It'sNotAFakeID Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I don't think Beck used it in a half assed way. I think it was Beck's style, but not Bo's. Bo has a funny history of brilliant intervention in how the Husker offense operated over the years. my point here is Beck never conditioned or coached our kids to play like this......look at Oregon's line men, most of them are lean and they can move......if you are gonna run true up tempo, your linemen better be able to recover and be ready to execute, otherwise it is wasted play calling. speed training at all positions would help the whole team....Oregon is proof that 30 lbs. of blubber on your line men just to get to 300 lbs. is dead weight....speed, first step and leverage/technique is effective.......Oregon OL is built/coached/trained that way......they run 8-10 plays hurry up, we get to the line quickly and then dick around for 30 seconds, looking to the sideline for a play call........and we call that up tempo? that's bullsh#t and never was true up tempo, i was sick of watching that sh#t.....glad to see Riley sh#t can that pretend hurry up bullsh#t. The Nebraska offense averaged 63 plays a game during the regular season. In the Holiday Bowl, the first and only game Tim Beck coached without Bo Pelini, we ran a legitimate hurry-up offense without the previous looking-to-the-sidelines rhtyhm-killing non-huddle. That Tim Beck hurry up offense ran 94 plays for 525 yards, 42 points, a single turnover and minimal penalties. They even came out with a perfectly executed 2 point conversion before USC knew what hit them. That means that in just four weeks, the same Nebraska team was not only conditioned to run a hurry-up multiple offense, they we able to execute it nearly error-free against some of the best athletes in the Pac 12. The lesson? Trust your players. Beck did. Bo didn't. I'd caution against using a single data point to make comparisons. But 94 plays is a lot with only one of them being a turnover. Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Tim Beck would not be the first assistant to be hamstringed under Bo. Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I don't think Beck used it in a half assed way. I think it was Beck's style, but not Bo's. Bo has a funny history of brilliant intervention in how the Husker offense operated over the years. my point here is Beck never conditioned or coached our kids to play like this......look at Oregon's line men, most of them are lean and they can move......if you are gonna run true up tempo, your linemen better be able to recover and be ready to execute, otherwise it is wasted play calling. speed training at all positions would help the whole team....Oregon is proof that 30 lbs. of blubber on your line men just to get to 300 lbs. is dead weight....speed, first step and leverage/technique is effective.......Oregon OL is built/coached/trained that way......they run 8-10 plays hurry up, we get to the line quickly and then dick around for 30 seconds, looking to the sideline for a play call........and we call that up tempo? that's bullsh#t and never was true up tempo, i was sick of watching that sh#t.....glad to see Riley sh#t can that pretend hurry up bullsh#t. The Nebraska offense averaged 63 plays a game during the regular season. In the Holiday Bowl, the first and only game Tim Beck coached without Bo Pelini, we ran a legitimate hurry-up offense without the previous looking-to-the-sidelines rhtyhm-killing non-huddle. That Tim Beck hurry up offense ran 94 plays for 525 yards, 42 points, a single turnover and minimal penalties. They even came out with a perfectly executed 2 point conversion before USC knew what hit them. That means that in just four weeks, the same Nebraska team was not only conditioned to run a hurry-up multiple offense, they we able to execute it nearly error-free against some of the best athletes in the Pac 12. The lesson? Trust your players. Beck did. Bo didn't. I'd caution against using a single data point to make comparisons. But 94 plays is a lot with only one of them being a turnover. Yeah. It was the 30 more offensive plays a game that really got my attention. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't think Beck used it in a half assed way. I think it was Beck's style, but not Bo's. Bo has a funny history of brilliant intervention in how the Husker offense operated over the years. my point here is Beck never conditioned or coached our kids to play like this......look at Oregon's line men, most of them are lean and they can move......if you are gonna run true up tempo, your linemen better be able to recover and be ready to execute, otherwise it is wasted play calling. speed training at all positions would help the whole team....Oregon is proof that 30 lbs. of blubber on your line men just to get to 300 lbs. is dead weight....speed, first step and leverage/technique is effective.......Oregon OL is built/coached/trained that way......they run 8-10 plays hurry up, we get to the line quickly and then dick around for 30 seconds, looking to the sideline for a play call........and we call that up tempo? that's bullsh#t and never was true up tempo, i was sick of watching that sh#t.....glad to see Riley sh#t can that pretend hurry up bullsh#t. The Nebraska offense averaged 63 plays a game during the regular season. In the Holiday Bowl, the first and only game Tim Beck coached without Bo Pelini, we ran a legitimate hurry-up offense without the previous looking-to-the-sidelines rhtyhm-killing non-huddle. That Tim Beck hurry up offense ran 94 plays for 525 yards, 42 points, a single turnover and minimal penalties. They even