Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[cm husker]

 

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).

The mentality expressed in your post (and some others here) is exactly what almost got Osborne run out. Because what happen to MSU was reminiscent of some Husker teams, too.

 

Of course you need both. Never said you didn't. But if forced to choose, I'd take elite coaching over talent because all of the talent in the world can't win a championship on its own (maybe the 2001 hurricanes being an exception, though I think Coker was a little unfairly maligned and the U has been missing him).

 

My point is, at a place like Nebraska, which never has and never will consistently (legally) field top 10 recruiting classes, you need to lean on superior coaching and wait for the pieces to fall into place for a special run. It's why that "measely .700 standard" is actually meaningful. Because only a very good coach can maintain that and it keeps NU poised for a better run. Hoping to hire a bunch of "great recruiters" and riding a talent wave to a championship won't bear the fruit that some of you seem to think it will, imo.

[BigRedBuster]

 

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).

 

I would love to "skim by" with some 11-1 seasons for a while while the program keeps improving to the point where we win championships. That "skimming by" can happen with great coaching or great talent.

[NUance]

Every coach attacks the weakness of the opponents and plays to the strengths of their team. Except this staff until game 13. My biggest concern is the UCLA what we will build on in 2016 or was that a one time shot?

 

Your comment made me wonder whether or not we did that—that is, whether or not we attacked the weakness of our opponents. Interestingly, there were only three games where we *didn't* do that: Wisconsin: We ran more against their stout run defense and lost. Minnesota, we passed more against their better pass defense and won. And Purdue: This may have been due to the rash of injuries we had going into that game. (Purdue's run and pass defenses are both crappy; we should have been able to impose our will on them in both running and passing.) The stats are below.

 

 

2015 conference games: (The national ranking of each conf foe for rush defense and pass defense--and how much we ran/passed against them) LINK

 

@Illinois: L 14-13

Illinois has the #62 rushing defense

Illinois has the #16 passing defense (pass yds allowed)

(NU rushing vs. Illinois: 187; NU passing: 105)

 

 

Wisconsin: L 23-21

#4 rushing defense

#7 passing defense

(NU rushing: 196; NU passing: 129)

 

 

@Minnesota: W 48-25

#61 rushing defense

#12 passing defense

(NU rushing: 203; NU passing: 261)

Northwestern: L 30-28

#13 rushing defense

#24 passing defense

(NU rushing: 82; NU passing: 291)

@Purdue: L 55-45

#108 rushing defense

#89 passing defense

(NU rushing: 77; NU passing: 407)

Mich State: W 39-38

#9 rushing defense

#76 passing defense

(NU rushing: 179; NU passing: 320)

@Rutgers: W 31-14

#84 rushing defense

#118 passing defense

(NU rushing: 174; NU passing: 188)

Iowa: L 28-20

#11 rushing defense

#60 passing defense

(NU rushing: 137; NU passing: 296)

 

 

I'm not sure what these stats prove, if anything. I just wanted an answer to your statement about whether our coaches attack the weakness of opponents. It seems like they do.

 

 

=====================================================================

As a general comment to the topic of this thread: We faced four of the top 13 rush defenses in the nation this year. Do you think we'd do better by rushing *more* against those top rushing defenses?

 

 

btw, The B1G had three other the top-25 rush defense teams, for a total of seven in the top 25: Nebraska #8, Michigan #18 and tOSU #22. By comparison the SEC had only one top 10 rush defense team (Alabama #1) and only four total in the top 25.

[beorach]

Even when the run hasn't been very successful for three quarters of a game, I feel like I've seen some "playcallers" mix it in enough that it has paid off in the 4th. I guess I don't ever think it makes sense to give up and be 1-D. I think folks are oversimplifying this issue to the extreme, though. What we saw in the bowl wasn't vindication of traditionalist armchair coaches across the state and Langsdorf isn't trying to install the fun and gun. As for the rushing defenses Nebraska has faced this season, I'd rank the Bruins' seventh:

 

Average Z-scores from Rushing Defense category, without SOS adjustment, through games against FBS teams up until (and not including) CCG weekend

1) Wisconsin: 1.44

2) Iowa: 1.18

3) Michigan State: 0.98

4) Northwestern: 0.86

5) Southern Mississippi: 0.64

6) BYU: 0.41

7) UCLA: 0.21

8) Illinois: 0.12

9) Minnesota - 0.07

10) Purdue: -1.12

11) Miami: -1.22

12) Rutgers: -1.26

13) South Alabama: -1.48

 

p.s. - I misread Miami's rating before so I had to edit this post.

