You can't change the nature of an OC

[NUance]

 

I got no problem with Langsdorf's offensive strategy. But I do think he needs to improve at adapting to game conditions. Both weather and the other team. Against Illinois how many times did Tommy throw the deep ball? It was windy with a little drizzle, and time after time the ball would sail over the receivers head. Sometimes Tommy put the ball four or five yards in front of his target. For whatever reason the long ball wasn't working last Saturday. But we stubbornly stuck with it. Or maybe Langsdorf thought we couldn't possibly lose against Illinois. And he was just trying to get Tommy some long ball practice in. :

 

Then you *DO* have a problem with Langsdorf's offensive strategy, because it should be determined by, among other factors, game conditions, player performance, and what the other team is doing to try and stop ours--none of which appeared to enter into Langsdorf's strategy against Illinois.

 

Now, I get that you may be good with Langsdorf's offensive philosophy and overall style of offense...but I don't really understand that either, considering we've already seen this philosophy crash and burn in Lincoln once before. That, coupled with the lack of strategy employed during the Illinois game...

 

Look, I'm sorry, but there's no defending the guy, IMO. Especially when the staff came out and said they would employ strategy conducive to the talents of the kids they had on hand. It's like the spirit of Cosgrove's ineptitude possessed Langsdorf's body.

 

 

In the four games before last Saturday our offense was moving the ball well, scoring points, and for the most part, getting the job done. So no, I DON'T have a problem with Langsdorf's offensive strategy. Before Saturday loads of casual Husker fans were calling for Banker's head. Fire that guy! Fire the bum! But then on Saturday our defense looked better (perhaps because of the weather), and our offense went stagnant. We stubbornly stuck with an offensive gameplan that wasn't working. And now loads of Husker fans have jumped off the Fire Banker bandwagon, and are saying, that it's Langsdorf, he's the problem. There's no defending Langsdorf? Maybe we should fire that bum too, huh?

[brophog]

 

I've seen a lot of posts complaining about the pass-first calling of the offense. That is exactly what Riley-Langsdorf have done virtually their entire careers. Their offensive belief system is to use the bubble screens, HB flat, slant, short passing game as the main point of the offense and sprinkle in some run and deep throws to mix it up. That is their inherent being, it's who they are, who they've always been, and mindset is extremely unlikely to change. It's why they want to pass on 3rd and 1 instead of run straight at the D.

 

Urban Meyer is a spread run guy, Saban and Harbaugh are power run guys, Paul Johnson is an option guy, Briles and Leach are chuck it all over guys. If you play a video game, you'll likely have your nature too. Everyone does and it's hard to change. One of the few examples of a true adapter is Don Shula when he ran power with Czonka and co., then switched to pass happy to let Marino loose. Very few coaches are able to truly adapt to the skillsets of the players.

 

Many Nebraskans have developed an appreciation and preference for a tough, in-your-face OLine and run game with some option. To hope for us to run over any defense is hoping for MR-DL to change their true self. It's just not gonna happen. They are like Shawn Watson, just naturally want to sling it around. DL himself said something like it's hard to run 3 times in a row.

 

Guess my point is, if you are among those who feel that Nebraska should have a hard-nosed, outwork you, smash mouth style, don't get your hopes up. You can't change the nature of the beast

 

Baylor is actually a run first team.

 

Many "passing teams" actually are.

So much of the game is hidden when people can't see past the run/pass dichotomy.

[RedSavage]

I had no complaints with Langsdorf's offense this season. They have actually exceeded my expectations, except in the Illinois game. I know you don't want to let weather dictate your play, but when your QB and receivers start out something like 2-10 in the first quarter you may want to back up and get a little more selective in your passing game and try to run the ball a little more.

 

I am sure that if you listened to Langsdorf and Riley's discussion on the plain ride home you heard them discuss how they really blew that game. They stuck way too long with their game plan. That is the problem with too many OC not just DL. They trust their game plan and scheme too much even through their eyes are telling them something else. The film they watched on Illinois told them the deep ball was there because of the way the safeties play in Illinois defense. There were shorter routes open, but I am sure DL discussed with TA all week to look deep it should be there. I doubt you see nearly as many deep balls this week. That is not the way Wisconsin plays defense.