came out with a perfectly executed 2 point conversion before USC knew what hit them. That means that in just four weeks, the same Nebraska team was not only conditioned to run a hurry-up multiple offense, they we able to execute it nearly error-free against some of the best athletes in the Pac 12. The lesson? Trust your players. Beck did. Bo didn't. I'd caution against using a single data point to make comparisons. But 94 plays is a lot with only one of them being a turnover. Yeah. It was the 30 more offensive plays a game that really got my attention. This is true. And I think it was pretty obvious from Beck's comments after the game that he wasn't allowed to do everything he wanted. But that was just a pretty crazy game overall. And it was aided by USC having possessions that lasted 57 seconds, 11 seconds (KOR TD), 28 seconds, 85 seconds, 68 seconds, 77 seconds, 79 seconds, 12 seconds, 95 seconds, 42 seconds, 25 seconds, 69 seconds and 93 seconds and a combined 90 passes. You don't see that in a lot of B1G games. Plus, that higher tempo is what led to a lot of complaining about how little rest the defense was getting and all the rejoicing now about how we are actually huddling. It's not a magic bullet. 1 Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least if you go 3 and out rush the ball, your D will get a little more of a breather than going 3 and out with incompletions... I thought the O line was going to be one of our strong points? I'm sorry but 3 run plays and 3 incomplete pass plays take the same amount of actual time, because the play clock doesn't change depending on what type of play you run. Now more time might come off of the game clock with runs, but the actual time from start to finish of a 3 and out doesn't really change by running instead of passing. ok, show me... 2014 Miami: Around 6 minutes into the first quarter, we ran three straight run plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 1 second. 2014 Michigan State: Around 10 minutes into the second quarter, we ran three straight pass plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 11 seconds. What about the multiple games where three pass plays were called, with three incompletions being the result? I can't tell you the number of times that happened. How much of your day did you waste trying to find those two examples? Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least if you go 3 and out rush the ball, your D will get a little more of a breather than going 3 and out with incompletions... I thought the O line was going to be one of our strong points? I'm sorry but 3 run plays and 3 incomplete pass plays take the same amount of actual time, because the play clock doesn't change depending on what type of play you run. Now more time might come off of the game clock with runs, but the actual time from start to finish of a 3 and out doesn't really change by running instead of passing. ok, show me... 2014 Miami: Around 6 minutes into the first quarter, we ran three straight run plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 1 second. 2014 Michigan State: Around 10 minutes into the second quarter, we ran three straight pass plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 11 seconds. What about the multiple games where three pass plays were called, with three incompletions being the result? I can't tell you the number of times that happened. How much of your day did you waste trying to find those two examples? If you can't tell us the number of times we ran three unsuccessful passing plays in a row, and don't bother to compare it to the number of times we ran three unsuccessful rushing plays in a row, you don't really have a point. As I recall you also hate it when we pass on 3rd and 2 in any situation in any game. You're not too keen on the forward pass at all, are you? 1 Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least if you go 3 and out rush the ball, your D will get a little more of a breather than going 3 and out with incompletions... I thought the O line was going to be one of our strong points? I'm sorry but 3 run plays and 3 incomplete pass plays take the same amount of actual time, because the play clock doesn't change depending on what type of play you run. Now more time might come off of the game clock with runs, but the actual time from start to finish of a 3 and out doesn't really change by running instead of passing. ok, show me... 2014 Miami: Around 6 minutes into the first quarter, we ran three straight run plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 1 second. 2014 Michigan State: Around 10 minutes into the second quarter, we ran three straight pass plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 11 seconds. What about the multiple games where three pass plays were called, with three incompletions being the result? I can't tell you the number of times that happened. How much of your day did you waste trying to find those two examples? I spent about fifteen minutes looking through the play by plays, and in that time I didn't see a single series of 3 incomplete passes. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least if you go 3 and out rush the ball, your D will get a little more of a breather than going 3 and out with incompletions... I thought the O line was going to be one of our strong points? I'm sorry but 3 run plays and 3 incomplete pass plays take the same amount of actual time, because the play clock doesn't change depending on what type of play you run. Now more time might come off of the game clock with runs, but the actual time from start to finish of a 3 and out doesn't really change by running instead of passing. ok, show me... 2014 Miami: Around 6 minutes into the first quarter, we ran three straight run plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 1 second. 