[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).

 

I would love to "skim by" with some 11-1 seasons for a while while the program keeps improving to the point where we win championships. That "skimming by" can happen with great coaching or great talent.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd welcome those type of seasons as well. We had Bo who's ceiling was 9 wins with average talent. My point was about talent. I'd much rather be loaded and top heavy with talent versus having an elite scheme with inferior talent. Talent makes coaches look rather successful just take a look at Lane Kiffin as an example. Nebraska has to get better in many areas specifically the interior lines. With the departure of Collins and now possibly Vincent Valentine and also Gangwish on defense, we'll be expecting a lot from unproven players. We need key talent in certain areas to be able to have successful seasons. It makes all the difference in the world between 6-7 and 10-4, 12-2, etc.

[Enhance]

My point is, at a place like Nebraska, which never has and never will consistently (legally) field top 10 recruiting classes, you need to lean on superior coaching and wait for the pieces to fall into place for a special run. It's why that "measely .700 standard" is actually meaningful. Because only a very good coach can maintain that and it keeps NU poised for a better run. Hoping to hire a bunch of "great recruiters" and riding a talent wave to a championship won't bear the fruit that some of you seem to think it will, imo.

cm and I rarely see eye to eye. But, I actually agree with an idea he's getting at, though some may disagree with the way he's detailing his argument,

 

I too think Nebraska is a place that will unlikely, consistently, haul in top 10 recruiting classes. One of the biggest reasons is something I recently pointed out in another thread - 19 of the top 25 recruiting classes currently hail from the top 10 states that produce talent. Many of those schools consistently rank in the top 25 year to year while other schools, like Nebraska, have routinely flickered in and out of the Top 25, Top 20, etc. This isn't really a new thing. It even happened under Osborne during the height of his dominance - they had back to back top 10 classes and then fell to the mid-teens. This was after having the most dominant team in college football history, mind you.

 

That means Nebraska, in my opinion, should rely on elite schemes, coaching and development because I don't think they will ever be able to consistently compete with the top Florida, Texas, and Georgia schools of the world. Now, obviously, they still need to go after the best players they can get and I do think the program has room to improve their recruiting. They could, theoretically, be a Top 20 recruiter year in and year out. But, there's a balance there. And when in doubt, I too will always fall back on wanting that elite coaching.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

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).

I would love to "skim by" with some 11-1 seasons for a while while the program keeps improving to the point where we win championships. That "skimming by" can happen with great coaching or great talent.

Don't get me wrong, I'd welcome those type of seasons as well. We had Bo who's ceiling was 9 wins with average talent. My point was about talent. I'd much rather be loaded and top heavy with talent versus having an elite scheme with inferior talent. Talent makes coaches look rather successful just take a look at Lane Kiffin as an example. Nebraska has to get better in many areas specifically the interior lines. With the departure of Collins and now possibly Vincent Valentine and also Gangwish on defense, we'll be expecting a lot from unproven players. We need key talent in certain areas to be able to have successful seasons. It makes all the difference in the world between 6-7 and 10-4, 12-2, etc.

By ceiling, you must mean floor. Because Bo won more than 9 in 3 of 7 seasons (and may have been 4 of 7 had the brain trust not fired him).

 

You must not watch Alabama football much. They are pedestrian on offense. Kitten has looked mediocre since OC'ing at USC and at USC didn't run his own show.

[FeelLikeAStranger]

 

 

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).

The mentality expressed in your post (and some others here) is exactly what almost got Osborne run out. Because what happen to MSU was reminiscent of some Husker teams, too.

Of course you need both. Never said you didn't. But if forced to choose, I'd take elite coaching over talent because all of the talent in the world can't win a championship on its own (maybe the 2001 hurricanes being an exception, though I think Coker was a little unfairly maligned and the U has been missing him).

My point is, at a place like Nebraska, which never has and never will consistently (legally) field top 10 recruiting classes, you need to lean on superior coaching and wait for the pieces to fall into place for a special run. It's why that "measely .700 standard" is actually meaningful. Because only a very good coach can maintain that and it keeps NU poised for a better run. Hoping to hire a bunch of "great recruiters" and riding a talent wave to a championship won't bear the fruit that some of you seem to think it will, imo.

Bravo. Well stated.

[beorach]

One of the posts that impressed me from this board, around the time I joined, pointed out that even mediocre coaches can maintain the .700 standard at programs like Nebraska (i.e., ones with rich football histories). I don't remember now who it was that did the extensive research but it was the best point about Pelini that I found online.

