Offense a work in progress

[admo]

 

"They hold up a card on the sideline, he kicks his foot and throws the ball. That ain’t playing quarterback. There’s no leadership involved there.[/b]"

What is "the Nebraska offense under Bo Pelini"?

 

His offense had a bunch of plays but no real formula.

 

I think the OL had more reads and responsibilities than the QB, RBs & WRs. The offense would have remained the same; an offense that relied on spacing, with speed at the skill positions and some good athletes to do whatever play is called.

 

When the Huskers got a two score lead in the second half, Bo went with a submissive approach and was very conservative. Even with most of the 4th quarter to play, all he was concerned about was playing against the game clock. Just like the NFL and it's probably where he got that from.

 

When they trailed by 2 scores and struggled, all they could do was roll the dice and "huck-it and chuck-it" since nothing else worked well. Often times it actually worked!

 

During post game they may have referred to it as "players being resilient" or "never quitting". But in reality, the offense was in despair. Scrapping the game plan and just winging it, letting their athletic ability take over the rest of the way. Not as football players, but as college athletes, with speed and effort.

 

That was Bo's offense. And yes, his QB does look to the side, claps his hands, throws ball, hands off, or fakes and keeps it.

[Hunter94]

 

 

"They hold up a card on the sideline, he kicks his foot and throws the ball. That ain’t playing quarterback. There’s no leadership involved there.[/b]"

What is "the Nebraska offense under Bo Pelini"?

 

His offense had a bunch of plays but no real formula.

 

I think the OL had more reads and responsibilities than the QB, RBs & WRs. The offense would have remained the same; an offense that relied on spacing, with speed at the skill positions and some good athletes to do whatever play is called.

 

When the Huskers got a two score lead in the second half, Bo went with a submissive approach and was very conservative. Even with most of the 4th quarter to play, all he was concerned about was playing against the game clock. Just like the NFL and it's probably where he got that from.

 

When they trailed by 2 scores and struggled, all they could do was roll the dice and "huck-it and chuck-it" since nothing else worked well. Often times it actually worked!

 

During post game they may have referred to it as "players being resilient" or "never quitting". But in reality, the offense was in despair. Scrapping the game plan and just winging it, letting their athletic ability take over the rest of the way. Not as football players, but as college athletes, with speed and effort.

 

That was Bo's offense. And yes, his QB does look to the side, claps his hands, throws ball, hands off, or fakes and keeps it.

 

pitiful and we paid good money to see this bullsh#t!

[lo country]

Auburn, Oregon, Florida St, Bama, Ohio St....all different offenses

Even in the differences, they have what I hope we have. Experienced coaches, who know their system, will recruit to it and for all reports can recruit.

 

Not saying we will win it all in the next year or two, but I feel very comfortable in saying we will not be on the receiving end of the a$$ beatings we have suffered for the past few years. I am anxious to see how we look. A few tough games in BYU and MIA. Some good tests before conference play.

[True2tRA]

 

Auburn, Oregon, Florida St, Bama, Ohio St....all different offenses

Even in the differences, they have what I hope we have. Experienced coaches, who know their system, will recruit to it and for all reports can recruit.

Not saying we will win it all in the next year or two, but I feel very comfortable in saying we will not be on the receiving end of the a$$ beatings we have suffered for the past few years. I am anxious to see how we look. A few tough games in BYU and MIA. Some good tests before conference play.

They all have really good offensive lines.

[admo]

 

Auburn, Oregon, Florida St, Bama, Ohio St....all different offenses

Even in the differences, they have what I hope we have. Experienced coaches, who know their system, will recruit to it and for all reports can recruit.

 

Not saying we will win it all in the next year or two, but I feel very comfortable in saying we will not be on the receiving end of the a$$ beatings we have suffered for the past few years. I am anxious to see how we look. A few tough games in BYU and MIA. Some good tests before conference play.

 

Amen to that. I am so done with those beat downs. I like those two early season challenges. Last season felt like we hadn't played anyone (aside from Miami) the first six weeks. Football is more fun playing against competitive teams - as long as you don't get whipped!

[Jeremy]

Someone mentioned Stanford. Now THERE'S an offense I can get behind, and it has very little option. They focus on o-line play, tough-nosed running between the tackles, power sweeps, play-action with some trickeration thrown in. We get an Andrew Luck or a Kevin Hogan - now we're talkin'.

 

The only issue I have is that we wouldn't be much different from Wisky, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Penn State, Rutgers, and probably Michigan. We'd be recruiting against them for the same kind of ahtletes - maybe we win that, maybe we don't.

[zoogs]

You're always recruiting against the top schools for the top players. I don't think that's a reason to shy away and lock yourself into an "alternative" scheme in the hopes that you can win that way.

 

when we could be talking about how teams are going to have to deal with Imani pounding the middle, Newby/Taylor taking the pitch, or Armstrong finding a seam on a keeper.

This is basically what we've had for the last several 4-loss seasons. It's a good scheme on paper, but hasn't lived up to its billing IMO.

[Jeremy]

You're always recruiting against the top schools for the top players. I don't think that's a reason to shy away and lock yourself into an "alternative" scheme in the hopes that you can win that way.

 

 

when we could be talking about how teams are going to have to deal with Imani pounding the middle, Newby/Taylor taking the pitch, or Armstrong finding a seam on a keeper.

This is basically what we've had for the last several 4-loss seasons. It's a good scheme on paper, but hasn't lived up to its billing IMO.

