Stanley Morgan

[cm husker]

You can't just make things up Guy. He has said the opposite in the past 5 years and has specifically said he would want a mobile QB and option to be a foundational aspect of what he'd run.

 

From 2011: http://nebraska.247sports.com/Article/How-it-was-Osborne-on-the-Option-40100

 

First Google hit.

[Guy Chamberlin]

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.

 

The WCO -- the real Bill Walsh version, not the made up version where teams fling the ball all over the place -- was also designed to neutralize what a D can do in terms of hiding looks and neutralizing talent deficiencies.

 

Both systems work beautifully when the right personnel execute them with precision.

 

Mike Riley runs neither.

 

It's 2016. I like what Stanford and Baylor are running.

[Guy Chamberlin]

FWIW I apologize to Stanley Morgan and Stanley Morgan's mom for the derailing of this thread.

[Guy Chamberlin]

You can't just make things up Guy. He has said the opposite in the past 5 years and has specifically said he would want a mobile QB and option to be a foundational aspect of what he'd run.

 

From 2011: http://nebraska.247sports.com/Article/How-it-was-Osborne-on-the-Option-40100

 

First Google hit.

 

Yeah, that article is from 2011, but all the quotes from Osborne are from 1997. So "today's football" doesn't really apply.

 

Here's a more recent piece in which Osborne supposes he'd run something like the current Stanford system, which he says isn't that far off from what they used to run, minus the actual option pitchbacks.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/q-a-former-husker-coach-tom-osborne-discusses-nebraska-coaching/article_4d28463c-363b-11e5-8610-a3451af57771.html

In terms of today's football, Tom can take some credit for all the mobile quarterbacks currently out there. A running quarterback remains a huge advantage in college ball, and the dual threat could apply to almost any offensive scheme. What we remember as the triple option — either pitching the ball back to a trailing RB (or two), tucking and running, or a three step drop pass — have been replaced by zone reads, spread options, designed QB draws, roll out passes and passes from the shotgun. That's still "option" football in a lot of ways, but the best teams are finding that an accurate passer and strategic passing really deliver the dual threat goods. Given Tom's history, I would never assume he wouldn't have evolved. And all he's really saying there in 1997 is that he still likes mobile quarterbacks and running plays. Most of us do.

But the full commitment to the vintage triple option offense, the practice, precision and personnel it required to run that efficiently? That's a tall order and a major overhaul with no guarantee of success.

[cm husker]

 

You can't just make things up Guy. He has said the opposite in the past 5 years and has specifically said he would want a mobile QB and option to be a foundational aspect of what he'd run.

 

From 2011: http://nebraska.247sports.com/Article/How-it-was-Osborne-on-the-Option-40100

 

First Google hit.

 

Yeah, that article is from 2011, but all the quotes from Osborne are from 1997. So "today's football" doesn't really apply.

 

Here's a more recent piece in which Osborne supposes he'd run something like the current Stanford system, which he says isn't that far off from what they used to run, minus the actual option pitchbacks.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/q-a-former-husker-coach-tom-osborne-discusses-nebraska-coaching/article_4d28463c-363b-11e5-8610-a3451af57771.html

 

In terms of today's football, Tom can take some credit for all the mobile quarterbacks currently out there. A running quarterback remains a huge advantage in college ball, and the dual threat could apply to almost any offensive scheme. What we remember as the triple option — either pitching the ball back to a trailing RB (or two), tucking and running, or a three step drop pass — have been replaced by zone reads, spread options, designed QB draws, roll out passes and passes from the shotgun. That's still "option" football in a lot of ways, but the best teams are finding that an accurate passer and strategic passing really deliver the dual threat goods. Given Tom's history, I would never assume he wouldn't have evolved. And all he's really saying there in 1997 is that he still likes mobile quarterbacks and running plays. Most of us do.

 

But the full commitment to the vintage triple option offense, the practice, precision and personnel it required to run that efficiently? That's a tall order and a major overhaul with no guarantee of success.

