Martinez and the NFL

[junior4949]

 

 

I had previously mentioned TO never got blown out, but found this from 247/sports....

 

So my friend, who often times exaggerates, tried to tell me this evening that Tom also had some rough losses under his belt early on. For some reason I had this picture in my mind of Osborne probably only losing one or two games in his career by more than a couple scores.I was pretty bored so I decided to check out and list all of Osborne's worst losses. Below are all of the losses in his career by more than ten points. [/size]

 

 

45-10 v. Oklahoma in 1990

38-7 v. #3 Oklahoma in 1977

27-0 v. #3 Oklahoma in 1973

35-10 v. #7 Oklahoma in 1975

45-21 v. #2 Georgia Tech in 1990

41-17 v. #5 Florida St. in 1989

22-0 v. #1 Miami in 1991

27-7 v. #5 Oklahoma in 1985

23-3 v. #2 Miami in 1988

19-0 v. #17 Arizona St.

20-3 v. #1 Alabama in 1978

27-12 v. #9 Colorado in 1990

36-21 v. #4 Washington in 1991

29-14 v. #2 Washington in 1992

28-14 v. #6 Oklahoma in 1974

41-28 v. #5 UCLA in 1988

27-14 v. #3 Florida St. in 1992

Notes

17 career losses by 11 points or more

11 career losses by 17 points or more

9 career losses by 20 points or more

6 losses by 24 points or more

2 losses by 31 points or more

Only one loss of 11 points or more occurred v. an unranked team (Oklahoma.)

His 4 worst losses came at the hands of Oklahoma

Oklahoma showed up on this list a total of 6 times

Wash, FSU, and Miami each showed up twice

5 of these losses came in bowl games

The late 80's to early 90's was the worst period

Anyone kind of surprised?

Obviously, I am not trying to take anything away from Coach Osborne, this an outstanding record (even if less impressive then I thought it would be.) And I' also not saying a 13 or 15 point loss is a blow out. Heck, some 20 point losses are close until strange things happen in the end.

However, when you take into consideration how much more competitive college football is today, how much more passing exists (thus inflating scores), and the fact he took over a program that won back-to-back National Championships under Devaney......perhaps we hold him in too much esteem? Maybe it's just me.

I've said it on here several times and I am sure many fans agree, but it's worth pointing out that Osborne's Huskers got their butt kicked on occasion as well - even late in his career. I'm not trying to alleviate the blow outs under Bo the last two years, but I think it's worth pointing out that everyone's human and the bad days can be overcome.

 

When you look at it over a career.....

Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches^# AP^°Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big Eight Conference) (1973–1995)ci 1973 Nebraska 9–2–1 4–2–1 T–2nd W Cotton 11T 7 1974 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T–2nd W Sugar 9 8 1975 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T–1st L Fiesta 9 9 1976 Nebraska 9–3–1 4–3 T–4th W Bluebonnet 7 9 1977 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T–2nd W Liberty 10 12 1978 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 T–1st L Orange 8 8 1979 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Cotton 7 9 1980 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd W Sun 7 7 1981 Nebraska 9–3 7–0 1st L Orange 9 11 1982 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st W Orange 3 3 1983 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st L Orange 2 2 1984 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T–1st W Sugar 3 4 1985 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 10 11 1986 Nebraska 10–2 5–2 3rd W Sugar 4 5 1987 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 6 6 1988 Nebraska 11–2 7–0 1st L Orange 10 10 1989 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 12 11 1990 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 3rd L Florida Citrus 17T 24 1991 Nebraska 9–2–1 6–0–1 T–1st L Orange 16 15 1992 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 1st L Orange^† 14 14 1993 Nebraska 11–1 7–0 1st L Orange^† 3 3 1994 Nebraska 13–0 7–0 1st W Orange^† 1 1 1995 Nebraska 12–0 7–0 1st W Fiesta^† 1 1 Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big 12 Conference) (1996–1997) 1996 Nebraska 11–2 8–0 1st (North) W Orange^† 6 6 1997 Nebraska 13–0 8–0 1st (North) W Orange^† 1 2 Nebraska: 255–49–3 160–23–2 Total: 255–49–3 National champion

 

TO coached teams were ranked in the top 20 every season. The lowest ranking was T17 in the coaches poll. Not bad.

