Riley on What He's Looking for in QBs

[cornographic]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

 

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

 

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.

 

I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

 

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Agree.

 

The dual qbs inevitably get injured---running.

[Enhance]

 

The point is that some people value aesthetics over wins, contrary to popular belief.

 

To what end do people value aesthetics over results, though? For example, in hockey, and much like in soccer, people who understand the game will often say they don't like shootouts. Certainly not because they lack excitement but because the better "team" may not necessarily mean they have best scorers. I can understand the aesthetics argument in this regard because you want the team that plays better throughout the game to also look the part and play the part.

 

And again, I've already stated I would prefer a team that looks good and produces results. But, valuing aesthetics over wins means, to me, people would prefer a team go 6-6 if they look good, rather than going maybe 10-2 but not necessarily looking the part.

 

Just kind of looking for further understanding here.

[Hammerhead]

Our luck with supposed "dual threat" quarterbacks that are really only a threat on the ground has killed any interest I had in recruiting that kind of quarterback, but hopefully Langsdorf's offense will be versatile enough to use the run better than Beck/Watson did. We need a guy with a good arm AND good decision-making skills if we're ever going to contend for anything other than a mid-tier bowl game.

[TGHusker]

Looks like we have a clue now on the type of QB MR wants. 1st QB recruit has committed. Pass first, run second - mobile QB. We pulled him out of Sooner land. He is 6'3'' and just shy of 200. He had great stats as a jr.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/oklahoma-prep-quarterback-terry-wilson-ends-wait-commits-to-huskers/article_b5c08c1e-bee2-5a7a-a2ec-03d79f747645.html

[BigRedBuster]

Looks like we have a clue now on the type of QB MR wants. 1st QB recruit has committed. Pass first, run second - mobile QB. We pulled him out of Sooner land. He is 6'3'' and just shy of 200. He had great stats as a jr.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/oklahoma-prep-quarterback-terry-wilson-ends-wait-commits-to-huskers/article_b5c08c1e-bee2-5a7a-a2ec-03d79f747645.html

Well, it definitely looks like he is extremely athletic and fast. His high light video shows him making a wide range of throws with a strong arm to get the ball down the field.

 

Now, let's hope that translates well to the college level.

[cg_8]

 

 

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.

 

Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

 

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

 

Exactly!

The boxing reference is one that should be more similar to basketball pre-shot clock era, where teams would hold on to the ball for minutes on end. Where they'd only score like 4 pts total for the final quarter.

 

Also, if we won 14 games with a QB sneak offense, we're leaving out the part where our Defense is the best Defense college football has ever seen. That alone, would be a blast to watch.

 

There would still be sprinkles of PA sneak passing plays, and even a handoff would become a "PA" type play that would be exciting. I'm picturing quick pop passes to tight ends, or even laterals to RB's sprinkled in there to keep the Defense honest. I mean, wtf does the D think when we unexpectedly shift into shotgun...

 

This offense would be more exciting than you think it would...

[junior4949]

If we get the pipeline rebuilt, the QB jabber will become all but nonexistent. Taylor Martinez would be remembered quite differently by most fans had he been behind a dominant OL. The QB just needs to be a game manager with few mistakes. We have more than capable QB's on the roster already. We just need better OL play.

[Redux]

Let us not forget a big factor, is he hot? My wife needs a studly QB.

[Enhance]

If we get the pipeline rebuilt, the QB jabber will become all but nonexistent. Taylor Martinez would be remembered quite differently by most fans had he been behind a dominant OL. The QB just needs to be a game manager with few mistakes. We have more than capable QB's on the roster already. We just need better OL play.

I'm 100% behind you that we need better OL play, but, I would also argue QB is still huge no matter what. Nebraska hasn't had a truly elite QB since Eric Crouch I think you could argue. You could say TM got close but his turnover problems held him back, and there were times when even his freak athletic ability couldn't make up for the team's poor play. It's also tough to characterize someone as 'elite' when they were responsible for helping put the team into a deep hole.

 

Anyways, aside from Martinez, I would say we still need to have more than a game manager. OL play is definitely a big concern and I would love for them to be one of the best in the country, but a really good QB would mean a ton to this program and could mean the difference between getting to a conference title game and actually winning a conference title game.

[zoogs]

It's also not that easy to "just be" a game manager. Sure, it's something that doesn't require phenom-level athleticism or stature, but the QB has to be extremely sharp and proficiently run a very smart system.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

 

 

The point is that some people value aesthetics over wins, contrary to popular belief.