 

 

 

This is the only mention I saw of stanford based on a quick read:

 

If you were still coaching, would you choose a Stanford-type offense with a big offensive line and a fullback?

 

and here's TO's reply:

 

 

 

I guess that’s what I did. We believed in that. In a sense, we were kind of running the wishbone out of the I-formation. Most people didn’t realize that, but we used a lot of wishbone schemes, a lot of triple option stuff. I think it gave people a lot of problems because in order to stop option football you have to employ your secondary. Your secondary can’t just play pass defense. You have to have somebody coming up on the quarterback and somebody on the pitch — and those are safeties. So we usually led the Big Eight, and then later the Big 12, in touchdown passes, which people didn’t realize. But we’d have people so distorted in the secondary that we’d have somebody 20, 30 yards behind everybody when we threw it. We didn’t throw it very much, but we threw it effectively.

 

Personally, I think that if TO was still coaching, we'd see a move toward something like what OSU has run (even what Meyer ran with Tebow, in that he had a H-back playing QB... Tebow's passing stats are deceiving, as many of them were shovel passes and belly screens to guys like Percy Harvin who took them 30/40 yards a pop). We might even seen a run heavier version of what Oregon has been trying to do.

 

I doubt we'd see what Stanford does, because TO specifically stated why he thought the option was such a valuable weapon in keeping a defense off balance and outmatched in terms of numbers at a point of attack.

 

He might even look at what Paul Johnson is doing, as he's basically running the wishbone out of a "flexbone" look, which I really like because of what it can allow you to do in the passing game.

 

If you go back and watch the '96 season when we tried to throw the ball a lot more, that single back stuff is pretty similar to what we are seeing from "Option Spread" systems today. A lot of the elements were also used in '97, though TO smartly backed off the demands he put on Frost in the passing game.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Personally, I think that if TO was still coaching, we'd see a move toward something like what OSU has run.

 

Exactly.

[Atbone95]

Stanley Morgan? Who's he?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

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.

Why is cm insulting TOs players? That's just rude of him.

[The Dude]

Stanley Morgan? Who's he?

A future captain. Captain Morgan.

[Dansker]

 

Stanley Morgan? Who's he?

A future captain. Captain Morgan.

 

 

I love it and I love Stanley Morgan. He is a clutch player. He will be an exciting guy to watch for years to come and I think out of all of our offensive players, he has the most upside and NFL potential IMO.

[Dansker]

FWIW I apologize to Stanley Morgan and Stanley Morgan's mom for the derailing of this thread.

 

CM and yourself have done this in multiple threads mainly by taking things off topic. I have to say, its beginning to get ridiculous but at least you have the decency to apologize unlike other posters. I respect that.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Honestly I couldn't care less about thread titles. If the subject is Nebraska football, the conversation goes wherever it goes. No one should be confused and zero people were hurt in this derailing.

 

If the problem is the same culprits having the same conversation wherever they go, yeah. I'll plead guilty.

 

But he started it.

[Monique8]

 

thank you, yes he had 17 offers

Morgan is just a freshman, wow, this kid was a steal.....huge upside from here!

 

What makes you say he was a steal? He had a ton of offers and NU got in on him early and really did a good job in his recruiting. That Louisiana connection is important and hope it can be retained.

[Monique8]

 

 

Morgan is just a freshman, wow, this kid was a steal.....huge upside from here!

What makes you say he was a steal? He had a ton of offers and NU got in on him early and really did a good job in his recruiting. That Louisiana connection is important and hope it can be retained.

He only had a handful of offers the kid was an excellent recruit to the program

no my son had 17 offers

[Savage Husker]

 

 

 

Morgan is just a freshman, wow, this kid was a steal.....huge upside from here!

What makes you say he was a steal? He had a ton of offers and NU got in on him early and really did a good job in his recruiting. That Louisiana connection is important and hope it can be retained.

He only had a handful of offers the kid was an excellent recruit to the program

no my son had 17 offers

(Mic drop) haha yes! Get em Mama Morgan!