Tangent Thread - December 2015 Edition

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

Here's a list of individuals who were all conference and no longer on the team. Riddle me this, batman, which one is longer?

 

Coaches:

Kenny Bell (1st Team)

Ameer Abdullah (2nd Team)

Zaire Anderson (Honorable Mention)

Jake Cotton (Honorable Mention)

Josh Mitchell (Honorable Mention)

 

Media:

Randy Gregory (1st Team)

Ameer Abdullah (2nd Team)

Zaire Anderson (Honorable Mention)

Kenny Bell (HM)

Corey Cooper (Honorable Mention)

Jake Cotton (Honorable Mention)

Josh Mitchell (Honorable Mention)

 

Last year we had four defenders on your list. This year we have three defenders and two specialists.

 

We'll see how the offense comes out but that seems pretty comparable.

You forgot to call him Robin

That was funny.

Funny how wrong he was, yeah.

[74Hunter]

 

So, looking at ESPN early predictions and it says

"Foster Farms Bowl: UCLA vs. Nebraska

(Dec. 26, 9:15 p.m., ESPN)

This game is a major mismatch for the second consecutive year, as Josh Rosen and the Bruins will dissect Nebraska's defense and send the Huskers to 5-8 in Mike Riley's first season. UCLA 45, Nebraska 24"

 

So, I am glad we get the bowl as we need to continue to get better. Really tough opponent and one we have played recently over the years. With a Pac-12 tie-in, I would have liked to have seen us match up against Arizona St., Arizona, or Cal to get a new Pac-12 team to go against since we have recently played Washington, UCLA, USC and will be playing Oregon soon. That being said we have to make the most of the situation and get ready for a game in which we will be a major dog. I live in SoCal so hear a lot about USC and UCLA. I have come to like USC's program more with the tradition and history. Mora was OK at first but I have come to not like the guy. I have friends that are big UCLA fans (I will say their fan base is usually pretty cool) but lately I have not liked the team led by Mora. Watch him on the sidelines...the guy is one of the worst in college football always cussing somebody out. Will be a contrast in coaches and hope Mr. Nice Guy wins this one!

So we beat a college playoff team and played right with another team that was a couple plays away from it..... But we are going to get blown out(for the first time this year) by UCLA.....hmmmm

There was that whole Purdue blow out.

[skersfan]

It al makes sense 74, you have never been there, but you know everything about it, kinda like your opinions of Riley and the team. I get it now. I am sure it will warm and balmy, may need sun glasses after dark. I am sure it will be miserable for you, everything else about Nebraska seems to be.

[Tomhusker64]

It al makes sense 74, you have never been there, but you know everything about it, kinda like your opinions of Riley and the team. I get it now. I am sure it will warm and balmy, may need sun glasses after dark. I am sure it will be miserable for you, everything else about Nebraska seems to be.

Put him on Ignore. I did. Got tired of his whiney posts and constant degredation of the team and coaches. Every single post.

[gdubs4nu]

Did you really wonder why a stable of mules didn't work when trying to win the Kentucky Derby?

[74Hunter]

Did you really wonder why a stable of mules didn't work when trying to win the Kentucky Derby?

Didn't Callahan V.1 show that a pass happy, West coast style offense not fit I Lincoln?

 

Looks like Callahan V.2 is doubling down on the stupid.

[cm husker]

The dynamic playmaker doesn't always have to be the QB.

 

I know people don't think that our RBs were very good, despite being a "stable" (so odd to use husbandry as an analogy to football players, but sticking with it) full of 3 and 4 stars who were top performers in major states coming out of HS, but maybe that was a result of lack in coaching? Keith Jones was just talking recently about how much he developed as a runner under Solich because Solich wouldn't tolerate a guy who didn't get yards between tackles. Jones said he really had to work and develop that. It's incredible to me that we couldn't develop Newby to understand how to run in this new system.

And before someone tells me "great RBs are born, not coached" go back and look at Ameer's stats from early in his career at NU. They don't leap off of the page.

[ColoradoHusk]

The dynamic playmaker doesn't always have to be the QB.

