Stanley Morgan

[Guy Chamberlin]

Niles Paul and Maurice Purify were those rare Husker WRs who already had the look of NFL receivers (and most recently Alonzo Moore)

 

I just never saw the fire and consistency in Paul and Purify during their playing time at Nebraska.

[Xmas32]

 

 

 

 

Morgan has tremendous ability to track the football.

 

He has some great skills as well, but his intelligence on the field is what i am most excited about.

 

This WR crew excites me. DPE/Westy/Reilly/Moore/Morgan--- not to mention guys who redshirted/ guys coming in.

 

I am hoping to see them use Morgan/Reilly on the outsides and use Westerkamp in the slot.

 

No matter what they do, they have 5 legit WR's and that isnt even talking about Lane Hovey who gave legit minutes at times.

 

When people complained about throwing the ball so much I think people forgot what our strongest position on offense was

 

 

Which is great evidence of why recruiting heavily at WR isn't really that important.

 

 

Can't believe I missed this CM Husker gem. Gonna have to paste that one in the archives.

 

Anyway, I love Stanley Morgan, Jr., and not just because his potentially hot mom might be reading this. You could see his superstar tendencies immediately, and how he made the most of his limited opportunities. Can't say who I'd bench in his favor at the moment, not a bad problem to have, but to my eye he's better rounded at WR than DPE, and stands to have two years to himself as veteran leader of the WR corps.

 

In other matters, I suppose Tom Osborne's run-first offenses were not as reliant on receivers, and could have made excuses for not recruiting heavily at the position. Yet over the years Tom delivered some pretty good WRs into the NFL, including Tim Smith and Irving Fryar, and ball-catching tight ends like Junior Miller and Johnny Mitchell. More recently, guys like Niles Paul and Quincy Enunwa have been getting their touches in the pros. Good receivers have always helped Nebraska win games, and the position is not a dead end at Nebraska, regardless of the offense in vogue.

 

 

 

You need good receivers in any offense. But having an offense that needs 3+ "elite receiver threats" is going to be hard to support over time. It is interesting that you bring up a local kid in Niles Paul. I remember him being often maligned as a receiver at NU, which I thought was completely unwarranted.

 

NU has been lucky to have such a high success rate with receivers as of late. But it would be interesting to track the running average number of kids signed to scholarships at each position going back to the 90s. My opinion: it's good to run a system that can rely on walkon receivers to provide the types of plays in the #2 and #3 WR spots that you need to be made in your offense. By doing so, you can reallocate those resources to other positions (that's not just the scholarship itself, but also the time and effort required to recruit).

 

Then, it's bonus production when you get "lucky" with a recruit, whether because you can convince him to come to a system that doesn't, on paper, highlight receivers or if you have a local elite athlete who wants to play for Nebraska.

 

If I have any time in my schedule, I may go through and track scholarships by position going back to the 1980s... I'm not even sure if we are signing that many more receivers than we have historically. But it feels like we are.

 

 

Can you cite such a system that exists with the exception of the triple option offense? Your theory is a good one, as you can load up on other positions, the issue is when you run up against teams that have equal or more talent in the secondary they can absolutely lock down those guys in single coverage and then stack the box against your presumably tough running game (I'm guessing that is where the extra schollies are going). I can't see how you can consistently beat tOSU and UM (because that is the goal right? Win the BIG?) with walk-ons in the #2 and #3 WR spot. You just need more talent.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I guess if your quarterback is just going to be handing off to your powerhouse running backs behind an awesome offense line, you wouldn't have to waste time and schollys chasing those QB recruits either.

 

And if your offensive line is that awesome, do the RBs have to be THAT great? Or couldn't some lesser recruits run through the same holes?

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

Really wish his mom would've hung around longer. She was a great addition to the board.

did she leave?

[BigRedBuster]

Really, all we need to do is recruit good centers. We should be able to just run right up the gut on everyone.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

Morgan has tremendous ability to track the football.