 

To what end do people value aesthetics over results, though? For example, in hockey, and much like in soccer, people who understand the game will often say they don't like shootouts. Certainly not because they lack excitement but because the better "team" may not necessarily mean they have best scorers. I can understand the aesthetics argument in this regard because you want the team that plays better throughout the game to also look the part and play the part.

 

And again, I've already stated I would prefer a team that looks good and produces results. But, valuing aesthetics over wins means, to me, people would prefer a team go 6-6 if they look good, rather than going maybe 10-2 but not necessarily looking the part.

 

Just kind of looking for further understanding here.

 

Yeah, fair point. I think you and I are actually in agreement.

I have thought about it a bit, and I will try to organize mythoughts, hopefully while being concise.

I think the debate arises from a clash of ideal vs pragmatic philosophies on how to win at a given sport. And to be honest, I think football is a weird example because at its core it is a very pragmatic sport; do whatever you can to get the ball from A to B. However, I do think there is an aesthetic value to some parts of it. I particularly like a good run block, the way a QB steps up into the pocket to deliver a pass, the way an running back cuts back in between the tackles, the way a receiver gets open by finding a gap in the zone coverage,and others. But I recognize that aesthetics in sports are somewhat subjective. Someone who watched NU in the 80s and 90s may prefer a power running game, or an option scheme, while others may like a more passing approach. I think culture plays a big part.

In both philosophies, the win is the goal, but while the pragmatic approach gives a stronger emphasis on the win itself, the aesthetic approach gives more emphasis on the way the game is won ("Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" comes to mind). In this latter philosophy attractive and entertaining play are the keys to victory. I subscribe to this philosophy, so when NU plays poorly, but wins, it gives me an empty feeling. You hear the phrase "a win's a win" but if the win is due to some luck, or the opponent played better football overall, or NU turned the ball over frequently, or the game was won due to the opponent suffering an injury to a key player, then it is not a fulfilling win. I often think about which team deserved to win.

In 1974 West Germany won the World Cup (soccer), but nobody cares because 1974 was the year of the Mechanical Orange Dutch team who lost in the final game, but they played better than any other team, showing off an attractive and dynamic style that changed the way the game was played thenceforward.

I wish I had a hockey example for you but I really don't :-)

Anyway, thats how I view it, but I know I am a minority. Ideally, it is like you said, you have good aesthetics and wins. But I would rather have an undeserved loss than an undeserved win. (I think my last sentence makes sense...maybe...)

[River-runner]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.

 

I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

 

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.

 

 

f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

 

I completly agree. Everytime I saw the QB in a shotgun set in the redzone. I wanted to beat Pelini & Becks head into a wall. Why not let your RB run down hill with a lead blocker. A team that can control the clock & the run game will win a lot of football games.

 

I know what you mean but didn't NU have pretty solid rushing stats for the season?

 

Not in the games that mattered........we got shut down.

[Stumpy1]

A lot of people would like to have Stanford's offense and there is nothing exciting about it. Last year against Oregon, Stanford ran the same running play something like 60 times. I believe they only passed 8-10 times and that was it. Pretty damn boring but it won them the game. Alabama has had recent success being boring. The common thing with these teams is that they have had stellar defenses. I don't care if we are fancy or boring, as long as we get the job done and win.

[teachercd]

A lot of people would like to have Stanford's offense and there is nothing exciting about it. Last year against Oregon, Stanford ran the same running play something like 60 times. I believe they only passed 8-10 times and that was it. Pretty damn boring but it won them the game. Alabama has had recent success being boring. The common thing with these teams is that they have had stellar defenses. I don't care if we are fancy or boring, as long as we get the job done and win.

Exactly...at the end of the day we want NU's offense to have scored enough points to win that game.

[Stumpy1]

 

A lot of people would like to have Stanford's offense and there is nothing exciting about it. Last year against Oregon, Stanford ran the same running play something like 60 times. I believe they only passed 8-10 times and that was it. Pretty damn boring but it won them the game. Alabama has had recent success being boring. The common thing with these teams is that they have had stellar defenses. I don't care if we are fancy or boring, as long as we get the job done and win.

Exactly...at the end of the day we want NU's offense to have scored enough points to win that game.

 

Yep and I don't care if they done the flea flicker the whole game or your QB sneak offense, just as long as they score and win.