Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

I think everyone should stop talking about recruiting, Frank, Bo, Bill, etc.. since they aren't relevant to the topic. Instead, spend 30-45 minutes of your time listening to this podcast. It's much more informational than anything opinions in this thread, and a better use of time than reliving the Frank Solich Saga®.

 

I would highly suggest that anyone remotely interested in this topic listen to last week's OWH Pick Six podcast.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/pick-six-podcast-nu-s-identity-on-offense-armstrong-s/article_ae9e16a4-0678-11e6-8b05-9fca310911ca.html

 

Sam and Jon had a very interesting discussion about this very thing.

Surprise... Surprise...

 

The discussion on those podcasts obviously agrees 100% with what CM HUSKER has been saying throughout this entire thread.

 

I know the fairy tale fans don't like the truth being told so they will probably choke if they watch those videos (they wont because they have contempt for the truth and reality) but there is a whole lot of truth and reality being spoken in those videos.

 

The first video is pretty much nonstop criticism of the coaching staff, our lack of identity on offense and defense and a boatload of criticism of players and assistant coaches. The second video is pretty much more of the same.

 

Of course the fairy tale fans want anyone who speaks the truth or who says those things here... banned.

 

If the people who tell the truth and are informed... are all banned... then what's left will be a bunch of deluded fairy tale fans living in a make believe world... speaking nonsense to each other.

 

There is nothing more infantile than a bunch of selfish babies screaming for anyone who says something they don't like to be banned. What a bunch of bs.

I disagree. Sam and Jon's discussion is much more nuanced than simply bashing the staff. They realize that there's a lot more "grey area" involved than what people want to believe.

 

I hope this can turn into a discussion about how sports writers aren't allowed to be critical because "they never played football at a high level!!!!"

[Redux]

I think everyone who is concerned about the offensive identity is drawing A LOT of conclusions from a small sample size.

[Pedro Guerrero]

I have never seen "fairy tale fan" before. What is the correct definition of one?

[girlknowsfootball]

With all due respect. There's a lot of ppl on this board who never made it past high school football or never saw the field in college who think they know "issues" with scheme or philosophy in coaching. I think when we look at our coaches we need to look at the experts and their thoughts. I hear guys like Keyshawn Johnson say Mike Riley was one of the best coaches he ever had. He says out problem right now is we were running an offense designed for a dual threat QB based on a lot of zone read and QB run. We fired that staff and hired a staff that runs a pro style west coast offense designed for a drop back passer and multiple TE/WR sets. The philosophy is almost a 180 to what most of our upperclassmen players were taught and were recruited to play. For many of our players they had 2-3 years of terminology/technique/philosophy taught and now they are being told to do it in all ways they were taught against in the previous system. I met a couple of former NFL DB's at an event last fall. They had played on Nebraska's championship teams in the 90's Booker and Groce. They both said Nebraska would have a rough year defensively their first year with Banker. They explained to me that going from Pelini's D to Banker's D was so opposite, it would take a lot of time and repetition for those players to make the switch. They also spoke to the difference in skill sets recruited for the two different defenses, many times the recruits are built differently and the same types of players aren't even recruited. They talked about how the NFL has teams in each philosophy but how you will see NFL teams look to draft guys that "fit their system" and how college is the same. Keyshawn spoke in a recent interview about how Mike Riley needs some recruiting cycles to find and bring in his guys. It's not fair to judge these coaches on how they do with these kids they didn't even bring in, and for the ones they do bring in, you can't expect 18yr olds to immediately contribute on the field. Very few do. Give them a couple of years to develop.

I listen to the professionals out there talk about Mike... Les Miles thinks he would be a good coach for his son. Keyshawn wants his son playing for Mike and the D coaches. Evidently the NFL thought guys like Langs were good enough to hire him for a coveted NFL position with an MVP and Super Bowl winning QB and they were pretty upset when he left.

Everyone has all these opinions about we can only have success "if"... But let's not put these conditional statements on coaches who have barely had one recruiting class they recruited and signed to work with. Let's not say Langs philosophy is bad when he inherited a running QB with bad footwork and decision making. Let's not say he is a bad coach because he doesn't create a Tommy designed system. It's not fair. Nor is it realistic.