 

IMO this is the one big flaw in the WCO. It tries too hard to exploit the weakness of the opposing defense instead of playing to its strengths. Every OC wants to exploit weaknesses in a defense, but you also have to play to your strengths. You have to have a core game plan that you adhere to. Power run, screen game, option, uptempo, WR screens, zone read, outside zone there has too be something that you want to be able to come back to when nothing else is working. The outside zone was working OK. They needed to come back to it sooner.

I think the game plan was solid as the deep ball was there multiple times, Tommy just couldn't make the throws on most of them for whatever reason and a couple times the receivers just dropped it. I can think of at least two play's that should've resulted in td's from the deep ball but we f'ed it up.

[Nebhawk]

Stephen Jackson played for Riley at Oregon St. Rogers brothers. These guys were NFL backs. Riley ran the ball with these guys. Run game is very important to Riley, but so far our RB's aren't lighting the world on fire. They have to block, and from what I have seen, blocking is not there from our current backs. Catch ball, and gain yards. Thats been weak.

 

Passing is not a bad thing. I have watched so many teams pass first, then run or pass, pass and then run for 1st down with a thrid and short. The era has changed. Top recruits come from passing offensives in HS. If you want the best players available, you can't keep pounding the rock with option runs. That was Texas HS football in the 80's and 90's. That was then, this is now.

 

Alabama may pound the rock, but had a WR who could stretch you deep. They throw the ball. Run sets up the pass, but comparing any school to Alabama is not quite fair. They get the best of the best on both sides of the ball.

[NUinID]

 

I had no complaints with Langsdorf's offense this season. They have actually exceeded my expectations, except in the Illinois game. I know you don't want to let weather dictate your play, but when your QB and receivers start out something like 2-10 in the first quarter you may want to back up and get a little more selective in your passing game and try to run the ball a little more.

 

I am sure that if you listened to Langsdorf and Riley's discussion on the plain ride home you heard them discuss how they really blew that game. They stuck way too long with their game plan. That is the problem with too many OC not just DL. They trust their game plan and scheme too much even through their eyes are telling them something else. The film they watched on Illinois told them the deep ball was there because of the way the safeties play in Illinois defense. There were shorter routes open, but I am sure DL discussed with TA all week to look deep it should be there. I doubt you see nearly as many deep balls this week. That is not the way Wisconsin plays defense.

 

IMO this is the one big flaw in the WCO. It tries too hard to exploit the weakness of the opposing defense instead of playing to its strengths. Every OC wants to exploit weaknesses in a defense, but you also have to play to your strengths. You have to have a core game plan that you adhere to. Power run, screen game, option, uptempo, WR screens, zone read, outside zone there has too be something that you want to be able to come back to when nothing else is working. The outside zone was working OK. They needed to come back to it sooner.

I think the game plan was solid as the deep ball was there multiple times, Tommy just couldn't make the throws on most of them for whatever reason and a couple times the receivers just dropped it. I can think of at least two play's that should've resulted in td's from the deep ball but we f'ed it up.

 

 

I get that,but for what ever reason, it wasn't working. Overthrows, drops, the weather, bad day, it wasn't working. You can't keep starting a drive second and 10. You have to cut your loses and move on to something else. You can't just after a loss keep saying the long ball was there all day. Which is what DL said, well guess what Danny, the game plan always doesn't work. It may have been but after you miss it 5x you may want to back off of it.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

I got no problem with Langsdorf's offensive strategy. But I do think he needs to improve at adapting to game conditions. Both weather and the other team. Against Illinois how many times did Tommy throw the deep ball? It was windy with a little drizzle, and time after time the ball would sail over the receivers head. Sometimes Tommy put the ball four or five yards in front of his target. For whatever reason the long ball wasn't working last Saturday. But we stubbornly stuck with it. Or maybe Langsdorf thought we couldn't possibly lose against Illinois. And he was just trying to get Tommy some long ball practice in. :

 

Then you *DO* have a problem with Langsdorf's offensive strategy, because it should be determined by, among other factors, game conditions, player performance, and what the other team is doing to try and stop ours--none of which appeared to enter into Langsdorf's strategy against Illinois.

