Change Scheme or Change QB?

[RedDenver]

 

Tee Martin was recruited and grew up in that system. I'd argue Bo and Beck were recruiting athlete first at QB and Tommy has not spent years in this offense. Also, while Lewis was out, they had Travis Henry at RB and Shawn Bryson at FB who both went on to play RB in the NFL. Add to that they had Peerless Price at WR and I just don't think you can compare the two.

Tennessee won a MNC, I am not looking for that level of success. Tennessee had no drop off when they changed QB styles. Over and over I hear that we cannot run the MR offense unless MR has hi players. It seems to me that MR could learn from Fulmer and at least achieve what Bo did.

 

I think Fulmer's success says more about the other players on that team than the QB. It's not like they went from a pro offense with Manning to the triple option with Martin. Perhaps what we should be saying is that the offensive line and defense matter a great deal more than the scheme or QB experience.

[MichiganDad3]

 

 

Riley is a smart guy. If he needs to run the ball to win, he'll run the ball.

Janovich got zero carries in the loss against Iowa. He wasn't so very smart that game.

Still boggles the mind. Last game as a Husker. Heart and soul of the O, had shown the ability to go beast mode and not a touch. In a slug fest of a game....

 

This is truth

[MichiganDad3]

 

 

Tee Martin was recruited and grew up in that system. I'd argue Bo and Beck were recruiting athlete first at QB and Tommy has not spent years in this offense. Also, while Lewis was out, they had Travis Henry at RB and Shawn Bryson at FB who both went on to play RB in the NFL. Add to that they had Peerless Price at WR and I just don't think you can compare the two.

Tennessee won a MNC, I am not looking for that level of success. Tennessee had no drop off when they changed QB styles. Over and over I hear that we cannot run the MR offense unless MR has hi players. It seems to me that MR could learn from Fulmer and at least achieve what Bo did.

 

I think Fulmer's success says more about the other players on that team than the QB. It's not like they went from a pro offense with Manning to the triple option with Martin. Perhaps what we should be saying is that the offensive line and defense matter a great deal more than the scheme or QB experience.

 

I have always believed that the OL and DL are the most important parts of a team. I am still intrigued that Fulmer reduced the number of pass attempts by 44%, and still won a national championship. That is a drastic change to any offense.

[84HuskerLaw]

Tennessee had good teams both seasons but Payton ran into the Huskers and he was gimpy that night which didn't hurt the Huskers' cause.

Fulmer was a good coach but got fired for lack of accomplishments so perhaps one can't overstate his ability. As to who was better (Manning vs Martin?) I would sugges the many years since would answer that. Now, college football is NOT the same as the pros and the fundamental issue many Husker fans have with the West Coast or other 'pro' style offenses is that they don't tend to be as potent as the sandlot style of many college offenses (wishbone, Osbone, veer, fun and gun, etc.). The use of running QBs in the NFL has really expanded in the past decade or so but it is not unheard of. Fran Tarkenton and even to a modest extent Joe Montana and John Elway used their legs now and then to make defenses pay. Scrambling and avoiding the rush are all but critical for a QB. Dan Marino is the most successful "statue" QB but he threw more incompletions than almost any other QB in history as well.

 

I believe Riley would like a great thrower who can buy time and avoid the initial rush and now and then run the ball forward for a few 'extra' yars (beyond the line of scrimmage basically). Anything beyond that would be purely coincidental to Riley really. However, even an old dog can learn a new trick now and then and I think Riley has seen enough of the advantages of a strong running QB that he would affirmatively seek out a great passer with running ability. But one must have depth of 'starting' level QBs which is certainly not the situation in Lincoln (yet). If POB and the next good QB we sign this year) both turn out to be the real deal, one can expect Riley to feel far more comfortable in letting the QB run aggressively, atleast 6 or 8 times a game in the critical games.

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's not like the offense needs an overhaul, or that Tommy is even misused.

 

Tommy can win games with his arm or his legs. He can lose games with his poor decisions. He can hand the ball off to a stable of running backs that are -- to be charitable -- a bit below Nebraska standards. The defense doesn't always hold up its end of the bargain.

 

It's not the offense that's confusing him. The offense isn't that complicated, really. It's not that Tommy can't throw a beautiful and sometimes remarkable pass, because he's done that plenty of times.

 

It's that Tommy so quickly defaults to playground ball. Because sometimes that's what works. But sometimes it's just reckless and ill-advised, and that's what drives coaches crazy.