2014 Michigan State: Around 10 minutes into the second quarter, we ran three straight pass plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 11 seconds. What about the multiple games where three pass plays were called, with three incompletions being the result? I can't tell you the number of times that happened. How much of your day did you waste trying to find those two examples? If you can't tell us the number of times we ran three unsuccessful passing plays in a row, and don't bother to compare it to the number of times we ran three unsuccessful rushing plays in a row, you don't really have a point. As I recall you also hate it when we pass on 3rd and 2 in any situation in any game. You're not too keen on the forward pass at all, are you? I'm perfectly fine with the forward pass, just not when a run play is the way to go... And just off the top of my head with the 3 straight imcomplete passes, the UCLA losses come to mind, and probably at least a dozen other games, but if you've got them in a twist, I'm sure I can go through every game and dig them up just to appease you... Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm perfectly fine with the forward pass, just not when a run play is the way to go... And just off the top of my head with the 3 straight imcomplete passes, the UCLA losses come to mind, and probably at least a dozen other games, but if you've got them in a twist, I'm sure I can go through every game and dig them up just to appease you... I only looked through 2014 because those are the only games that I have on my computer to watch the amount of real-world time that passed in between plays. Quote Link to comment
strigori Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least if you go 3 and out rush the ball, your D will get a little more of a breather than going 3 and out with incompletions... I thought the O line was going to be one of our strong points? I'm sorry but 3 run plays and 3 incomplete pass plays take the same amount of actual time, because the play clock doesn't change depending on what type of play you run. Now more time might come off of the game clock with runs, but the actual time from start to finish of a 3 and out doesn't really change by running instead of passing. ok, show me... 2014 Miami: Around 6 minutes into the first quarter, we ran three straight run plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 1 second. 2014 Michigan State: Around 10 minutes into the second quarter, we ran three straight pass plays and punted. From the snap of the first play to the blowing dead of the punt, it took 2 minutes and 11 seconds. What about the multiple games where three pass plays were called, with three incompletions being the result? I can't tell you the number of times that happened. How much of your day did you waste trying to find those two examples? If you can't tell us the number of times we ran three unsuccessful passing plays in a row, and don't bother to compare it to the number of times we ran three unsuccessful rushing plays in a row, you don't really have a point. As I recall you also hate it when we pass on 3rd and 2 in any situation in any game. You're not too keen on the forward pass at all, are you? I'm perfectly fine with the forward pass, just not when a run play is the way to go... And just off the top of my head with the 3 straight imcomplete passes, the UCLA losses come to mind, and probably at least a dozen other games, but if you've got them in a twist, I'm sure I can go through every game and dig them up just to appease you... That's such a complicated thing though. There is a good case to be made for passing on 3rd and 2. If it works, its a 'good' call and if it does not work its a 'bad' call. If a guy gets stuffed on 3rd and 2 its not any different. Now, if the defense has not been able to stop the run, and the RB is hot, by all means run. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I've always thought the "three straight passes puts the defense back out there too quickly" complaint was unfounded. Just as easy target when you don't like the results. But if you are really opposed to three straight passes, you're probably going to be in for a long few years..... Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I've always thought the "three straight passes puts the defense back out there too quickly" complaint was unfounded. Just as easy target when you don't like the results. But if you are really opposed to three straight passes, you're probably going to be in for a long few years..... yea, I'm settling in for personal disappointment... 1 Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Riley said today that they are looking at more shotgun runs than he's ever seen as our QBs are more comfortable out of the gun. Said they'll still be under center a lot but it sounds like not as much as Riley is used to. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Riley said today that they are looking at more shotgun runs than he's ever seen as our QBs are more comfortable out of the gun. Said they'll still be under center a lot but it sounds like not as much as Riley is used to.so hes basically doing what i said hed do from the sec he was hired. Adjust to our talent and players comfort level. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Yeah, that is definitely cool. Gotta get these QBs trained up in under center, though. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.