Change Scheme or Change QB?

[Count 'Bility]

Tennesse didnt change systems. They just got better at defense and running the football. That allowed them to closely flip the whole two games they lost the year before. Florida and NC game.

[dvdcrr]

Riley is pass first, but not pass only. In the WCO world and in the professional ranks, this is solid thinking. Pass schemes are required to establish leads and the run game comes in more significantly later when you are throwing the finishing punches in the fourth quarter.

 

In the end, I think you'll find that when the pass efficiency numbers improve, the pass attempts will drop and the run numbers will rise to meet them, creating what all coaches say they want, balance.

 

If T.A. could finish 20-of-25 through the air, I think we would run it 30 or so times.

 

As T.A. throws more and more incomplete passes, the attempts naturally rise because the missed throws put us in longer yardage situations, which then dictate more pass attempts.

Kind of like Florida with the fun and gun. That didnt work out so well when they came up against a real football team.

[huskerfan2000]

Don't kid yourself, MR didn't recruit the QB he did so that he can run more with a pass first QB. Patrick is a pro-style QB

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.

 

It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.

 

Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.

 

I'd prefer something like that.

[GBRFAN]

I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.

 

It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.

 

Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.

 

I'd prefer something like that.

 

+1 on this. If the QB can get the other team to not have 9 guys in the box then he has accomplished the first step in setting up the running game. Add in a O-line similar to Stanford and everybody on this board can be happy about our run stats, while still having a passing QB.

[huskerfan2000]

I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.

 

It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.

 

Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.

 

I'd prefer something like that.

 

That would be great.. Watching his Hudl video, he is not the quickest running QB.

[cm husker]

I would hope they'd change the scheme to fit a dynamic, 4 year starter who is a 5th year senior, but on the other hand, Langs and Riley simply don't know that system, even though most successful offensive minds are moving toward those principles. Therefore, I doubt they will shift the system much at all. But based on the schedule, I don't see that decision costing the team more than 1 or 2 regular seasons games, provided this staff gets the level of production out of the defense that should be expected based on the talent on hand.

[BRV920]

The problem blem with your line is f thinking Guy is that for every Andrew Luck there are 30 Harrison Becks. Sure you will be good when you have great QB play and when you don't..... Back to 6-6.

[huskerfan2000]

I would hope they'd change the scheme to fit a dynamic, 4 year starter who is a 5th year senior, but on the other hand, Langs and Riley simply don't know that system, even though most successful offensive minds are moving toward those principles. Therefore, I doubt they will shift the system much at all. But based on the schedule, I don't see that decision costing the team more than 1 or 2 regular seasons games, provided this staff gets the level of production out of the defense that should be expected based on the talent on hand.

 

I almost bet they try every very hard to get Patrick up to speed to play him a bunch.

[cm husker]

 

I would hope they'd change the scheme to fit a dynamic, 4 year starter who is a 5th year senior, but on the other hand, Langs and Riley simply don't know that system, even though most successful offensive minds are moving toward those principles. Therefore, I doubt they will shift the system much at all. But based on the schedule, I don't see that decision costing the team more than 1 or 2 regular seasons games, provided this staff gets the level of production out of the defense that should be expected based on the talent on hand.

I almost bet they try every very hard to get Patrick up to speed to play him a bunch.

 

 

That would seriously disappoint me because it'd basically be a signal to the rest of the team that this is a throw away year, and that's completely inappropriate in college football.