 

I know people don't think that our RBs were very good, despite being a "stable" (so odd to use husbandry as an analogy to football players, but sticking with it) full of 3 and 4 stars who were top performers in major states coming out of HS, but maybe that was a result of lack in coaching? Keith Jones was just talking recently about how much he developed as a runner under Solich because Solich wouldn't tolerate a guy who didn't get yards between tackles. Jones said he really had to work and develop that. It's incredible to me that we couldn't develop Newby to understand how to run in this new system.

And before someone tells me "great RBs are born, not coached" go back and look at Ameer's stats from early in his career at NU. They don't leap off of the page.

Great points about the RB's. According to most recruiting experts, NU has a stable of very good running backs. Yet, the lack of development that happened with them this year was just terrible. The coaches were more interested in them being quasi-offensive linemen than having them be running backs.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, we ran the ball exactly as often as we passed the ball.

 

And if you honestly appraised the talent of this team, it made sense to get the ball to Westerkamp, Moore, Reiley and Carter as often as you gave it to Newby, Cross, Janovich and Ozigbo.

 

Our running game wasn't abandoned and it wasn't awful. It was precisely in the middle of the Big 10 pack.

 

I had predicted a breakout RB this year not named Newby. Maybe that's on the coaches. Let's see what they do next year. I'd be surprised if we don't rush more often.

 

And I'd prefer Tommy convert more passes he shouldn't throw into mad scrambles. That's what drives a defense nuts. It certainly works against our defense.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

Again, we ran the ball exactly as often as we passed the ball.

 

And if you honestly appraised the talent of this team, it made sense to get the ball to Westerkamp, Moore, Reiley and Carter as often as you gave it to Newby, Cross, Janovich and Ozigbo.

 

Our running game wasn't abandoned and it wasn't awful. It was precisely in the middle of the Big 10 pack.

 

I had predicted a breakout RB this year not named Newby. Maybe that's on the coaches. Let's see what they do next year. I'd be surprised if we don't rush more often.

 

And I'd prefer Tommy convert more passes he shouldn't throw into mad scrambles. That's what drives a defense nuts. It certainly works against our defense.

 

 

Forest for the trees man, forest for the trees. That's all I can tell you when you try to argue that because we ran almost as much as we passed that we weren't really a pass oriented offense.

 

 

Scrambling doesn't hurt a defense as much as designed runs, like the zone read, because a D isn't going to pull a guy out of coverage to account for pure scrambling. They are just going to adjust their rush techniques and lane integrity.

 

A scrambling QB is almost impossible to stop and is a defensive coach's nightmare!

[cm husker]

 

 

Again, we ran the ball exactly as often as we passed the ball.

 

And if you honestly appraised the talent of this team, it made sense to get the ball to Westerkamp, Moore, Reiley and Carter as often as you gave it to Newby, Cross, Janovich and Ozigbo.

 

Our running game wasn't abandoned and it wasn't awful. It was precisely in the middle of the Big 10 pack.

 

I had predicted a breakout RB this year not named Newby. Maybe that's on the coaches. Let's see what they do next year. I'd be surprised if we don't rush more often.

 

And I'd prefer Tommy convert more passes he shouldn't throw into mad scrambles. That's what drives a defense nuts. It certainly works against our defense.

 

 

Forest for the trees man, forest for the trees. That's all I can tell you when you try to argue that because we ran almost as much as we passed that we weren't really a pass oriented offense.

 

 

Scrambling doesn't hurt a defense as much as designed runs, like the zone read, because a D isn't going to pull a guy out of coverage to account for pure scrambling. They are just going to adjust their rush techniques and lane integrity.

 

A scrambling QB is almost impossible to stop and is a defensive coach's nightmare!

 

 

 

A platitude without much substantive support.

Now, a mobile QB who is deployed in an organized and planned running game? Yes, I agree completely.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Matt Ryan is considered by many to be a great QB, even elite. Did anyone else see throw he make directly to Lavonte David with less than 2 min to play?

 

These WCO/pro style passing systems are tough, even for the professionals.