And you can't judge their abilities as coaches based on what they did with a bad NFL team or their years at Oregon State. I guarantee you if Nick Saban were dropped into Iowa State he couldn't win more than 6-7 games a year. They don't have the resources/facilities/population/talent for him to do better. A coach is often times as good as his surroundings are. So let's stop trying to diagnose coaching issues. I'm really tired of all these people thinking they know what we need to do to fix everything.

[Red Dead Redemption]

I think everyone who is concerned about the offensive identity is drawing A LOT of conclusions from a small sample size.

 

Is Riley's 30+ years coaching experience considered small? A leopard rarely changes its spots.

[knapplc]

So let's stop trying to diagnose coaching issues. I'm really tired of all these people thinking they know what we need to do to fix everything.

Isn't that what a message board is for? We're not coaches, we're not on the staff, most of us have never played or coached at this level, but we all watch the games and have an opinion.

 

I mean, if we only allow people with bona fide credentials to talk on this board, Roxy will be the only person posting and it'll become a recipe forum.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

I think everyone who is concerned about the offensive identity is drawing A LOT of conclusions from a small sample size.

 

Is Riley's 30+ years coaching experience considered small? A leopard rarely changes its spots.

 

Personally, I'm more leery of Riley's assistant coaches who have been with him for years (Banker, Read, Cavanaugh). They are the ones who seem really content on being "stuck in their ways". I am impressed by the younger coaches on the staff though.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

Speaking of sycophants, none of the Langs disciples have even tried to address the topic at hand.

 

Quite telling.

two questions..

 

1) Do you believe Nebraska can only win with Tom system of the 90's?

2) Do you believe that Nebraska had the success it did because TO was a great coach, and made changes when needed, or do you believe it was the base system of running the ball?

 

Personally, I believe it was more TO than the system he ran, though I 100% believe we need to run the ball. If I am not mistaken TO said he likes aspects of the spread offense.

 

I think the combination of the two could be successful at NU!

To answer (1), no, I don't think we can or should replicate his system from the 90s, though I do think it would work today. More than anything, I think NU needs to employ a "heavy" rather than "balanced" system that utilizes a playmaker, rather than game manager, at the QB position. I prefer run heavy for a number of reasons, but if people want to go pass heavy, I wouldn't be against it. I'd look at a lot of coaches who've achieved offensive success with less than ideal recruiting (e.g., Briles, leech, some of the guys at service academies, guys at Oregon early on in their success, even TO for many of his years).

 

I'm of the basic opinion that year in and year out, NU will be between 20 and 30 in terms of recruiting, with some bounces up and falls down occasionally based on circumstance (eg, bad year of local talent or excitement of a new system ala '05).

 

Therefore, NU needs to be asymmetrical in its strategies. It can't hope to have much consistent success going toe to toe with the USCs and Alabama's of the world. I don't even think they can do that going up against the michigans and Michigan states of the world.

 

I also like the idea of a "chunk play" offense that cuts down on reads and uses players interchangeably rather than fundamentally changes based on the players' ability. That's why I like the option as a component of offense and the way it cleans up reads for guys in the passing game by forcing a man out of coverage.

 

(2) Nebraska had the success we did for a number of reasons, but mainly because we had a great coach. In my opinion, the best to ever coach because of what he accomplished in Nebraska. I think any coach who comes here should borrow heavily from his blueprint. I'm sure there are 50 ways to skin a cat, but there aren't that many ways to grind out championships in Lincoln, so why reinvent the wheel.

 

All of that said, with NU positioned the way it is, Riley can run his system and win 9-10 games a year, I think. And if he does that, we shouldn't fire him. I just don't see NU recruiting consistently well enough to win championships with that system, though I do think we can win with that same talent using a more creative system.

 

 

That's a pretty good post, CM.

[huskerfan2000]