 

Mike Riley inherited Tommy Armstrong, and correctly figured out that Tommy is Nebraska's best chance to win. That probably won't change this year. But hopefully some adjustments to the game plan will be made, probably building off the UCLA model.

 

Every team runs and passes the ball. When Nebraska was switching out the very different Armstrong and Ron Kellogg III between games, quarters and even series, the offense made the adjustments on the fly. Armstrong appeared to have the better skillset, but neither required a schematic overhaul to make his case. If Patrick O'Brien is a quarterback who can hit more open receivers, and still hand off to his running backs, Nebraska will make that shift in a heartbeat.

 

Mike Riley coached three running backs to 3,500+ career yards at OSU and recruited a fourth, Stevan Jackson. He doesn't hate running the ball. By his own admission he's new to the running quarterback. Nebraska's dilemma of talented but inconsistent dual threat quarterbacks is hardly unique, and OCs around both the NCAA and the NFL are still trying to figure out that formula.

[Waterloohusker26]

 

 

Riley will not change what he does...

Adding the TE reverse after Michigan State ran it against us worked pretty well.

That's putting in one play. It's not a complete overhaul of the offense.

 

 

How many offensive minded head coaches have you seen make a complete overhaul of their offense

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

Riley will not change what he does...

Adding the TE reverse after Michigan State ran it against us worked pretty well.

That's putting in one play. It's not a complete overhaul of the offense.

 

 

How many offensive minded head coaches have you seen make a complete overhaul of their offense

 

I don't know of any actually. That's why any talk of Riley completely changing his offense is crazy-talk.

[GBRFAN]

Why was Fulmer able to transition so easily? In 1998, not only did Tennessee lose Manning, Jamal Lewis (NFL running back) tore the lateral collateral ligament in his right knee in the 5th game. Even in the Orange bowl, Tennessee had a different look when Tee Martin came in the game. I know it was garbage time, but I thought the Husker D was still fighting for a National Championship, and did not want to surrender any garbage time points. I keep hearing how a coach needs to recruit their players, and it takes up to 4 years to implement their system. It seemed to easy for Tennessee to make the transition in 1998.

 

Wonder if the guys on the Tennessee boards know?

[GBRFAN]

any coach whose QB completes 20 of 25 (80%) is going to naturally feel compelled to throw the ball more as it is working great! But typically when teams complete 80% it is because, as in west coast offenses normally, there are many short passes, much like runs which should high percentage completions. IMO.

 

Not all coaches agree that 'balance' of about half run and half pass is the ideal or desired or optimum amoung. I believe a team must be excellent in running and at least good in passing to be successful (defined as winning about 75% or more of their games consistantly). I would expect that statistically speaking, the winningest teams in history have run the ball more than they have passed it, particularly in numbers of plays but more than likely in actual net yardage. Note: sack yards lost should be deducted from passing yards not rushing yards to be a true analysis). IMO

 

I think the balance that most coaches are looking for are total yards being 50/50 not total plays.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

any coach whose QB completes 20 of 25 (80%) is going to naturally feel compelled to throw the ball more as it is working great! But typically when teams complete 80% it is because, as in west coast offenses normally, there are many short passes, much like runs which should high percentage completions. IMO.

 

Not all coaches agree that 'balance' of about half run and half pass is the ideal or desired or optimum amoung. I believe a team must be excellent in running and at least good in passing to be successful (defined as winning about 75% or more of their games consistantly). I would expect that statistically speaking, the winningest teams in history have run the ball more than they have passed it, particularly in numbers of plays but more than likely in actual net yardage. Note: sack yards lost should be deducted from passing yards not rushing yards to be a true analysis). IMO

 

I think the balance that most coaches are looking for are total yards being 50/50 not total plays.

 

Not really. When Riley looks for balance, he's looking for play calling balance. Inherently, a typical pass plays are going to produce more yards than a typical run play, so a team will have to call a lot of run plays, or their running game would have to be awesome to be 50-50 in terms of yardage, and not play calls.

 

Also, I am going to call BS on WCO QB's/teams completing 80% of passes. Wouldn't that be some type of record, and that's certainly not typical.

 

EDIT: Here are the records for career passing percentages in NCAA history. 70% is the tops.

 

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/leaders/pass-cmp-pct-player-career.html

[GBRFAN]

 

 

any coach whose QB completes 20 of 25 (80%) is going to naturally feel compelled to throw the ball more as it is working great! But typically when teams complete 80% it is because, as in west coast offenses normally, there are many short passes, much like runs which should high percentage completions. IMO.