 

He has some great skills as well, but his intelligence on the field is what i am most excited about.

 

This WR crew excites me. DPE/Westy/Reilly/Moore/Morgan--- not to mention guys who redshirted/ guys coming in.

 

I am hoping to see them use Morgan/Reilly on the outsides and use Westerkamp in the slot.

 

No matter what they do, they have 5 legit WR's and that isnt even talking about Lane Hovey who gave legit minutes at times.

 

When people complained about throwing the ball so much I think people forgot what our strongest position on offense was

 

 

Which is great evidence of why recruiting heavily at WR isn't really that important.

 

 

Can't believe I missed this CM Husker gem. Gonna have to paste that one in the archives.

 

Anyway, I love Stanley Morgan, Jr., and not just because his potentially hot mom might be reading this. You could see his superstar tendencies immediately, and how he made the most of his limited opportunities. Can't say who I'd bench in his favor at the moment, not a bad problem to have, but to my eye he's better rounded at WR than DPE, and stands to have two years to himself as veteran leader of the WR corps.

 

In other matters, I suppose Tom Osborne's run-first offenses were not as reliant on receivers, and could have made excuses for not recruiting heavily at the position. Yet over the years Tom delivered some pretty good WRs into the NFL, including Tim Smith and Irving Fryar, and ball-catching tight ends like Junior Miller and Johnny Mitchell. More recently, guys like Niles Paul and Quincy Enunwa have been getting their touches in the pros. Good receivers have always helped Nebraska win games, and the position is not a dead end at Nebraska, regardless of the offense in vogue.

 

 

 

You need good receivers in any offense. But having an offense that needs 3+ "elite receiver threats" is going to be hard to support over time. It is interesting that you bring up a local kid in Niles Paul. I remember him being often maligned as a receiver at NU, which I thought was completely unwarranted.

 

NU has been lucky to have such a high success rate with receivers as of late. But it would be interesting to track the running average number of kids signed to scholarships at each position going back to the 90s. My opinion: it's good to run a system that can rely on walkon receivers to provide the types of plays in the #2 and #3 WR spots that you need to be made in your offense. By doing so, you can reallocate those resources to other positions (that's not just the scholarship itself, but also the time and effort required to recruit).

 

Then, it's bonus production when you get "lucky" with a recruit, whether because you can convince him to come to a system that doesn't, on paper, highlight receivers or if you have a local elite athlete who wants to play for Nebraska.

 

If I have any time in my schedule, I may go through and track scholarships by position going back to the 1980s... I'm not even sure if we are signing that many more receivers than we have historically. But it feels like we are.

 

 

Can you cite such a system that exists with the exception of the triple option offense? Your theory is a good one, as you can load up on other positions, the issue is when you run up against teams that have equal or more talent in the secondary they can absolutely lock down those guys in single coverage and then stack the box against your presumably tough running game (I'm guessing that is where the extra schollies are going). I can't see how you can consistently beat tOSU and UM (because that is the goal right? Win the BIG?) with walk-ons in the #2 and #3 WR spot. You just need more talent.

 

 

I was exaggerating a bit with "walk on" talent being at #2 and #3, but I don't think NU should run a system that needs 3 or 4 4* or better WRs. We happen to have that talent (or close to it) on the roster now, but (a) apparently that wasn't enough this year, and (b) I don't think we can expect to consistently recruit to that system. But yes, I would go back to a ground based attack at Nebraska, which I would hope would have a lot of option incorporated. Between 1990 and 1996 (the main classes comprising the run), recruited roughly 13 receivers (WR, SE or WB). A number of those guys were Nebraska kids, who I doubt were rated highly or would be today, despite their productivity at Nebraska (e.g., Lance Brown).

 

Compare that to the 12 that were signed in Callahan's 3 full classes (2005-2007), which is what he thought was necessary to run his version of the WCO.

 

As far as needing more talent than OSU and Michigan to win, that doesn't bode well for Nebraska. Rather, I think NU should try to stay within 10% to 15% of those teams' talent levels and out scheme/execute them, but that requires superior coaching. Not sure we have that, or will obtain it any easier than we recruit depth.