 

I say it's a throw away year because, historically, Riley's first year QBs have struggled mightily. Have a look:

 

 

Year QB TDs INTs Rating Attempts per Game Team Record

1997 Tim Alexander 6 14 90.3 30 3-8

1998 Terrance Bryant 4 3 94.7 34 5-6

1998 Jonathan Smith 6 5 116.4 30 5-6

2003 Derek Anderson 24 24 124.1 39 8-5

2005 Matt Moore 11 19 123.1 36 5-6

2007 Sean Canfield 9 15 106.4 26 9-4

2008 Lyle Moevao 19 13 128.4 33 9-4

2010 Ryan Katz 18 11 127.3 30 8-5

2011 Sean Mannion 16 18 127.1 39 3-9

2012 Cody Vaz 11 3 142.5 26 9-4

2015 Tommy Armstrong 22 16 128.6 34 6-7

Average The 10 QBs excluding Tommy Armstrong 12 13 118 32 6-6

 

 

Notes:

As youll see, Riley has started 11 QBs during his different first year starters during his 15 years as a CFB head coach. A first year starter defined as the first year a player registers at least 150 pass attempts under Riley). Two of his first year starters were a result of the regular starters absence or a position battle (i.e., 1998 and 2012).

 

Tommys number stack up quite favorably against the other first year starters in Rileys system, including some NFL QBs. He ranked at:

• 2nd most TDs
• 3rd best TD to INT ratio. He was 1 of only 6 first years starters to have more TDs than INTs and ahead of at least two NFL draftees.
• 2nd best QB rating. The only one who ranked ahead was a part time one-year starter (see below), though several were in the same proximity.
• He also posted a 6-6 record, which would be average among the first year starters, even though his whole team was new to the system. In similar situations of 1998 and 2003, first year starters went 11-13

This despite being asked to sling the ball as much or more than QBs recruited to Rileys type of system.

 

Oddly, the best performer (by rating) was first year starter was Cody Vaz, who was a fourth year JR when he played 7 games, 3 of which were OOC, due to Mannions absence during 6 of them and a blow out against Nichols St. He never started again.

 

Derek Anderson didnt improve his rating during his two years under Riley, throwing for 29 TDs against 17 interceptions in his second (and last) year under Riley. I found that surprising.

 

So, clearly, first year starters at QB have not fared well under Riley and his offensive staff, and Tommy Armstrong didnt perform as badly as some claim (as though he didnt buy-in or was just flinging it around way outside the scope of how other Riley QBs have).

 

On the other hand, Riley has not hesitated to replace an incumbent upperclassmen with a new first year starter, including freshmen. Its entirely possible hell throw POB in there, but if he does, that should be seen as a very bad sign for this season. Taking out the oddity of Vaz starting for an absent Mannion during 3 of 9 wins, only two of Rileys first year QBs have posted better than a 8-5 record, and none posted better than 9-4.

[cm husker]

p.s. can someone send me instructions on how to C&P or create a table?

[AR Husker Fan]

Afraid it can't be done. Or, at least, we've never found a way when asked before.

[cm husker]

 

I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.

 

It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.

 

Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.

 

I'd prefer something like that.

 

+1 on this. If the QB can get the other team to not have 9 guys in the box then he has accomplished the first step in setting up the running game. Add in a O-line similar to Stanford and everybody on this board can be happy about our run stats, while still having a passing QB.

 

 

Interestingly, only 2 OLmen who started while Luck was there were drafted and only one of them is still in the NFL. No other OL starters from those Stanford OLs were drafted (three underclassmen who played part time while Luck was there did get drafted and are still in the NFL).

 

Perhaps it's more about the system there than the athletes at OL.

 

Also, why are we aspiring to be Stanford offensively? They had great run of offensive success with Luck, finishing top 11 in offensive scoring each season he played. Since Luck left, they've been in the 70s, 50s, and 18th in offensive scoring.

 

Hardly numbers to aspire to, imo.

 

Maybe the key is to recruit a once in a generation QB....

[NUance]

p.s. can someone send me instructions on how to C&P or create a table?

 

Afraid it can't be done. Or, at least, we've never found a way when asked before.

 

Yeah, like AR said: It can't be done in an HB post. But you could make a google docs speadsheet with a link to it. Like Mav made for the March Madness contest results: LINK Not sure if that'd work for your purposes or not.

[Red_October]

Riley will not change what he does...

Hide and watch....he left OSU to do exactly that.