[Hayseed]

I didn't even see a legitimate running game that had a chance to work until half way through the season. Those sporadic handoffs with random blocking weren't designed to do anything but look like running.

So, what running game are you guys talking about?

​This isn't exactly rocket science, ...especially for this ancient staff that's seen it all. Maybe they should take off those headsets and call their own plays?

[cm husker]

One of the posts that impressed me from this board, around the time I joined, pointed out that even mediocre coaches can maintain the .700 standard at programs like Nebraska (i.e., ones with rich football histories). I don't remember now who it was that did the extensive research but it was the best point about Pelini that I found online.

The problem with your and the original poster's logic is that such a post only establishes that pelini was at least mediocre. Not that he was only mediocre.

 

I guess we'll see what Riley does, but he has to win at least 11 (and really 13 because 11 reg season wins means a ccg and bowl game) games next season to get to .700.

 

More "modestly," assuming NU plays 26 games over the next two seasons, Riley has to win 21 of them to get to .700.

 

I see the "a monkey could win .700+ games at NU" argument from lots of people, including former players, I think it's equal parts idiotic and insulting to the coaches who've done it.

[BigRedBuster]

 

My point is, at a place like Nebraska, which never has and never will consistently (legally) field top 10 recruiting classes, you need to lean on superior coaching and wait for the pieces to fall into place for a special run. It's why that "measely .700 standard" is actually meaningful. Because only a very good coach can maintain that and it keeps NU poised for a better run. Hoping to hire a bunch of "great recruiters" and riding a talent wave to a championship won't bear the fruit that some of you seem to think it will, imo.

cm and I rarely see eye to eye. But, I actually agree with an idea he's getting at, though some may disagree with the way he's detailing his argument,

 

I too think Nebraska is a place that will unlikely, consistently, haul in top 10 recruiting classes. One of the biggest reasons is something I recently pointed out in another thread - 19 of the top 25 recruiting classes currently hail from the top 10 states that produce talent. Many of those schools consistently rank in the top 25 year to year while other schools, like Nebraska, have routinely flickered in and out of the Top 25, Top 20, etc. This isn't really a new thing. It even happened under Osborne during the height of his dominance - they had back to back top 10 classes and then fell to the mid-teens. This was after having the most dominant team in college football history, mind you.

 

That means Nebraska, in my opinion, should rely on elite schemes, coaching and development because I don't think they will ever be able to consistently compete with the top Florida, Texas, and Georgia schools of the world. Now, obviously, they still need to go after the best players they can get and I do think the program has room to improve their recruiting. They could, theoretically, be a Top 20 recruiter year in and year out. But, there's a balance there. And when in doubt, I too will always fall back on wanting that elite coaching.

 

I agree with much of what you and cm have said.

 

I too don't believe we will ever rival programs like Alabama, Florida, USC, OSU...etc. in recruiting. Nor do I think we need to go out and win recruiting championships.

 

Since '05, we have had multiple classes on 247 with an average player rating between .8400 and .8800. That is an upper 3 star average. Meaning, we got our share of 4 star players and had a good number of 3 stars that were close to 4 star. This year we are hovering around the .8700 mark. That type of classes have the talent definitely to compete and win the Big west and have some really good teams from time to time that win the conference. The problem is, we haven't had staff's that have done that consistently. Bo's early classes dropped down below .8000 and we saw the result in some key positions such as D line when Meredith was working his ass off to try to play actually out of position.

 

The problem with the coaching angle is if the fan base expects you to go out and get THE top coaching prospect in the world. Well.....that top coaching prospect is probably at a mid major somewhere having success and the fans love him. He also has the luxury of sitting there and waiting for a position to open up at Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC, OSU...etc.

 

So, if he could go to Texas or USC, make more money than any other coach in the country and have all the talent in the world within 100 miles of his front door, why would he come to Nebraska? If you are going to play the coaching game, you need to answer that question. Winning at Texas is going to be easier than at Nebraska due to the talent available. He can make as much or more there than here. His wife probably would love the weather much more than in Lincoln.

 

My answer to that question is that you have to go find that special coach that wants to be here. Simple question right? Well....that might not be the one that all the media thinks is THE hot new coach.

So.....why not get behind the staff that is here and see what they can do. They might just surprise the world.

 

Also. yes, the .700 mark does mean something for what you said. Hovering around that mark is not a bad thing while the program is building to the point where we actually win championships.

 

About this comment:

 

More "modestly," assuming NU plays 26 games over the next two seasons, Riley has to win 21 of them to get to .700.