With all due respect. There's a lot of ppl on this board who never made it past high school football or never saw the field in college who think they know "issues" with scheme or philosophy in coaching. I think when we look at our coaches we need to look at the experts and their thoughts. I hear guys like Keyshawn Johnson say Mike Riley was one of the best coaches he ever had. He says out problem right now is we were running an offense designed for a dual threat QB based on a lot of zone read and QB run. We fired that staff and hired a staff that runs a pro style west coast offense designed for a drop back passer and multiple TE/WR sets. The philosophy is almost a 180 to what most of our upperclassmen players were taught and were recruited to play. For many of our players they had 2-3 years of terminology/technique/philosophy taught and now they are being told to do it in all ways they were taught against in the previous system. I met a couple of former NFL DB's at an event last fall. They had played on Nebraska's championship teams in the 90's Booker and Groce. They both said Nebraska would have a rough year defensively their first year with Banker. They explained to me that going from Pelini's D to Banker's D was so opposite, it would take a lot of time and repetition for those players to make the switch. They also spoke to the difference in skill sets recruited for the two different defenses, many times the recruits are built differently and the same types of players aren't even recruited. They talked about how the NFL has teams in each philosophy but how you will see NFL teams look to draft guys that "fit their system" and how college is the same. Keyshawn spoke in a recent interview about how Mike Riley needs some recruiting cycles to find and bring in his guys. It's not fair to judge these coaches on how they do with these kids they didn't even bring in, and for the ones they do bring in, you can't expect 18yr olds to immediately contribute on the field. Very few do. Give them a couple of years to develop.

I listen to the professionals out there talk about Mike... Les Miles thinks he would be a good coach for his son. Keyshawn wants his son playing for Mike and the D coaches. Evidently the NFL thought guys like Langs were good enough to hire him for a coveted NFL position with an MVP and Super Bowl winning QB and they were pretty upset when he left.

Everyone has all these opinions about we can only have success "if"... But let's not put these conditional statements on coaches who have barely had one recruiting class they recruited and signed to work with. Let's not say Langs philosophy is bad when he inherited a running QB with bad footwork and decision making. Let's not say he is a bad coach because he doesn't create a Tommy designed system. It's not fair. Nor is it realistic.

And you can't judge their abilities as coaches based on what they did with a bad NFL team or their years at Oregon State. I guarantee you if Nick Saban were dropped into Iowa State he couldn't win more than 6-7 games a year. They don't have the resources/facilities/population/talent for him to do better. A coach is often times as good as his surroundings are. So let's stop trying to diagnose coaching issues. I'm really tired of all these people thinking they know what we need to do to fix everything.

 

I guess girl doesn't know football. There are coaches out there that have done a good job that never played a down of football before.. by the way did you play football?

[cm husker]

Girlknowsfootball,

 

I agree with much of what is touched on in your post. Systems, and the personnel for those systems, are quite different from team to team.

 

That's why I've always said the approach to creating a system anywhere, but especially at Nebraska, is to look at your pool of regularly signable recruits and then pick and refine the system that can be successful when populated with said recruits.

 

Another factor when choosing is what is most easily learnable at the college level. And what gets (or more likely keeps) the ball in your best playmaker's hands.

 

That's why I veer in favor of a run heavy, mobile QB based system, even though I acknowledge that a true WCO or pro style passing attack may be superior when operated by pros.

 

But the point is, as all of the people you quoted state, not just anyone can run any system successfully so we have to ask ourselves what system works with our typical recruits. I think the formerly average to awful football schools that have resurrected (or been born for the first time) have had more success simplifying scheme and going "heavy" than have those that try to install an Alabama or USC model. For example, PSU is trying the latter now, and even with their highly touted classes, they've had at best only moderate success.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think people often overlook that Nebraska's offense was occasionally prolific and statistically comparable to other teams in the Big 10 who we never accuse of lacking "identity."

 

We don't really talk much about systems and identity with more successful teams, but they often run comparable plays and schemes and simply do it better. They also have better defenses. Teams forced to play from behind tend to pass more and lose more.

 

You can say the offense didn't play to Tommy Armstrong's strengths, but Tommy Armstrong led the Big 10 in Total Offense by a country mile.

 

But Nebraska was still a turnover machine, with a break-but-don't-bend defense that couldn't pick up the turnover slack. and a genuinely vexing quarterback displaying the same skills and liabilities he did under a different coaching staff.

 

Also, it was a weird season from the get-go.

 

That's why I'm remaining pretty open-minded for this season.

 

Can you imagine if we ran 60/40 run/pass splits featuring a Heisman caliber running back and dual threat quarterback calling his own zone read options?

 

We'd be back to the Tim Beck/Shawn Watson offenses that everyone accused of lacking identity.

[cm husker]

"Saban would be 6-7 if dropped into ISU."

 

I agree. But are you trying to imply that NU and our 2015 roster is ISU-esque?