 

Thanks for taking the time and having an open mind, Lo Country.

 

Folks suffering through this thread may have forgotten that I had originally responded to your post asserting that while Tom Osborne teams may have lost, they were never beaten, and a couple subsequent posts about Osborne only losing to great teams. First hand memories and historical evidence confirms that Tom Osborne teams got beaten pretty bad by those great teams, and his losses to unranked and lower ranked teams were hardly abberations. His Nebraska teams had plenty of letdown games, fumble-fests and clunkers, like a lot of Top 20 teams do every year. His potential departures in 1978 and 1990 confirms that criticism of Osborne was not limited to a tiny minority that didn't understand football. There's a good reason for remembering Nebraska football in the '90s, but there were different storylines in the the 20 years preceeding it.

 

I'll leave jmfb to argue that on balance, Tom Osborne was a great coach, presiding over season after season that Bo Pelini and the fanbase would love to have had.

 

An argument that no one here has disagreed with.

No worries. I starting being a fan in the early 70's. Was young then. I remember vividly the heart breaking losses, the 8 bowl game losing streak (IIRC) and thinking TO can never win the big ones, why can't we beat OU and when will ever get a break. All this while never being out of the top 20 for 300+ games. Just didn't remember the margin of some of those losses being so large. Although the majority of our losses came to better than average teams or "rivalry" games. TO was and is one of the greatest to have coached the game. Saban and Urban continue and they might be mentioned as being the "great ones" as well.

 

Gotta admit, this gave me a chuckle when you say Saban and Urban "might" be mentioned as being the great ones. Saban and Urban are two of only three coaches to have ever won a NC at two different schools. Saban has already won one more NC than TO did. Saban took over a LSU team that was anything but dominant. They won a whopping six games the previous two years to him becoming the coach at LSU. He also took over a sanction and probation riddled Alabama program. Bama was 26-23 the four years prior to Saban but had 16 of those victories vacated by the NCAA over infractions. Meyer is a little more comparable to TO. Meyer has pretty much only taken over teams that were already stacked with talent but weren't reaching their potential. Granted, he hasn't taken over teams that had just come off of back to back NC's.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Again, nobody argues that the passin game is used to keep the defense honest. All teams do it.

 

Well most people don't argue that. I'd have to scroll back a few posts to find one.

 

The point was, Nebraska rarely needed to do it. The option was their brilliant unstoppable force.

 

My point was that in Tom Osborne's career, good defenses in fact DID stop our option attack, and our passing game wasn't always adept enough to make the adjustment. And in my example of Nebraska option football at its most brilliant and unstoppable, they passed the ball considerably more than you claimed.

 

Beck had Martinez throw 30 times a game at times. Martinez attempted as many passes in one season as Frazier attempted in his career almost. Beck seemed to go to the passing ame to keep this "balance" in some imaginary world where people gave a sh#t about percentages of run/pass. Martinez coul've ran the ball all kinds of ways. We strayed for no reason, and in the end, we weren't even abe to be effective enought in ou rpassing game to actually keep defenses honest, even though we threw it 30 times.

 

Beck had Martinez throw the ball in roughly the same ratio as the successful offenses on the Top 10 teams that Nebraska aspires to be. Somehow that offense managed to produce the most prolific rushing QB and three of the most prolific RBs in Nebraska's history. Good defenses -- and even McNeese State -- could key on the run, and stop our running game for a quarter, a half or even a game (happened to Tom Osborne, too) The notion that Nebraska could have run the ball at will -- and Tim Beck simply chose not to -- is kinda insane. One thing Tim Beck had that Tom Osborne didn't, is the #59 scoring defense holding up the other end.