 

Not all coaches agree that 'balance' of about half run and half pass is the ideal or desired or optimum amoung. I believe a team must be excellent in running and at least good in passing to be successful (defined as winning about 75% or more of their games consistantly). I would expect that statistically speaking, the winningest teams in history have run the ball more than they have passed it, particularly in numbers of plays but more than likely in actual net yardage. Note: sack yards lost should be deducted from passing yards not rushing yards to be a true analysis). IMO

 

I think the balance that most coaches are looking for are total yards being 50/50 not total plays.

 

Not really. When Riley looks for balance, he's looking for play calling balance. Inherently, a typical pass plays are going to produce more yards than a typical run play, so a team will have to call a lot of run plays, or their running game would have to be awesome to be 50-50 in terms of yardage, and not play calls.

 

Also, I am going to call BS on WCO QB's/teams completing 80% of passes. Wouldn't that be some type of record, and that's certainly not typical.

 

EDIT: Here are the records for career passing percentages in NCAA history. 70% is the tops.

 

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/leaders/pass-cmp-pct-player-career.html

 

 

You could be right, however I feel on at least a couple occasions Riley mentioned in interviews the yardage stats and said something to the idea that he liked the balance. You are correct that pass plays that are successful typically net more yards then runs, however incomplete passes count as zero. If running stats netted 5.5-6 yards per carry and a teams average pass completion was 15-17 yards (with 60% completion) then the run / pass ratio for play calling wouldn't be that far off about 3 / 2. If a game got 70 offensive plays that would put it at about 43 runs and 27 passes.

[QMany]

He can hand the ball off to a stable of running backs that are -- to be charitable -- a bit below Nebraska standards.

We had 4-5 4* running backs at our disposal last year. The talent wasn't particularly below Nebraska's standards, the men developing them and deciding how and how often to give them the ball were.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

any coach whose QB completes 20 of 25 (80%) is going to naturally feel compelled to throw the ball more as it is working great! But typically when teams complete 80% it is because, as in west coast offenses normally, there are many short passes, much like runs which should high percentage completions. IMO.

 

Not all coaches agree that 'balance' of about half run and half pass is the ideal or desired or optimum amoung. I believe a team must be excellent in running and at least good in passing to be successful (defined as winning about 75% or more of their games consistantly). I would expect that statistically speaking, the winningest teams in history have run the ball more than they have passed it, particularly in numbers of plays but more than likely in actual net yardage. Note: sack yards lost should be deducted from passing yards not rushing yards to be a true analysis). IMO

 

I think the balance that most coaches are looking for are total yards being 50/50 not total plays.

 

Not really. When Riley looks for balance, he's looking for play calling balance. Inherently, a typical pass plays are going to produce more yards than a typical run play, so a team will have to call a lot of run plays, or their running game would have to be awesome to be 50-50 in terms of yardage, and not play calls.

 

Also, I am going to call BS on WCO QB's/teams completing 80% of passes. Wouldn't that be some type of record, and that's certainly not typical.

 

EDIT: Here are the records for career passing percentages in NCAA history. 70% is the tops.

 

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/leaders/pass-cmp-pct-player-career.html

 

If you are suggesting I said WCO teams complete 80% of their passes I most certainly did NOT. So don't "BS" me on that one. I said that when a team does complete that many in a given situation, it will be because they are throwing lots of short passes which are high percentage ones. We've had QBs complete fairly high percentages for their careers but they have thrown a disproportionately large portion of their completions to the short receiver or even RBs. Those pile up the completion stats but often don't pile up the big gains or yardage. You throw enough passes you will add up to yardage but in my view every rushing yard is worth two passing yards in terms of game winning effect. Roughly. Teams who rush for 300 yards a game win a very high percentage of the time while teams that pass for 300 will not win nearly as high a percentage. You need about 500 yards passing to equal 300 rush yards in my view in terms of game winning dominance or effect. The first 100 yards of rushing is certainly double the value of first hundred passing.

[Bowfin]

I will say that a lot of Tommy Armstrong's runs / scrambles sometimes reminds me of a high school kid playing against third graders, as if it is there almost any time he wants it. I know that is not the case, but a lot of times they really do seem effortless.

[The Dude]

One of his better attributes might be snatching bad shotgun snaps out of the air and turning what should be a -15 yard play or turnover into an 8 yard gain. We really need to start getting real Centers on the roster.