 

Employing a system that requires NU to "out talent" our opponents will never result in the consistency we'd like to see (and have enjoyed). It needs to be about scheme more than pure matchups.

[cm husker]

I guess if your quarterback is just going to be handing off to your powerhouse running backs behind an awesome offense line, you wouldn't have to waste time and schollys chasing those QB recruits either.

 

And if your offensive line is that awesome, do the RBs have to be THAT great? Or couldn't some lesser recruits run through the same holes?

 

 

You say this in jest, but NU actually manufactured a number of all conference and better RBs out of basically straight ahead sprinters who fit within a system (which is why few had any NFL success despite their great college performances).

 

NU needs great players at every position, but the type of players that can be great at those positions depends a lot on scheme (and player development).

[Waterloohusker26]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morgan has tremendous ability to track the football.

 

He has some great skills as well, but his intelligence on the field is what i am most excited about.

 

This WR crew excites me. DPE/Westy/Reilly/Moore/Morgan--- not to mention guys who redshirted/ guys coming in.

 

I am hoping to see them use Morgan/Reilly on the outsides and use Westerkamp in the slot.

 

No matter what they do, they have 5 legit WR's and that isnt even talking about Lane Hovey who gave legit minutes at times.

 

When people complained about throwing the ball so much I think people forgot what our strongest position on offense was

 

 

Which is great evidence of why recruiting heavily at WR isn't really that important.

 

 

Can't believe I missed this CM Husker gem. Gonna have to paste that one in the archives.

 

Anyway, I love Stanley Morgan, Jr., and not just because his potentially hot mom might be reading this. You could see his superstar tendencies immediately, and how he made the most of his limited opportunities. Can't say who I'd bench in his favor at the moment, not a bad problem to have, but to my eye he's better rounded at WR than DPE, and stands to have two years to himself as veteran leader of the WR corps.

 

In other matters, I suppose Tom Osborne's run-first offenses were not as reliant on receivers, and could have made excuses for not recruiting heavily at the position. Yet over the years Tom delivered some pretty good WRs into the NFL, including Tim Smith and Irving Fryar, and ball-catching tight ends like Junior Miller and Johnny Mitchell. More recently, guys like Niles Paul and Quincy Enunwa have been getting their touches in the pros. Good receivers have always helped Nebraska win games, and the position is not a dead end at Nebraska, regardless of the offense in vogue.

 

 

 

You need good receivers in any offense. But having an offense that needs 3+ "elite receiver threats" is going to be hard to support over time. It is interesting that you bring up a local kid in Niles Paul. I remember him being often maligned as a receiver at NU, which I thought was completely unwarranted.

 

NU has been lucky to have such a high success rate with receivers as of late. But it would be interesting to track the running average number of kids signed to scholarships at each position going back to the 90s. My opinion: it's good to run a system that can rely on walkon receivers to provide the types of plays in the #2 and #3 WR spots that you need to be made in your offense. By doing so, you can reallocate those resources to other positions (that's not just the scholarship itself, but also the time and effort required to recruit).

 

Then, it's bonus production when you get "lucky" with a recruit, whether because you can convince him to come to a system that doesn't, on paper, highlight receivers or if you have a local elite athlete who wants to play for Nebraska.

 

If I have any time in my schedule, I may go through and track scholarships by position going back to the 1980s... I'm not even sure if we are signing that many more receivers than we have historically. But it feels like we are.

 

 

Can you cite such a system that exists with the exception of the triple option offense? Your theory is a good one, as you can load up on other positions, the issue is when you run up against teams that have equal or more talent in the secondary they can absolutely lock down those guys in single coverage and then stack the box against your presumably tough running game (I'm guessing that is where the extra schollies are going). I can't see how you can consistently beat tOSU and UM (because that is the goal right? Win the BIG?) with walk-ons in the #2 and #3 WR spot. You just need more talent.