 

holy sh#t, I've got nothing more I cn say to you.

 

That might be the smart move at this point.

 

 

 

[jmfb]

Urban took over a "stacked" Bowling Green and Utah teams?

Bowling Green went from 2-9 to 8-3 in year 1 under Urban

Utah went 12-0 and he was coach of the year in conference his last year

Don't think so

The guy lost what 1 game in 3 years at OSU and won National Title

Won 2 Titles at Florida, not done before or since.

The guy deserves his due one of the top 2 coaches Now, possibly top 10 all time

Time will tell- don't bet against him

[Guy Chamberlin]

One doesnt have to be at a certain percentage of passing plays to be "balanced" or keep a defense honest

Osborne used the passing game as a constraint to make his offense more productive

Roll your coverage to get another DB playing aggressive on the run and have your backside LB play aggressive on the run? Expect to see the backside Tight End on a big play off the Option Play Action Pass.

If a defense failed to honor his constraints- he would make them pay. He would force teams to play him the way he wanted them to play by alignment and assignment and sometimes even personnel

.

Even with passers that only hit 47% of their passes were effective using this approach because there was a perceived legitimate threat that a long ball had a reasonable chance of being caught for a big gain. The payoff wasnt worth the risk, just ask Minnesota- who tried to do it for 3 quarters and NU scored 84 points against them- after going 3 and out the first possession.

I havent looked at the numbers but Im guessing even our worst % passers had a pretty good yards per attempt average- which is what really matters when using constraint theory to gain lots of yards in football. A low completion % for long yards per completion can be just as constraining as one of those 65% dink and dunk teams that average 6-7 yards an attempt

 

No need to pass a certain # of times. Pass when the constraint is no longer honored or when the matchup is significantly in your favor or when down, distance, field position and game situation allow for a "throw away" play. At the end of the day, Osborne passed when he wanted to on his terms, when he did that his teams passed well. When playing the best teams you also have to be competent at throwing when the defense is sitting on pass. TO was much better at that than many give him credit for- being able to pass when forced to do so. His double slant call against Mizzou in the 97 game is a good example or the comeback against Miami etc

 

As to passing 36 times against Pacific:

Many coaches, myself included will take a specific game we feel very confident about the end result. In that game the game plan will be all about getting better at things we need to get better at. It may also be about seeing how younger or less utilized players respond to working with the top unit, then end goal being to figure out where we are at, see what other players can do and develop the team- in low risk situation.

 

So would you say that Nebraska had an offensive system that allowed a quarterback to complete only 50% of his passes and still be successful?

 

I'd say "using the passing game as a constraint to keep an offense more productive" might in fact "keep a defense honest" at the same time, especially as you say that Nebraska established it's 47% passing game as as a "legitimate threat" that defenses had to respect.

 

Pretty sure we're all in agreement about a lot of stuff. But it's hard to let go when challenged.

[Stumpy1]

 

Meyer has pretty much only taken over teams that were already stacked with talent but weren't reaching their potential.

 

 

Urban took over a "stacked" Bowling Green and Utah teams?

 

Re-read what Junior wrote jmfb...You must have missed the underlined part

[jmfb]

 

One doesnt have to be at a certain percentage of passing plays to be "balanced" or keep a defense honest

Osborne used the passing game as a constraint to make his offense more productive

Roll your coverage to get another DB playing aggressive on the run and have your backside LB play aggressive on the run? Expect to see the backside Tight End on a big play off the Option Play Action Pass.

If a defense failed to honor his constraints- he would make them pay. He would force teams to play him the way he wanted them to play by alignment and assignment and sometimes even personnel

.

Even with passers that only hit 47% of their passes were effective using this approach because there was a perceived legitimate threat that a long ball had a reasonable chance of being caught for a big gain. The payoff wasnt worth the risk, just ask Minnesota- who tried to do it for 3 quarters and NU scored 84 points against them- after going 3 and out the first possession.