Recruiting-wise, we wouldn't have to spend so much time looking for another Mannion or Anderson, and we're able to have athletes all over the field.

 

The ONLY time we've ran anything remotely close to GT's option is the famed 'Diamond' package that everyone loved, but didn't see very much of.

 

We liked it because we had tmart, Ameer, Burkhead, and (Green?) all on the field at the same time. Any of them could end up with the ball, and the defense had a lot of trouble accounting for all of them. That's the beauty of it. Holding out hope this version of the pro style puts defenses in similar quandaries.

[cornographic]

It's not this guy anymore.

 

Thats the best part for me.

 

I hated his finesse offense.

Urbs seems to like him.

[admo]

Someone mentioned Stanford. Now THERE'S an offense I can get behind, and it has very little option. They focus on o-line play, tough-nosed running between the tackles, power sweeps, play-action with some trickeration thrown in. We get an Andrew Luck or a Kevin Hogan - now we're talkin'.

 

The only issue I have is that we wouldn't be much different from Wisky, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Penn State, Rutgers, and probably Michigan. We'd be recruiting against them for the same kind of ahtletes - maybe we win that, maybe we don't.

+1 you for the Stanford remark. I would be pleased with a similar style of Stanford, Wisc, Michigan State. Typically those three can pass the ball efficiently, yet they have a power running game as a staple. Plus they have some complimentary speed guys to stretch the field. I'd say they have a strong identity and a formula they stick to. If we incorporate a similar style to that, I would be even happier if it meant that we become the best offense in the nation doing it that way. If you don't have the talent, then you will play more like Rutgers and Penn State (down years).

 

In a nutshell, you can play conservative or aggressive, wear teams down late in games, take some shots, throw it on 1st or third down, build momentum with long scoring drives, and pass efficiently enough to get back into a game if you are down 2 scores. It sure beats the heck out of punting the ball after 3 plays within a minute.

[Mavric]

Someone mentioned Stanford. Now THERE'S an offense I can get behind, and it has very little option. They focus on o-line play, tough-nosed running between the tackles, power sweeps, play-action with some trickeration thrown in. We get an Andrew Luck or a Kevin Hogan - now we're talkin'.

 

The only issue I have is that we wouldn't be much different from Wisky, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Penn State, Rutgers, and probably Michigan. We'd be recruiting against them for the same kind of ahtletes - maybe we win that, maybe we don't.

 

Stanford was 72nd in the nation rushing the ball last year. 158 yards per game. 4.3 yards per attempt. They were 78th in total offense, 389 yards per game.

Nebraska was 19th in the nation rushing the ball last year. 240 yards per game. 5.3 yards per attempt. We were 33rd in total offense, 452 yards per game.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska's offense wasn't a finesse offense. With an OL not up to traditional Nebraska standards, we remained a run-first offense and a pretty successful one.

 

We ran a read option offense with a running quarterback and prolific running backs named Helu, Burkhead and Abdullah.

 

About 40% of the time we passed the ball. No more or less finessey than more successful teams ranked ahead of us. Just less consistent.

 

We dropped the ball a lot, and killed ourselves with mental breakdowns and stupid penalties. Our quarterbacks have been exciting but flawed.

 

Historically, our offense held its own with past Nebraska teams. Historically, our defense was among the worst on record.

[True2tRA]

Just because we were "run first" doesn't mean it wasn't finesse. I consider a lot off offenses in the NCAA right now "finesse" offenses. It's the current direction the game has trended. It didn't always used to be this way. I'm old school. I like the old way.

 

I'm gonna label any offense "finesse" when they run the ball out of the shotgun, and secondly, don't run the ball between the tackles.

 

I could give two craps less if your definition of finesse fits my definition. When I look at the type of football I like, versus what I watched Tim Beck run, I call it finesse.

 

I remind you, I'm not the one who called it "basketball on grass"......he did.A

 

Also, I believe I've talked plenty here about the offensive line issues and again, as with most other struggling aspects of this team, I don't lay blame squarely on the players like many do. They looked confused and un-aggressive. I'd like to see how these guys do in a more aggressive scheme with a clear "hat on a hat" style. I think these same players who struggled previously could find a bit more success, even if it just a little bit.

[Hunter94]

Nebraska's offense wasn't a finesse offense. With an OL not up to traditional Nebraska standards, we remained a run-first offense and a pretty successful one.

 

We ran a read option offense with a running quarterback and prolific running backs named Helu, Burkhead and Abdullah.

 

About 40% of the time we passed the ball. No more or less finessey than more successful teams ranked ahead of us. Just less consistent.

 

We dropped the ball a lot, and killed ourselves with mental breakdowns and stupid penalties. Our quarterbacks have been exciting but flawed.

 

Historically, our offense held its own with past Nebraska teams. Historically, our defense was among the worst on record.

yes, according to Becker-head, we were like basketball on grass........i think OSU will have him filling Gatorade cups!

[True2tRA]

Also, please don't disrespect historic Nebraska offenses simply because "the numbers" are comparable. (if they are.......I didn't bother to even look it up)

 

I don't care what the stats are today. Offenses all over the country are setting school records. The game has changed. The pace has changed. I'm sure no huddle offenses and other factors contribute to the rise in numbers across the country, not just Nebraska.

 

Tim Becks offenses never executed on a consistent basis. Those historic Nebraska offenses executed beautifully across the board on a regular basis.