 

The NFL is also full of elite running backs who get stuffed on third and inches, and/or shut down for entire ball games.

 

Consistent winning football is tough, even for the professionals.

 

The WCO is perhaps the most effective offensive system yet devised, and a decent high school quarterback knows how to run it.

 

If you think WCO is merely a pass-happy offense, I'll put that on the list of things you don't know about football.

 

 

Which is why it's dying at the college level (and even at the pros to some degree)...

 

I trust TO's opinions on offense, particularly around what's suited for success at Nebraska, and he's not a proponent of either the WCO or the elimination of a mobile QB.

 

And anyone who doesn't think that a true WCO (and Riley/Lang's version of it) isn't pass happy truly knows nothing about the history of that offense or the philosophies of its founders. Need I post quotes or are you willing to withdrawal your personal attack?

 

 

The WCO is not dying. It's just been modified so often over the years by its proponents that it's spawned offspring and cousins that no longer use the term. People who don't understand it think any team that passes a lot plays a WCO.

 

Interestingly enough, the West Coast offense was created as an alternative to the truly pass-happy offenses of the Raiders and Chargers by Bill Walsh, who had coached for both. Handed a mobile but weak-armed quarterback with the Bengals, Walsh switched from the traditional vertical passing attack to a horizontal passing attack, spreading the ball around the field, using running backs as outlet receivers and generally lowering the risk of the passing game to better complement the running game. Before the WCO, a QB could get away with a 55% completion average. The WCO bumped it up by a good 10% throughout the NFL. It was all about ball control, and if you can get past the size of the playbook, it was actually pretty conservative.

 

Don't like the big playbook? Don't use the whole thing. Some teams boil it down to 15 or so key plays. The WCO simply recognizes all the offensive weapons at your disposal and ensures that a defense can't line up to stop the primary weapon. The unifying theory is that if you create some safe, short passes spread horizontally, it will open up the vertical lanes for both the running game and the deep passing threat. A WCO will happily run the ball down your throat if you let them.

 

There's nothing about the WCO that says you can't run a zone read with your mobile quarterback if you got one. That would just be another weapon as football evolves. Joe Montana and Steve Young were entirely different quarterbacks and able to work the WCO to perfection. Their football IQ was off the charts, but the WCO certainly played to their strengths. Don't know why you or Tom Osborne thinks the WCO "eliminates" a mobile QB or a good running game.

 

The WCO requires no more precision for a high school quarterback than any offense that requires running, passing and a bit of deception. The staples of the WCO, RB screens and short sideline curls, are still used to give jittery quarterbacks safe, confidence-building plays.

 

The reason Tom Osborne's offense died at the college level, and never took hold in the pros, is because it was deceptively complicated, operated on a high level of precision - and risk --and required a special skillset and player continuity that's hard to find and maintain. 1993-1997 was glorious, but it was a 20 year project. And it wouldn't have been nearly as glorious without the Blackshirt Defense, which would be a luxury to any offense.

 

The WCO requires an efficient quarterback who makes good decisions, but then what offense doesn't?

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

Too much common sense and logic there. It's easier for some to pretend TA is a terrible QB and stupid.

Matt Ryan is considered by many to be a great QB, even elite. Did anyone else see throw he make directly to Lavonte David with less than 2 min to play?

These WCO/pro style passing systems are tough, even for the professionals.

There is a fairly obvious gigantic hole in your logic:

Tommy Armstrong was not recruited to play a pro style offense. If you watched at least one game this year, it was pretty obvious.

No hole at all. TA has enough skills at QB to have went something like 17-5 as a starter prior to this year.

 

This team was good enough to win 10-12 games against this schedule this season if we ran a system more suited for TA.

 

 

It's simply absurd that they couldn't grind out at least 8 or 9 wins against this schedule with TA at QB.

Think about this for a minute, what makes mor sense?

A) Change the system you want to implement in order to make it easier for the starting QB, who was not meant for pro style, to grasp it even though you will only have him for another year after your debut season.

B) Hope the starting QB has enough football smarts to grasp the system and improve as the season goes along. If he doesn't, you can replace him with a guy who actually fits the system.