I havent looked at the numbers but Im guessing even our worst % passers had a pretty good yards per attempt average- which is what really matters when using constraint theory to gain lots of yards in football. A low completion % for long yards per completion can be just as constraining as one of those 65% dink and dunk teams that average 6-7 yards an attempt

 

No need to pass a certain # of times. Pass when the constraint is no longer honored or when the matchup is significantly in your favor or when down, distance, field position and game situation allow for a "throw away" play. At the end of the day, Osborne passed when he wanted to on his terms, when he did that his teams passed well. When playing the best teams you also have to be competent at throwing when the defense is sitting on pass. TO was much better at that than many give him credit for- being able to pass when forced to do so. His double slant call against Mizzou in the 97 game is a good example or the comeback against Miami etc

 

As to passing 36 times against Pacific:

Many coaches, myself included will take a specific game we feel very confident about the end result. In that game the game plan will be all about getting better at things we need to get better at. It may also be about seeing how younger or less utilized players respond to working with the top unit, then end goal being to figure out where we are at, see what other players can do and develop the team- in low risk situation.

 

So would you say that Nebraska had an offensive system that allowed a quarterback to complete only 50% of his passes and still be successful?

 

I'd say "using the passing game as a constraint to keep an offense more productive" might in fact "keep a defense honest" at the same time, especially as you say that Nebraska established it's 47% passing game as as a "legitimate threat" that defenses had to respect.

 

Pretty sure we're all in agreement about a lot of stuff. But it's hard to let go when challenged.

 

Im thinking 3 National Championships- almost always in the top 10 and "in the conversation" more often than not over 25 years would mean yes

 

Osborne was a genius at putting a defense in conflict and using constraint theory both in play design- scheme design and play calling. Subtle innovations like a QB buck trap against Washington- Empty QB trap against Florida, Trap off belly action with RG faking sweep- head bob, foot fake against Miami- using the defenses keys against themselves etc

So many games first play HUGE gains or even TDs- based on scheme/playcalling

 

If you want to hear what is was really like- listen to a former player and coach like Damon Benning talk about it. The NU team was LAUGHING at Florida before the game- when the Gator players were doing their truck pump thing. NU KNEW it was going to be a blowout based on the scheme and plays TO had in place on O and D. Close in the first, but every player I know on that team- talked about how TO had it all mapped out and they knew they were going to score 50+

 

Lots of guys right and wrong about things- like anything else

Football is an amazing thing- guys who have never played or coached before- really don't understand the game- feel qualified to critique and sometimes feel superior to guys - College coaches- who have done it and successfully for a long period of time. So many people I hear say- all they have to do is X or Y to be successful- when its much more complicated than that. They aren't making nuclear bombs, but under the covers if people saw what was involved would absolutely make their heads spin.

[jmfb]

 

Meyer has pretty much only taken over teams that were already stacked with talent but weren't reaching their potential.

 

 

Urban took over a "stacked" Bowling Green and Utah teams?

 

Re-read what Junior wrote jmfb...You must have missed the underlined part

Its LUDICROUS to Bowling Green was stacked- that is what he said

A TWO win team is stacked? k

The guy has won and won HUGE at every stop no matter how bad the team was prior

That's why he makes the big $$- has won multiple national titles at 2 different schools

The haters or detractors against Urban couldn't carry his jock strap.

[Stumpy1]

 

 

Meyer has pretty much only taken over teams that were already stacked with talent but weren't reaching their potential.

 

 

Urban took over a "stacked" Bowling Green and Utah teams?

 

Re-read what Junior wrote jmfb...You must have missed the underlined part

Its LUDICROUS to Bowling Green was stacked- that is what he said

A TWO win team is stacked? k

The guy has won and won HUGE at every stop no matter how bad the team was prior

That's why he makes the big $$- has won multiple national titles at 2 different schools

The haters or detractors against Urban couldn't carry his jock strap.

 

I don't know.

I'm pretty strong.

I might be able to carry it.