 

Ok....we can look at this one of two ways.

 

a) We keep this transition year in his resume. It happened. Nobody is going to forget it. If he fails to win 21 games over the next two year, his average will be below .700. So, we could fire him and move on because he doesn't have a .700 average here.

 

b) OR....let's say he wins 9 games next year and 10 games the following year. His average is below .700. However, he had one transition year and then greatly improved to be above that .700 mark in those individual years. Let's say also his recruiting classes stay above say an average player rating of .8500. Do you still fire him because his career here after 3 years is below .700? Let's say 2017 shows POB struggling early his first year starting but by mid year he's improving and at the end of the year he is running the offense pretty dang well. We now have 3 years left of a very talented QB to run this system.

[cm husker]

 

So, if he could go to Texas or USC, make more money than any other coach in the country and have all the talent in the world within 100 miles of his front door, why would he come to Nebraska? If you are going to play the coaching game, you need to answer that question. Winning at Texas is going to be easier than at Nebraska due to the talent available. He can make as much or more there than here. His wife probably would love the weather much more than in Lincoln.

 

My answer to that question is that you have to go find that special coach that wants to be here. Simple question right? Well....that might not be the one that all the media thinks is THE hot new coach.

So.....why not get behind the staff that is here and see what they can do. They might just surprise the world.

 

Also. yes, the .700 mark does mean something for what you said. Hovering around that mark is not a bad thing while the program is building to the point where we actually win championships.

 

I agree that most "top flight" coaching prospects aren't going to be enticed by Nebraska. I think we saw that twice now following the firing of Solich and Pelini. They have too many other options.

 

In my opinion, NU's next hire, whether 3 years or 10 years from now, will need to be "risky" in the sense that you gamble on an assistant who may not be on that top 10 list of "proven" HC's from a smaller school or a highly successful coordinator. More than anything, NU needs to get a coach who is an innovator and has a system designed for success at the college level. I prefer an offensive minded HC, and, as a bonus, a guy with Nebraska ties (what can I say, I have a lot of respect for Osborne). That's why I'll keep my eye on Frost, but I have my doubts as to whether the timing will ever be right for bringing him to Lincoln.*

 

*I say that for two reasons: 1. Riley either does really well and is here 8 to 10 more years or he does very poorly is gone before the 2018 season. In the latter case, I don't see Frost making the jump from UCF after only 2 seasons, but maybe he would. In the former, I think he'll either have failed as an HC or moved on and become ensconced at a top program by the 8 to 10 year mark. 2. From Frost's perspective, he will either do really well at UCF and have opportunities at those "tier 1 resource" programs or he'll do poorly at UCF and Nebraska fans won't want him back in Lincoln.

 

 

 

a) We keep this transition year in his resume. It happened. Nobody is going to forget it. If he fails to win 21 games over the next two year, his average will be below .700. So, we could fire him and move on because he doesn't have a .700 average here.

 

b) OR....let's say he wins 9 games next year and 10 games the following year. His average is below .700. However, he had one transition year and then greatly improved to be above that .700 mark in those individual years. Let's say also his recruiting classes stay above say an average player rating of .8500. Do you still fire him because his career here after 3 years is below .700? Let's say 2017 shows POB struggling early his first year starting but by mid year he's improving and at the end of the year he is running the offense pretty dang well. We now have 3 years left of a very talented QB to run this system.

 

 

Addressing B, I will never ever advocate for firing a coach after a 9/10 win season, unless it's for clear major off the field incidents (e.g., NCAA violations, legal issues by either the coach or his players, academically failing players, etc.). So, if Riley gets to 19 wins during the next two seasons, you won't hear me calling for his head.

 

But my point simply was that winning .700+ of your games isn't an easy thing to do anywhere, but especially not at a Tier 2 Resource School like Nebraska.

 

As a final note, I would caution against the belief that POB will come in and light the world on fire. The odds are against him generally, and specifically, in Riley's system, first year QBs have struggled mightily (iirc, Armstrong actually posted better numbers in his first season in the system than most of Riley's QBs at OSU). I can also point to some guys, like Hackenburg, who are supposed to be great QBs from a talent perspective, but who are not very prolific as college playmakers. In fact, I'm struggling to recall a really great playmaking pro-style QB who at the college level. That's not to say "drop back" QBs can't be prolific, but that's generally a product of a system, like what Leach or Briles do, more than their inherent abilities as a QB.

[Enhance]

Some good points there, cm. Two things I'd like to add.

