Stanley Morgan

[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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

I returned to the principles of what TO ran. That system would still work well today, and you can still recruit to it. I'd borrow concepts from what Herman is doing (especially what he does in the ground game) and what Paul Johnson does. I'd also study what Baylor does more closely. I find it impressive that they could basically be down to a WR at QB and still be productive. I would like to keep my run to pass ratio at 70%+/30%- as much as possible.

 

There are no silver bullet systems, but there are some systems that definitely lend themselves to success at different schools, based mainly on what recruiting base that school has.

[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

 

 

 

I returned to the principles of what TO ran. That system would still work well today, and you can still recruit to it. I'd borrow concepts from what Herman is doing (especially what he does in the ground game) and what Paul Johnson does. I'd also study what Baylor does more closely. I find it impressive that they could basically be down to a WR at QB and still be productive. I would like to keep my run to pass ratio at 70%+/30%- as much as possible.

 

There are no silver bullet systems, but there are some systems that definitely lend themselves to success at different schools, based mainly on what recruiting base that school has.

 

 

So you want to be multiple? I thought that word was a word taboo around here

[cm husker]

Where are you getting "multiple" from that? What does it even mean?

[Waterloohusker26]

Where are you getting "multiple" from that? What does it even mean?

 

I would first start with TO's option attack...I would employ some of Tom Hermans offense with a little bit of Paul Johnsons to go along with some Art Briles as well. Seems like multiple philosopies to me

[cm husker]

 

Where are you getting "multiple" from that? What does it even mean?

 

I would first start with TO's option attack...I would employ some of Tom Hermans offense with a little bit of Paul Johnsons to go along with some Art Briles as well. Seems like multiple philosopies to me

 

 

If you break them down, there's a common thread to each, at least in the run game.

 

And they are all run focused offenses that use a mobile QB as a primary threat in the run game (at least ideally; sometimes personnel don't allow for it).

[Guy Chamberlin]

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.

 

I think the biggest misperception about Tom Osborne's power option offense is that it was in some way "simpler" to run and less reliant on talent.

 

If a less talented QB throwing the ball scares you, a less talented QB rolling down the line and making split second pitchback decisions (where an "incompletion" is a fumble) is even scarier. And you sure don't want less talented RBs trailing behind him. And those offensive linemen have to pull faster and more often than they do in other offenses. The playbook was deceptively large and execution was everything. The scheme didn't dictate success. No scheme does.

 

The decision-making skills required in the power option game were huge. It's true you could recruit players with better football smarts than combine metrics -- and quarterbacks who didn't necessarily pass so well -- but the bigger challenge of getting all the right pieces in place for a college-specific scheme doesn't happen overnight, nor is it going to guarantee success in today's game.

 

Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma and Michigan State got to the final four with talent on both sides of the ball and the willingness to use all the offensive weapons at their disposal. If that's what the kids are calling "multiple" these days, then we should probably run something similar.

[cm husker]

Has nothing to do with simplicity. You keep assuming that's what people mean. And it's not.

 

 

But the in game execution WAS (and is at schools currently using it) and easier for players. The scheme made reads easier for QBs. Holes were more apparent for RBs than reading and reacting behind zone blocking where the D has an equal number of players at the point of attack. And run blocking is most definitely an easier skill than pass blocking in a WCO system.

 

Scheme absolutely dictates success.

[GBRFAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Based on what you are saying above (in bold) you want to give two teams that we inspire to beat on a regular basis a 10-15% advantage in recruiting because we can out scheme and execute them by 11-16% with superior coaching. Don't know how you regard OSU and Mich coaches but I would love to see your list of coaches that are available that meet this upgrade requirement.

 

Please forward this list to the board so that we can make this hire soon!!!! Sarcasm - I will stick with Riley and getting the best players at ALL positions.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, all I have to go on is everything people have been posting.

[cm husker]

TO ran a couple of systems at NU and his indisputably one of the most gifted offensive minds to have coached at the collegiate level.

 

Why did he choose his system over the Alabama, MSU and Stanford styles of attack?

 

I think he had a good idea of what put NU in the best position to be successful.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Has nothing to do with simplicity. You keep assuming that's what people mean. And it's not.

 

 

But the in game execution WAS (and is at schools currently using it) and easier for players. The scheme made reads easier for QBs. Holes were more apparent for RBs than reading and reacting behind zone blocking where the D has an equal number of players at the point of attack. And run blocking is most definitely an easier skill than pass blocking in a WCO system.

 

Scheme absolutely dictates success.

 

Easier reads?

 

Holes more apparent?

 

Run blocking easier?

 

No.

 

I'm not sure you understand football, or actually watched the Nebraska (or Oklahoma) offense in its prime. To assume any of it was easier, or less reliant on individual talent, is an insult to both Tom Osborne and the players. Refuting my use of "simpler" and replacing it with "easier" was a nice touch, though.

 

I can see you've dug yourself a hole on this talent issue -- which can easily be traced to your desire to prove Nebraska's talent is already there and Mike Riley simply betrayed them -- but maybe the best way out is for us to admit that college football success is built on a fairly equal combination of scheme, talent and execution, with a dollop of mojo and luck.

[cm husker]

Insulting the players and Osborne???? Clearly you haven't read what the man has to say about his offensive principles. His entire system was built on making things easier on his players. He employed blocking schemes that gave them angle and number advantages. His passing game was designed to isolate players in coverage, making reads much easier for both QB and Wr.

 

Seriously, Google his comments about his philosophy, all the way down to his installation process.

 

Nebraska's talent was good enough to win 10+ games this season against the schedule. Instead registered 6. Come up with whatever excuses you want for the shortfall, but the talent was there.

[cm husker]

To clarify one point,I don't think Osborne's system was easier to learn. It was just easier to execute in a game because its reads were simpler than reads in other systems. It tends to neutralize what a D can do in terms of hiding looks and neutralizes talent deficiencies. Anyone who watches navy football can see that.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

1) Why did he choose his system over the Alabama, MSU and Stanford styles of attack?

2) I think he had a good idea of what put NU in the best position to be successful.

 

1) Because the best team at the time — and his arch nemesis — was Oklahoma. He chose Barry Swtizer's system and modified it.

 

2) 35 years ago. Which was already 10 years into his head coaching career. And 15 years away from his first NC. In case you consider patience a virtue.

 

The game has changed a bit since then. Tom Osborne is on record as saying the ol' power option offense might not work as well against today's defenses. And who's to say he wouldn't choose an Alabama or Stanford style of attack today? What's not to like about them? They're not far off from the pre-option offense Osborne used to run.

[cm husker]

Where has he said that???