB out there, and even WR's are reading the D and coverages. Frazier was reading lineman and which gaps appeared free so he can determine whether it was best to hand off to Fullback or keep, then deciding to pitch or not.

 

No matter what scheme you run, the QB is always reading the field, before and during plays.

 

In fact, I think the biggest problem for some of our passing schemes were that it gave TOO MUCH freedom to WR's and we depended on WR's running read routes. There is such a thing as too much freedom for a player.

 

There are certain spread offenses that work extremely well. The Air Raid has worked from Oklahoma to Washington State. It turned Oklahoma into a National Champion and made whomever their first QB was look like a stud. It then worked at Texas Tech. And Washington State now.

 

Baylor's spread is highly successful.

 

Nevada had the pistol before it became a staple for the spread. Not sure it was crazy successful to start (we defeated Nevada when I first saw it during the Callahan years), but it was when Kaepernick was there.

 

And Oregon has the best Spread attack. Chip Kelly created some amazing things, and everyone tries to match it, but can't.

 

That's why it seems so "gimicky" now. Everyone's "spread" is just a copy-cat of all these successful spread attacks. Beck's is just a copy cat, but he input some interesting and original variations to it. It was/is original, which is why it seemed so explosive at times. But it may have not been refined, which is why we had so many mistakes.

 

As for a "pro" attack. Pro-style is such a broad term. I can see a lot of variations regarding how our offense runs. I could see some shotgun, as well as a lot of under center. But pro-attack doesn't mean success, the same way spread doesn't means success. It's about how refined the individual systems are. Beck's wasn't completely refined. It needs a lot of tinkering to perhaps be perfect. Not every play should be in zone blocking. Scrap the read routes. Come up with some sweeps and pitches or anything that takes advantage of the edges. I thought we had an opportunity to attack the edges against USC, since that was the large problem BC gave them. We didn't have the plays though besides outside zone, jet sweep, and traditional option.

 

However, I have a feeling that our new OC has a system that is more refined. They seemed to have a really productive offense with him as OC. Riley has had pretty productive offenses during his tenure. Paul Chryst being his OC prior to the new guy (I can't spell his name...).

 

I'm excited. Not because we're switching schemes, but because the scheme will be refined and has been proven to be productive. We have the talent I think to show it off the way he envisions.

[The Dude]

Good post, cg_8. Agree with all of it.

[JJ Husker]

Not sure how you guys paid enough attention to argue who was better between Zac Lee or Joe Ganz. Those fall into the years I would like to forget.......and pretty much have. I know those were prime years for some of you........this makes me sad for you.

[ColoradoHusk]

Not sure how you guys paid enough attention to argue who was better between Zac Lee or Joe Ganz. Those fall into the years I would like to forget.......and pretty much have. I know those were prime years for some of you........this makes me sad for you.

+1 There are so many different and better eras of Husker football to love!!!

[ColoradoHusk]

The one thing I am concerned about with Riley's offense is a statue QB. Whenever I think "Pro Style" Offense, I think "Statue QB", and I hate when the offense plays 10 vs. 11.

 

It helps that Armstrong and Stanton have running ability, I just hope that Riley continues to recruit guys who can run when needed. Zac Taylor was a tough guy, but the reason he took so many hits is because he was a statue back there, and the d-linemen could just tee off on him.

[Scratchtown]

OP, It's only gimmicky if you don't understand it.

[Stumpy1]

OP, It's only gimmicky if you don't understand it.

 

I understand it and still think it is gimmicky.

[Mavric]

TCU looking pretty gimmicky.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Not sure how you guys paid enough attention to argue who was better between Zac Lee or Joe Ganz. Those fall into the years I would like to forget.......and pretty much have. I know those were prime years for some of you........this makes me sad for you.

+1 There are so many different and better eras of Husker football to love!!!

Just because it wasn't the most successful era in husker history doesn't mean there weren't players and moments that were worth remembering.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

OP, It's only gimmicky if you don't understand it.

 

I understand it and still think it is gimmicky.

That word was used a lot by opponents about a certain successful offense in the 80s and 90s.

 

Not sure why it needs to be used in either case.

 

An offense is a system of plays that follow a certain philosophy. Just because one is different than the other doesn't make it gimmicky.

[Elf]

Why are we reminiscing over callahan years? It's damn near 2015 people...

Reminiscing is one of the things we do on message boards. Heck we even talk about the Bob Devaney years sometimes. That is probably way to old for you though.

[Elf]

The one thing I am concerned about with Riley's offense is a statue QB. Whenever I think "Pro Style" Offense, I think "Statue QB", and I hate when the offense plays 10 vs. 11.

 

It helps that Armstrong and Stanton have running ability, I just hope that Riley continues to recruit guys who can run when needed. Zac Taylor was a tough guy, but the reason he took so many hits is because he was a statue back there, and the d-linemen could just tee off on him.

 

The real reason Zac Taylor took so many hits isn't because he was a statue, it was because the O-Line didn't do their jobs and block properly. Not every QB in a pro style offense gets beat like a drum every play. Some teams actually protect their QB.