 

Now, I get that you may be good with Langsdorf's offensive philosophy and overall style of offense...but I don't really understand that either, considering we've already seen this philosophy crash and burn in Lincoln once before. That, coupled with the lack of strategy employed during the Illinois game...

 

Look, I'm sorry, but there's no defending the guy, IMO. Especially when the staff came out and said they would employ strategy conducive to the talents of the kids they had on hand. It's like the spirit of Cosgrove's ineptitude possessed Langsdorf's body.

 

 

In the four games before last Saturday our offense was moving the ball well, scoring points, and for the most part, getting the job done. So no, I DON'T have a problem with Langsdorf's offensive strategy. Before Saturday loads of casual Husker fans were calling for Banker's head. Fire that guy! Fire the bum! But then on Saturday our defense looked better (perhaps because of the weather), and our offense went stagnant. We stubbornly stuck with an offensive gameplan that wasn't working. And now loads of Husker fans have jumped off the Fire Banker bandwagon, and are saying, that it's Langsdorf, he's the problem. There's no defending Langsdorf? Maybe we should fire that bum too, huh?

 

 

I distinctly remember people discussing time mismanagement, poor decisions on the part of the running game (play selection, RB selection, not giving the running game enough time to get on track) in all but one game (USA). Plus, we had the poor performance against Southern Miss in the red zone. Seems like Langsdorf has consistently had problems that people have complained about--they just became exacerbated in the Illinois game because he failed to account for things like the players, the weather, and the other team's performance in his strategy.

 

And people should still be calling for Banker's head and are--the stats are really a lie considering the weather (which hobbled Illinois' own passing game) and Illinois' own talent and ineptitude. Yeah, Banker finally brought safety help for the secondary--but it took him FIVE games to get there, when people were asking for it during the second HALF of BYU.

 

Look--if we have coordinators that can't figure out that the elements won't let their passing game get off the ground, that their running game will help them salt a game away if they get it on track, or that their secondary needs safety help until the fifth game of the season...can we really trust that they'll be able to fix things more complex? And how does this speak towards the systems they're trying to install if the coordinators can't pick up on basic things...you know, like the weather in the stadium they're playing in currently?

[onlyHskrfaninIL]

I got overall, 46.61% run, 53.38% pass. You have to adjust for sacks because those aren't running plays obviously.

 

The wins it's almost exactly 50-50. That's what's telling to me. Even with a lead they didn't lean on the run.

 

In the losses, 44.09% run, 55.90% pass.

[MichiganDad3]

Stephen Jackson played for Riley at Oregon St. Rogers brothers. These guys were NFL backs. Riley ran the ball with these guys. Run game is very important to Riley, but so far our RB's aren't lighting the world on fire. They have to block, and from what I have seen, blocking is not there from our current backs. Catch ball, and gain yards. Thats been weak.

 

Passing is not a bad thing. I have watched so many teams pass first, then run or pass, pass and then run for 1st down with a thrid and short. The era has changed. Top recruits come from passing offensives in HS. If you want the best players available, you can't keep pounding the rock with option runs. That was Texas HS football in the 80's and 90's. That was then, this is now.

 

Alabama may pound the rock, but had a WR who could stretch you deep. They throw the ball. Run sets up the pass, but comparing any school to Alabama is not quite fair. They get the best of the best on both sides of the ball.

Ozigbo averaged 10 yards per carry against Ilinois. That may not be lighting the world on fire, but it warranty giving the guy a few more carries ... perhaps on 3rd and 7 with a minute left in the game.

[RedSavage]

 

 

I had no complaints with Langsdorf's offense this season. They have actually exceeded my expectations, except in the Illinois game. I know you don't want to let weather dictate your play, but when your QB and receivers start out something like 2-10 in the first quarter you may want to back up and get a little more selective in your passing game and try to run the ball a little more.

 

I am sure that if you listened to Langsdorf and Riley's discussion on the plain ride home you heard them discuss how they really blew that game. They stuck way too long with their game plan. That is the problem with too many OC not just DL. They trust their game plan and scheme too much even through their eyes are telling them something else. The film they watched on Illinois told them the deep ball was there because of the way the safeties play in Illinois defense. There were shorter routes open, but I am sure DL discussed with TA all week to look deep it should be there. I doubt you see nearly as many deep balls this week. That is not the way Wisconsin plays defense.