 

So Urban is lucky then? I mean, if the team has NO talent. How does he take a 2 win team and make them an 8-9 win team?

[jmfb]

Great coaching has very little to do with luck

Thats why hes making what $6,000,000 a year?

Most people have absolutlely no clue how big a difference coaching really makes and yes the great ones like Snyder and Urban can put together 8 win seasons without a lot of talent

Thats how Urban set the record as biggest one year turnaround in DI history and why he has won early and won big at every single stop

When you are at the top or sharing it- out of about 130 guys who are HC in DI- and those guys have seperated themselves from 1000s of others- you can do a lot of things others cant. Just like the very top performers in any field/endeavor.

 

I know a HIgh School coach , good friend who has taken 6 jobs, everyone one but 1 he took over a last place team, one hadnt won a game in 3 years. He won championships at every stop, some in 1 year, all within 3.. He feels his mission is to turnaround HS programs then train and turn them over to others. He hasnt missed yet- in NC and SC- it isnt luck when you do it consistently

 

Those on the bottom may call it luck to make themselves feel better about themselves- same goes for about everything these days,. However if youve been around it, lived it, guys being honest with themselves- understand the real picture and everything it takes to achieve excellence at the highest level- they give those guys the credit they deserve.

[Enhance]

A balance between coaching and talent is always needed. You can have great coaching, but you'll still need talent to get over the hump and reach your ultimate goals. Similarly, you can have great talent, but if your coaching isn't up to snuff, you're not going to reach your potential.

[jmfb]

Tell Bill Snyder it takes great talent to win 8,9,10, games

Some recruiting classes in the 60 rank

 

Winning Nat Championships yes, not winning 8,9,10 games

Its the excuse of weaker coaches and failures everywhere- always something to blame

[Stumpy1]

Since I don't know anything about football, I'm gonna go stick my wang in a blender.

 

Have a good weekend everyone!!!

[cg_8]

Since I don't know anything about football, I'm gonna go stick my wang in a blender.

 

Have a good weekend everyone!!!

Then we'd really have to call you stumpy... ZING!!!!

[NUinID]

 

 

One doesnt have to be at a certain percentage of passing plays to be "balanced" or keep a defense honest

Osborne used the passing game as a constraint to make his offense more productive

Roll your coverage to get another DB playing aggressive on the run and have your backside LB play aggressive on the run? Expect to see the backside Tight End on a big play off the Option Play Action Pass.

If a defense failed to honor his constraints- he would make them pay. He would force teams to play him the way he wanted them to play by alignment and assignment and sometimes even personnel

.

Even with passers that only hit 47% of their passes were effective using this approach because there was a perceived legitimate threat that a long ball had a reasonable chance of being caught for a big gain. The payoff wasnt worth the risk, just ask Minnesota- who tried to do it for 3 quarters and NU scored 84 points against them- after going 3 and out the first possession.

I havent looked at the numbers but Im guessing even our worst % passers had a pretty good yards per attempt average- which is what really matters when using constraint theory to gain lots of yards in football. A low completion % for long yards per completion can be just as constraining as one of those 65% dink and dunk teams that average 6-7 yards an attempt

 

No need to pass a certain # of times. Pass when the constraint is no longer honored or when the matchup is significantly in your favor or when down, distance, field position and game situation allow for a "throw away" play. At the end of the day, Osborne passed when he wanted to on his terms, when he did that his teams passed well. When playing the best teams you also have to be competent at throwing when the defense is sitting on pass. TO was much better at that than many give him credit for- being able to pass when forced to do so. His double slant call against Mizzou in the 97 game is a good example or the comeback against Miami etc

 

As to passing 36 times against Pacific:

Many coaches, myself included will take a specific game we feel very confident about the end result. In that game the game plan will be all about getting better at things we need to get better at. It may also be about seeing how younger or less utilized players respond to working with the top unit, then end goal being to figure out where we are at, see what other players can do and develop the team- in low risk situation.

