Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[Elf]

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

 

I agree. It was especially concerning to me when he called a pass play in the waning moments of the game and killed the clock after a negative run play. That could have backfired on us but it didn't so not a lot of people are talking about it. I'd like to believe Langsdorf has learned from this season not to take play calling for granted and is able to manage a game better.

 

 

Agree. The 3rd and 1 pass play on the drive that resulted in the field goal had me upset. We were bulldozing them and could have had 1st and goal from the 2 while taking another minute plus off the clock.

 

This is what has caused the Husker fans to go nuts all year long. Passing the ball from the one foot line on third down drives me crazy. We were running the ball for 3-7 yards pops all game long, and then the OC throws the ball from the one foot line. I don't think the OC can help himself, he is pass first oriented and wants to pass the ball. The West coast and NFL teams do this all the time and this is what he believes will work. Look how it played out this year.

 

It can and does work, when you have an offensive line that can consistently provide protection, a quarterback that doesn't throw off his back foot regularly and you need receivers that reliably catch the ball. (UCLA had 1 drop iirc.)

 

 

Since we don't have any of that on a consistent basis, you'd agree it was foolish of Langsdorf to try it, right?

 

 

Not necessarily. There are two sides to that argument and both sides have valid points.

[Elf]

The pipeline was due to scheme, and rarely elite talent.

 

Few teams would trade for navy's oline, yet they consistently put yards up against superior athletes.

I think the pipeline was due to how Osborne and Tenopir handled offensive linemen and our S/C program. Olinemen were generally redshirted and most didn't start until their Junior years because Osborne believed they needed that development time.

[Elf]

I think it all comes back to a strong offensive line -- a pipeline Nebraska was committed to for 40 years -- which basically makes it easier to execute whatever you decide to do. When it comes the notion of "identity" I think we make too much of run-first or pass-first. If I could choose an identity for Nebraska, it would be Lineman University. Offense and Defense. The rest of the good stuff comes out of that.

Agree with this. How cool would it be to be known as Lineman U? And the benefits? It's like you said, it makes everything else easier on both sides of the ball.

[seaofred92]

If we're going to be a NFL offense we need to be Carolina. Strong, creative run game, led by elite play on the offensive and defensive lines. Watch them every week and its amazing what they do from Shotgun/Single Back/I Formation/2 RB Formations. Extremely creative in both the power run and play action pass game.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The pipeline was due to scheme, and rarely elite talent.

 

Few teams would trade for navy's oline, yet they consistently put yards up against superior athletes.

 

You are an absolute marvel of tortured logic.

[cm husker]

 

 

The pipeline was due to scheme, and rarely elite talent.

 

Few teams would trade for navy's oline, yet they consistently put yards up against superior athletes.

You are an absolute marvel of tortured logic.

Nah, you just rely on an old saw about jimmies and joes. Most know that scheme matters much more than talent levels.

[In the Deed the Glory]

 

 

The pipeline was due to scheme, and rarely elite talent.

Few teams would trade for navy's oline, yet they consistently put yards up against superior athletes.

You are an absolute marvel of tortured logic.

Nah, you just rely on an old saw about jimmies and joes. Most know that scheme matters much more than talent levels.

Somebody tell the teams all that time and money they spend on recruiting should be spent somewhere important. Talent is immaterial. It's all about where you tell a player to be, not being able to make a play once there.

 

This place...

[cm husker]

If I had to choose elite coaching or elite talent, I'd choose elite coaching every time.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

The pipeline was due to scheme, and rarely elite talent.

 

Few teams would trade for navy's oline, yet they consistently put yards up against superior athletes.

You are an absolute marvel of tortured logic.

Nah, you just rely on an old saw about jimmies and joes. Most know that scheme matters much more than talent levels.

 

 

 

If I had to choose elite coaching or elite talent, I'd choose elite coaching every time.

 

The bolded is so vague I don't even know how to properly respond to this....

 

So Georgia Tech, who didn't change their scheme from last year had to replace both of their A-Backs and their B-Back. Returned their entire offensive line and their star QB. Last year they went 11-3. This year they went 3-9.

 

Same scheme, different players.

 

Scheme is fine and all, but you have to have talent, mental toughness, willingness to compete, willingness to better yourself, TEAM FIRST mentality, competent playcalling, timely playcalling, development of personnel, diagnosing opponents weakness, etc...

 

You need great coaching, yes, but you have to have the talent too. There is no way it's an "either or".

[cm husker]

Never said you can have just one but not the other. My point is: I'll take elite coaching and good talent over elite talent and only good coaching.

 

You don't have to agree.

 

As far as GTech goes, many of their problems trace back to coaching, as assistant turnover has taken a toll on them. They also weren't all that talented last year, but their scheme (and a good turnover margin) disguised that.

[Guy Chamberlin]

If I had to choose elite coaching or elite talent, I'd choose elite coaching every time.

 

Don't worry. We picked up on this theme months ago.

 

New Year's Resolution for Everyone?

 

Let's cut back on the false choices. It's never one thing versus another. It's usually a crockpot full of stuff.

[Scratchtown]

Never said you can have just one but not the other. My point is: I'll take elite coaching and good talent over elite talent and only good coaching.

 

You don't have to agree.

 

As far as GTech goes, many of their problems trace back to coaching, as assistant turnover has taken a toll on them. They also weren't all that talented last year, but their scheme (and a good turnover margin) disguised that.

That's the dumbest thing I've read ever.

 

The scheme worked for the same guys last year but not this year.

 

Did you watch their games this year like I did? Scheme wasn't the problem. Talent was

[Ffejy7]

 

Never said you can have just one but not the other. My point is: I'll take elite coaching and good talent over elite talent and only good coaching.

You don't have to agree.

As far as GTech goes, many of their problems trace back to coaching, as assistant turnover has taken a toll on them. They also weren't all that talented last year, but their scheme (and a good turnover margin) disguised that.

That's the dumbest thing I've read ever.

The scheme worked for the same guys last year but not this year.

Did you watch their games this year like I did? Scheme wasn't the problem. Talent was

Thank you. Scheme is fine and all, and it's a great thing. But to say it's not because of the athletes is straight ignorance

[cm husker]

 

Never said you can have just one but not the other. My point is: I'll take elite coaching and good talent over elite talent and only good coaching.

 

You don't have to agree.

 

As far as GTech goes, many of their problems trace back to coaching, as assistant turnover has taken a toll on them. They also weren't all that talented last year, but their scheme (and a good turnover margin) disguised that.

That's the dumbest thing I've read ever.

 

The scheme worked for the same guys last year but not this year.

 

Did you watch their games this year like I did? Scheme wasn't the problem. Talent was

Specifically which talent this year was deficient in terms of athleticism?

 

You're being too specific in your conception of "scheme." It's not just what's written on the chalkboard. It's what is imparted to the athlete so that said athlete can execute. G Tech had enough talent to be successful, but they executed extremely poorly this year. And execution ultimately lands on the coaches' shoulders.

 

And yes, I follow GTech very closely for a number of reasons, not least of which is my love for that offensive system of football.

 

And, despite the down year and up and down results of PJ at GTech, I still think he's one of the top 10 coaches in the country and top 5 offensive minds in CFB.

[Dansker]

If I had to choose elite coaching or elite talent, I'd choose elite coaching every time.

What? Lol. So I guess you'd be okay with us skimming by with 11-1 seasons until we get crushed by a better program much like MSU getting embarrassed by Alabama. The 90's Husker teams were a combination of great talent and great coaching. You have to have the right horses (players).