 

IMO this is the one big flaw in the WCO. It tries too hard to exploit the weakness of the opposing defense instead of playing to its strengths. Every OC wants to exploit weaknesses in a defense, but you also have to play to your strengths. You have to have a core game plan that you adhere to. Power run, screen game, option, uptempo, WR screens, zone read, outside zone there has too be something that you want to be able to come back to when nothing else is working. The outside zone was working OK. They needed to come back to it sooner.

I think the game plan was solid as the deep ball was there multiple times, Tommy just couldn't make the throws on most of them for whatever reason and a couple times the receivers just dropped it. I can think of at least two play's that should've resulted in td's from the deep ball but we f'ed it up.

 

 

I get that,but for what ever reason, it wasn't working. Overthrows, drops, the weather, bad day, it wasn't working. You can't keep starting a drive second and 10. You have to cut your loses and move on to something else. You can't just after a loss keep saying the long ball was there all day. Which is what DL said, well guess what Danny, the game plan always doesn't work. It may have been but after you miss it 5x you may want to back off of it.

 

I agree that we should have tried something else, run more, shorter passes, something. However, DL and MR were trying to exploit the defenses weakness and doing a pretty decent job of it play calling wise (at least part of the time), we just couldn't execute (I know, I know, I had to say it). It's kind of a catch 22 though, especially with our team, since I don't really feel like we have any real "strengths" on offense right now, at what point do you stop trying to play to the defenses weakness and instead play to your "strengths"? I haven't gone back and watched nor did I notice during the game but on some of those deep plays that should've been scores, would we even have been able to do anything different successfully, like run the ball, based on the way the defense was positioned (was the box stacked, etc.)?

[Jeremy]

The only way Nebraska returns to the top is on the backs of an elite OL and running game. Period. We will NEVER pass our way there.

[junior4949]

Stephen Jackson played for Riley at Oregon St. Rogers brothers. These guys were NFL backs. Riley ran the ball with these guys. Run game is very important to Riley, but so far our RB's aren't lighting the world on fire. They have to block, and from what I have seen, blocking is not there from our current backs. Catch ball, and gain yards. Thats been weak.

 

Passing is not a bad thing. I have watched so many teams pass first, then run or pass, pass and then run for 1st down with a thrid and short. The era has changed. Top recruits come from passing offensives in HS. If you want the best players available, you can't keep pounding the rock with option runs. That was Texas HS football in the 80's and 90's. That was then, this is now.

 

Alabama may pound the rock, but had a WR who could stretch you deep. They throw the ball. Run sets up the pass, but comparing any school to Alabama is not quite fair. They get the best of the best on both sides of the ball.

Yeah, this is what I'm seeing. Riley does have a history of running the ball when he has the horses to do it. I'm guessing ever since his being here he's seen that a lot of our playmakers on the offensive side of the ball are the WRs. We lost a great one in Ameer. If he were here, we'd probably see a lot more running the ball. Plus, I'm not sure we have the horses up front to be a line it up and run it down their throat team.

 

With the way we've seen different RBs play this season, the coaching staff is still trying to find "the one". Some of us have been a little hard on the staff with how they handled the Lewis situation wanting him benched, but one has to wonder if things weren't handled the way they were because we just don't have many/any alternatives. We have talent, but we're pretty thin in certain position groups.

[Nebhawk]

Elite as in Big 10 elite or national level? Ohio St won last year with passing and running. Elliot is an all-american that can change a game with one run.

 

I think whats lost on people is that Neb doesn't have that talent level. Not even close. Talent level is average, and yes with average talent you should do things that play into there strengths, but still, average talent can't lineup and just blow guys off the line and gain 4 or 5 yards per carry.

 

LSU has Fournette, best running back I have seen since maybe Adrian Petersen in the college game. Gains yards by himself. Elliiot is right there with him. 1a and 1b if your comparing what they can do for a team. Yes, winning the games in the Big 10 you should be able to run first. Green Bay however plays in maybe one of the worst weather areas for any football team and they pass the ball a lot, and win a lot.