 

So would you say that Nebraska had an offensive system that allowed a quarterback to complete only 50% of his passes and still be successful?

 

I'd say "using the passing game as a constraint to keep an offense more productive" might in fact "keep a defense honest" at the same time, especially as you say that Nebraska established it's 47% passing game as as a "legitimate threat" that defenses had to respect.

 

Pretty sure we're all in agreement about a lot of stuff. But it's hard to let go when challenged.

 

Im thinking 3 National Championships- almost always in the top 10 and "in the conversation" more often than not over 25 years would mean yes

 

Osborne was a genius at putting a defense in conflict and using constraint theory both in play design- scheme design and play calling. Subtle innovations like a QB buck trap against Washington- Empty QB trap against Florida, Trap off belly action with RG faking sweep- head bob, foot fake against Miami- using the defenses keys against themselves etc

So many games first play HUGE gains or even TDs- based on scheme/playcalling

 

If you want to hear what is was really like- listen to a former player and coach like Damon Benning talk about it. The NU team was LAUGHING at Florida before the game- when the Gator players were doing their truck pump thing. NU KNEW it was going to be a blowout based on the scheme and plays TO had in place on O and D. Close in the first, but every player I know on that team- talked about how TO had it all mapped out and they knew they were going to score 50+

 

Lots of guys right and wrong about things- like anything else

Football is an amazing thing- guys who have never played or coached before- really don't understand the game- feel qualified to critique and sometimes feel superior to guys - College coaches- who have done it and successfully for a long period of time. So many people I hear say- all they have to do is X or Y to be successful- when its much more complicated than that. They aren't making nuclear bombs, but under the covers if people saw what was involved would absolutely make their heads spin.

 

jmfb man you are really full of a lot of something. I played football for 10 years straight and coached football for 21 years. I understand the game very well and I don't understand why you feel qualified to critique everyone else and feel superior to these guys.

 

Football is a very complicated game and yes great coaches take advantage of great opportunity. Urban Meyer is a great coach this is not debatable, but he is also very good at seeing a situation and taking advantage of it.

 

Do you ever watch MAC football? Teams in that conference go from 3-9 to conference champions in a year or twos time all the time. UM did a great job of taking advantage of that. He has never taken a job without first looking at the roster to see if he can do something with it. He is a smart smart coach, but don't ever think think he has taken a bunch of lemons and made lemonade just because he is a great coach.

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

 

 

Beck had Martinez throw the ball in roughly the same ratio as the successful offenses on the Top 10 teams that Nebraska aspires to be.

 

Does this somehow mean that it made sense?

 

Somehow that offense managed to produce the most prolific rushing QB and three of the most prolific RBs in Nebraska's history.

 

 

You really ought to look into the changes in the game, the pace of the game, and the number of plays offenses run. It's truly not rocket science but people around here keep clinging to these records as if this game has not evolved. Records are being set all over college football. It doesn't automatically mean that these players are the greatet of all time. Not to take away from some of these guys, they are pretty damn good. Best ever? Debatable.

 

Good defenses -- and even McNeese State -- could key on the run, and stop our running game for a quarter, a half or even a game (happened to Tom Osborne, too)

 

Absolutely, that wasn't being debated.

 

 

The notion that Nebraska could have run the ball at will -- and Tim Beck simply chose not to -- is kinda insane. One thing Tim Beck had that Tom Osborne didn't, is the #59 scoring defense holding up the other end.

 

HOLY CRAP! You're telling ME of all people this? I never once said Tim Beck could do anything at will. Matter of fact, quite the opposite. This is literally where this whole debate started. Tim Beck's offenses never had an identity or a "go to" when all else failed, IMO. Beck's offense looked to me like a mixed bag of multiple offensive strategies, all of which were executed at a mediocre level. At least Tom's teams lived by the sword and died by the sword. We did what we did and we did it well. They may have strayed a bit when opposing defenses forced them to, but lets face it, those defenses were few and far between. I'd say the results are hard to argue with.