 

First, I personally like the idea of Frost as well if he's interested and the timing works. Obviously, A LOT will go into that. But, if he sees immediate success at UCF he very well could look to make another move quickly.

 

Second, I'm not too sure who would be classified specifically as a "pro-style" college quarterback that was great. But, I could list several quarterbacks who were great drop back passers in college - guys like Andrew Luck and Matt Leinart come to mind.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

So, if he could go to Texas or USC, make more money than any other coach in the country and have all the talent in the world within 100 miles of his front door, why would he come to Nebraska? If you are going to play the coaching game, you need to answer that question. Winning at Texas is going to be easier than at Nebraska due to the talent available. He can make as much or more there than here. His wife probably would love the weather much more than in Lincoln.

 

My answer to that question is that you have to go find that special coach that wants to be here. Simple question right? Well....that might not be the one that all the media thinks is THE hot new coach.

So.....why not get behind the staff that is here and see what they can do. They might just surprise the world.

 

Also. yes, the .700 mark does mean something for what you said. Hovering around that mark is not a bad thing while the program is building to the point where we actually win championships.

 

I agree that most "top flight" coaching prospects aren't going to be enticed by Nebraska. I think we saw that twice now following the firing of Solich and Pelini. They have too many other options.

 

In my opinion, NU's next hire, whether 3 years or 10 years from now, will need to be "risky" in the sense that you gamble on an assistant who may not be on that top 10 list of "proven" HC's from a smaller school or a highly successful coordinator. More than anything, NU needs to get a coach who is an innovator and has a system designed for success at the college level. I prefer an offensive minded HC, and, as a bonus, a guy with Nebraska ties (what can I say, I have a lot of respect for Osborne). That's why I'll keep my eye on Frost, but I have my doubts as to whether the timing will ever be right for bringing him to Lincoln.*

 

*I say that for two reasons: 1. Riley either does really well and is here 8 to 10 more years or he does very poorly is gone before the 2018 season. In the latter case, I don't see Frost making the jump from UCF after only 2 seasons, but maybe he would. In the former, I think he'll either have failed as an HC or moved on and become ensconced at a top program by the 8 to 10 year mark. 2. From Frost's perspective, he will either do really well at UCF and have opportunities at those "tier 1 resource" programs or he'll do poorly at UCF and Nebraska fans won't want him back in Lincoln.

 

 

 

a) We keep this transition year in his resume. It happened. Nobody is going to forget it. If he fails to win 21 games over the next two year, his average will be below .700. So, we could fire him and move on because he doesn't have a .700 average here.

 

b) OR....let's say he wins 9 games next year and 10 games the following year. His average is below .700. However, he had one transition year and then greatly improved to be above that .700 mark in those individual years. Let's say also his recruiting classes stay above say an average player rating of .8500. Do you still fire him because his career here after 3 years is below .700? Let's say 2017 shows POB struggling early his first year starting but by mid year he's improving and at the end of the year he is running the offense pretty dang well. We now have 3 years left of a very talented QB to run this system.

 

 

Addressing B, I will never ever advocate for firing a coach after a 9/10 win season, unless it's for clear major off the field incidents (e.g., NCAA violations, legal issues by either the coach or his players, academically failing players, etc.). So, if Riley gets to 19 wins during the next two seasons, you won't hear me calling for his head.

 

But my point simply was that winning .700+ of your games isn't an easy thing to do anywhere, but especially not at a Tier 2 Resource School like Nebraska.

 

As a final note, I would caution against the belief that POB will come in and light the world on fire. The odds are against him generally, and specifically, in Riley's system, first year QBs have struggled mightily (iirc, Armstrong actually posted better numbers in his first season in the system than most of Riley's QBs at OSU). I can also point to some guys, like Hackenburg, who are supposed to be great QBs from a talent perspective, but who are not very prolific as college playmakers. In fact, I'm struggling to recall a really great playmaking pro-style QB who at the college level. That's not to say "drop back" QBs can't be prolific, but that's generally a product of a system, like what Leach or Briles do, more than their inherent abilities as a QB.

 

I didn't say POB was going to light the world on fire his first year. In fact, my example had him struggling at the beginning of his first year and improving as the year goes to a point he is running the offense pretty well. That doesn't mean he's all conference his first year.

 

There are lots of "drop back passers" that do pretty dang well in college. Cook is one. I don't remember Alabama having a ton of dual threat QBs. USC has done pretty well with them. Also, don't think POB is someone who has concrete feet. He had 640 yards rushing and 13 rushing TDs in 2014. I'm assuming from that, if he needs to run, he can. (I didn't see his senior season stats).