Stuck in time guys, stuck in time. If you want to be relevant, you have to have playmakers to run and catch the ball. If you want elite level recruits to even visit, you have to pass some and have a good QB system in place. Solich was ran out because he wouldn't change some from the option to a more standard offense. Remember Jamal Lord? He could run, he could run the option, but he couldn't hit an open receiver 10 yards away.

[84HuskerLaw]

The only way Nebraska returns to the top is on the backs of an elite OL and running game. Period. We will NEVER pass our way there.

This is fundamentally true and very difficult to challenge. How many 'passing' teams have won the national championship over the past 30 years? the past 10 years? How many are actually currently ranked in the top ten? As compared to basic power running and play action pass teams.?

 

The Big Ten has historically been known for its big bodies, three yards and a cloud of dust, running and running and throw an incomplete pass once in a while, teams. This is NOT because all coaches north of the Mason Dixon line didn't know how to pass. It was a consequence of the weather issues that dramatically impact the games from Oct 10th on through the season. You may need to run the ball almost every play in Michigan or Wisconsin, etc during a snow or ice storm.

[Jeremy]

Elite as in Big 10 elite or national level? Ohio St won last year with passing and running. Elliot is an all-american that can change a game with one run.

 

I think whats lost on people is that Neb doesn't have that talent level. Not even close. Talent level is average, and yes with average talent you should do things that play into there strengths, but still, average talent can't lineup and just blow guys off the line and gain 4 or 5 yards per carry.

 

LSU has Fournette, best running back I have seen since maybe Adrian Petersen in the college game. Gains yards by himself. Elliiot is right there with him. 1a and 1b if your comparing what they can do for a team. Yes, winning the games in the Big 10 you should be able to run first. Green Bay however plays in maybe one of the worst weather areas for any football team and they pass the ball a lot, and win a lot.

Stuck in time guys, stuck in time. If you want to be relevant, you have to have playmakers to run and catch the ball. If you want elite level recruits to even visit, you have to pass some and have a good QB system in place. Solich was ran out because he wouldn't change some from the option to a more standard offense. Remember Jamal Lord? He could run, he could run the option, but he couldn't hit an open receiver 10 yards away.

I don't believe the game has changed as much as people say it has. If anything, it's easier to run the ball now than it was, given all the jersey grabbing I see EVERY play. Elliot absolutely had an elite line to run behind. Granted, OSU had elites at QB and reciever, but we will NEVER get everything.

 

We CAN get linemen and backs if we focus on it, but Mr. Golden Arm isn't going to leave Florida, Cali, or Texas to come to Lincoln, nor is the next Megatron or Keyshawn.

 

I can't believe we haven't learned this lesson from '04-'07.

[soup]

 

Elite as in Big 10 elite or national level? Ohio St won last year with passing and running. Elliot is an all-american that can change a game with one run.

 

I think whats lost on people is that Neb doesn't have that talent level. Not even close. Talent level is average, and yes with average talent you should do things that play into there strengths, but still, average talent can't lineup and just blow guys off the line and gain 4 or 5 yards per carry.

 

LSU has Fournette, best running back I have seen since maybe Adrian Petersen in the college game. Gains yards by himself. Elliiot is right there with him. 1a and 1b if your comparing what they can do for a team. Yes, winning the games in the Big 10 you should be able to run first. Green Bay however plays in maybe one of the worst weather areas for any football team and they pass the ball a lot, and win a lot.

Stuck in time guys, stuck in time. If you want to be relevant, you have to have playmakers to run and catch the ball. If you want elite level recruits to even visit, you have to pass some and have a good QB system in place. Solich was ran out because he wouldn't change some from the option to a more standard offense. Remember Jamal Lord? He could run, he could run the option, but he couldn't hit an open receiver 10 yards away.

I don't believe the game has changed as much as people say it has. If anything, it's easier to run the ball now than it was, given all the jersey grabbing I see EVERY play. Elliot absolutely had an elite line to run behind. Granted, OSU had elites at QB and reciever, but we will NEVER get everything.

 

We CAN get linemen and backs if we focus on it, but Mr. Golden Arm isn't going to leave Florida, Cali, or Texas to come to Lincoln, nor is the next Megatron or Keyshawn.

 

I can't believe we haven't learned this lesson from '04-'07.

 

 

 

 

Might want to pay attention to what is happening in recruiting for Nebraska these days....just sayin