 

 

I was exaggerating a bit with "walk on" talent being at #2 and #3, but I don't think NU should run a system that needs 3 or 4 4* or better WRs. We happen to have that talent (or close to it) on the roster now, but (a) apparently that wasn't enough this year, and (b) I don't think we can expect to consistently recruit to that system. But yes, I would go back to a ground based attack at Nebraska, which I would hope would have a lot of option incorporated. Between 1990 and 1996 (the main classes comprising the run), recruited roughly 13 receivers (WR, SE or WB). A number of those guys were Nebraska kids, who I doubt were rated highly or would be today, despite their productivity at Nebraska (e.g., Lance Brown).

 

Compare that to the 12 that were signed in Callahan's 3 full classes (2005-2007), which is what he thought was necessary to run his version of the WCO.

 

As far as needing more talent than OSU and Michigan to win, that doesn't bode well for Nebraska. Rather, I think NU should try to stay within 10% to 15% of those teams' talent levels and out scheme/execute them, but that requires superior coaching. Not sure we have that, or will obtain it any easier than we recruit depth.

 

Employing a system that requires NU to "out talent" our opponents will never result in the consistency we'd like to see (and have enjoyed). It needs to be about scheme more than pure matchups.

 

 

So what kind of system do you think Michigan State runs? I would say a run heavy based offense. Have you seen how many 4* receivers they have coming in this class alone? They have four of them coming in. As for 1990-1996 of course they only recruited 13 we ran the triple option attack

[cm husker]

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

[Waterloohusker26]

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

 

How can anyone have love for it? Sure it worked great back in the 90s. How has it worked out for GA tech

[Waterloohusker26]

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

 

You'd be crazy to not love the kind of offense Michigan state has? What system would you use? I know the forward pass is something a lot of the older fans (50+) can't stand...it is what it is

[clyde40]

 

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

 

How can anyone have love for it? Sure it worked great back in the 90s. How has it worked out for GA tech

 

Nebraska and Dr. Tom didn't run a triple option offense if that's what you're referencing. You do bring up a good point about Georgia Tech though. They have had some success like going 11-3 and winning the Orange Bowl in 2014, but this year they went 3-9. I'm surprised that Paul Johnson hasn't tried to tweak his offense a little more since he's no longer at a service academy. I guess it's what he knows and he's going to stick with it.

[cm husker]

 

 

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

You'd be crazy to not love the kind of offense Michigan state has? What system would you use? I know the forward pass is something a lot of the older fans (50+) can't stand...it is what it is

I'm in my 30s.

 

Which happens to be about as good as Michigan states offense ranks year in and year out.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

How can anyone have love for it? Sure it worked great back in the 90s. How has it worked out for GA tech

Nebraska and Dr. Tom didn't run a triple option offense if that's what you're referencing. You do bring up a good point about Georgia Tech though. They have had some success like going 11-3 and winning the Orange Bowl in 2014, but this year they went 3-9. I'm surprised that Paul Johnson hasn't tried to tweak his offense a little more since he's no longer at a service academy. I guess it's what he knows and he's going to stick with it.

Osborne has talked about his offense and has said that he ran "true option" at least 30% of the time. That's very high. By contrast, Johnson has talked about how he often has games where they run option maybe 10% of the time.

[Waterloohusker26]

 

 

I don't think Michigan states system is one to emulate if NU wants to win championships.

 

Also, at HC, Michigan state has one of the best defensive minds and overall HC ability in the country. NU can't claim the same.

 

Anyway, I love the triple option as a significant component of an offense, especially an "under talented" offense. I know a lot of the young (28 or younger) have no love for it. That's fine.

You'd be crazy to not love the kind of offense Michigan state has? What system would you use? I know the forward pass is something a lot of the older fans (50+) can't stand...it is what it is

I'm in my 30s.

 

Which happens to be about as good as Michigan states offense ranks year in and year out.

 

 

Ok well you still didn't answer my question about the type of offense you would use