Ask Riley. He's (and many here upon the hiring) always said he would adapt his "highly adaptable system" to match the players' skill sets. The principles shouldn't be that hard to adapt, and it wouldn't require completely changing your system... maybe just not having said QB throw it 40 times in gale force winds, for example.

 

This team had plenty of talent, especially compared to the opponents it faced. It should have been able to grind out at least 9 wins. Instead, we got 5. That's a major red flag. And those blaming the current QB and foisting up the freshman are just rationalizing what was a horrendous result for this staff of "veteran" coaches.

Yeah maybe.....or maybe it is simply a case of Tommy isn't very freaking good at running the system. Our WR corps did what they needed to, and half the time the ball never got near them.

 

Our game management sucked early on and halfway through the year. Not a secret, thats on the staff.

 

But throwing into double and triple coverage, missing open receivers, throwing when you are supposed to run, ignoring your check downs, forcing throws etc etc is all on Tommy.

 

The system we have in place is going to be pass happy. You don't have to like it but you better accept it.

 

You raise some good points - one thing I'd like to add about the receiving corp is, at times this year, they didn't do very much at all to help TA. IIRC there was one game early season where we had something like 9 or 11 drops in one half (may have been Illinois game).

 

I may be off on the numbers but we had some pretty collective failures at points this year that didn't really help a QB who already struggles with accuracy and decision making. Makes it even more paramount receivers make catches when they have to.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Sounds like Riley wants to stick with Tommy http://www.omaha.com/huskers/mckewon-mike-riley-stays-upbeat-about-tommy-armstrong-sees-better/article_1bd1494f-6470-5a2e-97a2-2b765077b2e6.html

 

 

You add in the struggles against Iowa — when Armstrong made some errors that even his most ardent defenders can’t place on offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf — and it wouldn’t be surprising if Riley took on that distant, matter-of-fact tone of voice coaches take when they want to put a player’s starting job up for grabs.

Riley does not take that tone and preaches optimism regarding Armstrong. Call it hopeful, call it odd, but Riley said he thinks the coaching staff can make Armstrong a better quarterback and mold the offense a bit more to his talents. And while Riley said there has to be competition in the spring for every job, it’s not as if all the quarterbacks have some clean slate. There will be a pecking order — and Armstrong is atop that order.

“No. 1, Tommy’s our starting quaterback,” Riley said, “and he’ll take the first turns (in the spring).”

No wavering. No proclamation for incoming freshman Patrick O’Brien.

 

I think I'd just call it the standard response. Unlikely a coach would throw his current starting QB under the bus.

 

I'm in a 'I'll believe it when I see it' mode with tailoring an offense to suit TA's strengths. I've personally felt they've had ample opportunity to make adjustments to fit his strengths this year and there were moments, even in the Iowa game (12 games into the season), where I felt they were trying to do too many things that didn't help TA. I don't want to set my opinion in stone, but, I'd be a little shocked to see serious changes in their mentalities.

 

I agree it was probably a standard (and smart) response. Nobody including Riley knows how good POB will be next year. I'm not getting my hopes up for him. I think we'll see TA next season and hopefully some film study over the off season will make him a smarter QB. His mechanics will be about the same. They'll look OK at the start of the season and deteriorate as the season progresses.

 

Part of me has a feeling this will happen as well, especially in moments of panic. QB's have a tendency to revert to poor mechanics when things don't go according to plan.

 

Personally, I know there are many reasons people want to see POB start next year, but sitting on the bench and learning isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's a great thing. There's a good chance POB may not even be ready to start mentally or physically through the 2016 season and I think that's something we all need to respect. Riley's success may hinge on him ultimately, but POB deserves at least a little breathing room and patience.

[Elf]

 

Did you really wonder why a stable of mules didn't work when trying to win the Kentucky Derby?

Didn't Callahan V.1 show that a pass happy, West coast style offense not fit I Lincoln?

 

Looks like Callahan V.2 is doubling down on the stupid.

 

It wasn't Callahan's offense that got him fired.