[Redux]

I would say Riley's tenure at Oregon State is more a testament to his coaching style than it is a sample of what his goals are towards building a system. At OSU he had to work with what he could get, if a highly ranked or talented gem came in he could build an offense around them.

 

Here, he can sell a program and get several of those kinds of players to build the system he never could in Corvallis. He has only been here 1 year. All this worry over not sticking to an identity is probably moot after this year.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Girlknowsfootball,

 

I agree with much of what is touched on in your post. Systems, and the personnel for those systems, are quite different from team to team.

 

That's why I've always said the approach to creating a system anywhere, but especially at Nebraska, is to look at your pool of regularly signable recruits and then pick and refine the system that can be successful when populated with said recruits.

 

Another factor when choosing is what is most easily learnable at the college level. And what gets (or more likely keeps) the ball in your best playmaker's hands.

 

That's why I veer in favor of a run heavy, mobile QB based system, even though I acknowledge that a true WCO or pro style passing attack may be superior when operated by pros.

 

But the point is, as all of the people you quoted state, not just anyone can run any system successfully so we have to ask ourselves what system works with our typical recruits. I think the formerly average to awful football schools that have resurrected (or been born for the first time) have had more success simplifying scheme and going "heavy" than have those that try to install an Alabama or USC model. For example, PSU is trying the latter now, and even with their highly touted classes, they've had at best only moderate success.

 

And I still gotta question this "especially at Nebraska" theme. We may have to work a little harder than schools in recruiting hotbeds, but there isn't anything we can't do simply because we're in Nebraska.

 

And since many successful college teams operate WCO or pro style passing elements while simultaneously maintaing robust run games, it is clearly learnable at the college level (high school, too), so again you're suggesting Nebraska is not desirable enough or smart enough to do what our college football competitors are doing, including those with similar geographies and less-stellar histories.

 

Thing is, EVERY college football team would love to run the ball more than it passes. Pro teams, too, if they can get away with it. But as stated many times here, it's not as simple when you declare you intention and limit your options.

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

 

I think everyone should stop talking about recruiting, Frank, Bo, Bill, etc.. since they aren't relevant to the topic. Instead, spend 30-45 minutes of your time listening to this podcast. It's much more informational than anything opinions in this thread, and a better use of time than reliving the Frank Solich Saga®.

 

I would highly suggest that anyone remotely interested in this topic listen to last week's OWH Pick Six podcast.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/pick-six-podcast-nu-s-identity-on-offense-armstrong-s/article_ae9e16a4-0678-11e6-8b05-9fca310911ca.html

 

Sam and Jon had a very interesting discussion about this very thing.

Surprise... Surprise...

 

The discussion on those podcasts obviously agrees 100% with what CM HUSKER has been saying throughout this entire thread.

 

I know the fairy tale fans don't like the truth being told so they will probably choke if they watch those videos (they wont because they have contempt for the truth and reality) but there is a whole lot of truth and reality being spoken in those videos.

 

The first video is pretty much nonstop criticism of the coaching staff, our lack of identity on offense and defense and a boatload of criticism of players and assistant coaches. The second video is pretty much more of the same.

 

Of course the fairy tale fans want anyone who speaks the truth or who says those things here... banned.

 

If the people who tell the truth and are informed... are all banned... then what's left will be a bunch of deluded fairy tale fans living in a make believe world... speaking nonsense to each other.

 

There is nothing more infantile than a bunch of selfish babies screaming for anyone who says something they don't like to be banned. What a bunch of bs.

I disagree. Sam and Jon's discussion is much more nuanced than simply bashing the staff. They realize that there's a lot more "grey area" involved than what people want to believe.

 

 

Saunders45... thanks for posting the link to those videos. The comments I'm about to make are not directed at you.

 

There was nothing subtle about those videos.

 

In the second video Sam says that some prominent players needed to be... and I paraphrase.... "kicked in the seat of the pants, and then kicked in the seat of the pants over and over"...

 

I will go one step further. Because the coaches did not kick them in the seat of the pants... then the coaches should have been kicked in the seat of the pants because they were not doing there job any more than the players. And in fact the entire athletic department needs to be kicked in the seat of the pants.

 

And if someone here had made those comments... the entire fairy tale hoard here would have been up in arms and wanting that person banned for saying such "negative" things.

 

This whole baby game of trying to get members banned because they have told some truth the babies don't like, is totally out of control.