Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

[The Dude]

Modular means you look to create mismatches based on personnel groupings, so you have different "packages" week to week or season to season to exploit the mismatches that you identify during your game planning.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say you use motion and formation to construct mismatches. I think you're unnecessarily hung up on the packages thing.

 

Just say formations instead of packages and it sounds less daunting. College football players can learn formations.

 

 

 

"our X receiver can beat their Y db, so we will install this package for him to get involved"

 

Or more accurately, "Our X receiver can beat their Y db, so we will shift our guy pre-snap to get him matched up with their guy."

[cm husker]

 

Modular means you look to create mismatches based on personnel groupings, so you have different "packages" week to week or season to season to exploit the mismatches that you identify during your game planning.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say you use motion and formation to construct mismatches. I think you're unnecessarily hung up on the packages thing.

 

Just say formations instead of packages and it sounds less daunting. College football players can learn formations.

 

 

That would be one way of framing it, and NU under TO used myriad formations to run essentially the same catalog of plays.

But as it was described to Benning and has been described by Langs in other interviews and descriptions of his offense, he looks to install packages of plays for individual players or to be installed against individual opponents. That is truly the traditional "package" approach that is quite prevalent in the WCO system.

 

But I do agree that motion and formations are an important part of what they are trying to do, too.

 

Again, I go back to a central concern I have about this offense, and is that a player can make a playbook-correct read, but still be "wrong" on the play.

 

I think that's a problem in any passing situation, so when your system is "pass first," your increasing the chances of having problems as a % of plays during a game.

[cm husker]

 

Modular means you look to create mismatches based on personnel groupings, so you have different "packages" week to week or season to season to exploit the mismatches that you identify during your game planning.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say you use motion and formation to construct mismatches. I think you're unnecessarily hung up on the packages thing.

 

Just say formations instead of packages and it sounds less daunting. College football players can learn formations.

 

 

 

"our X receiver can beat their Y db, so we will install this package for him to get involved"

Or more accurately, "Our X receiver can beat their Y db, so we will shift our guy pre-snap to get him matched up with their guy."

 

 

Taking advantage of those match ups is really really hard, even when they are "obvious."

Look back at some of Urban Meyer's quotes about why he changed his system from a WCO/pro-style attack while he was a coordinator because he recognized how hard it can be to get the ball to your best athletes in that sort of system.

[The Dude]

That is truly the traditional "package" approach that is quite prevalent in the WCO system.

 

Kind of semantics at this point, but I would recommend reading up on the differences between Norv Turner's version of the Coryell offense and the West Coast offense.

 

 

I think you'd be surprised to learn the WCO is very system-based in the way you describe system-based offenses.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The WCO is about distributing safe, simple passes across the horizontal middle of the field in order to open up vertical lanes for both the passing and running game.

 

If the running game is working, the WCO is happy to exploit it. If you can get a quick 6 yard pass, it's good as a 6 yard run. It's really not that complicated. The WCO sends a lot of running back out on screens and middle routes, and loves using tight ends and fullbacks. It's good football.

 

Bill Walsh developed it for a quarterback who wasn't particularly strong-armed, giving him passes he could complete easier. Walsh was actually trying to limit the kind of long bombs his predecessors at the Chargers and Raiders relied on.

 

Virtually every team uses elements of the WCO, even if few people call it that anymore. A team with a pro-set quarterback flinging deep balls is no more WCO than a team with a dual threat quarterback who spreads the field with safe passes and multiple weapons.

 

 

There is nothing difficult in ANY system about getting the ball in your best athletes' hands. Your can call those plays whenever you want. So you'll have to refresh me on Urban's quote. If he's talking about how nice it is to have a quarterback who can run the ball, he'll get no argument from anybody. As long as that same guy can throw a decent pass.

[cm husker]

When I read that, Guy, I'm left thinking: you're arguing that the WCO is simultaneously every offense and no offense. And by extension than you're basically saying all offenses, other than maybe Navy's, are essentially the same. Of course that's not true.

 

I agree that a traditional WCO is about horizontal "safe" passes, but the one thread across all WCO is a "pass first" mentality. We see that all of the time. We even hear it out of a coaches mouth.

 

Whether we call it a banana offense or a WCO, I don't think that principle lends itself to success. Is it impossible? No. And when we see it reined in, like Kiffen jokes about Saban reining him in, then it can be a passable offensive system. But it's not particularly dynamic. And it's success is heavily dependent on your jimmies and joes being better than the other guy's.

 

I go back to asking, why, if TO could run any offense in the world (which he could), did he choose the one he did? Why did he tell so many, including Bill Walsh, to pound sand when they claimed the game passed him by?

 

I have to think that's a pretty strong endorsement of what works best at the college level and in Nebraska. Because to me, TO is greatest, most accomplished offensive mind that CFB has seen. Other guys have been interesting and innovative, but none more consistently successful.

 

Anyway, we'll never agree on this and that's fine. I couldn't find the original, detailed article about Meyer, but here is where he talks about his offensive epiphany. He was specifically talking about his inability to get touches for his best offensive player, who happen to be a WR:

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2567319-the-evolution-of-urban-meyers-most-important-position

[Guy Chamberlin]

I go back to asking, why, if TO could run any offense in the world (which he could), did he choose the one he did? Why did he tell so many, including Bill Walsh, to pound sand when they claimed the game passed him by?

 

That anecdote is news to me. Bill Walsh managed to win a couple Super Bowls by creatively utilizing running backs from Nebraska.

 

I have to think that's a pretty strong endorsement of what works best at the college level and in Nebraska.

 

That Tom's Power Option is rarely replicated these days would strongly suggest otherwise, and indeed many other systems have enjoyed great success. Tom tried different approaches himself at Nebraska. It finally came together 20 years into his career when he amassed the right Jimmies and Joes, including recruiting game-changers from California, Florida and New Jersey. We might not even be talking about Tom Osborne's offense if we didn't also have Tom Osborne's defense. They really did work hand in hand. It was part of the culture, which might be as important as scheme.

 

Because to me, TO is greatest, most accomplished offensive mind that CFB has seen. Other guys have been interesting and innovative, but none more consistently successful.

 

Tom Osborne was an offensive innovator and a great coach, no argument. But the game moves on, taking pieces from Osborne and adding others. You are very close to saying there is only one possible road to success for Nebraska here, and it's based more on nostalgia than sense. (fwiw...everyone hopes Nebraska runs the ball more next season, but it won't require a system overhaul)

 

Anyway, we'll never agree on this and that's fine. I couldn't find the original, detailed article about Meyer, but here is where he talks about his offensive epiphany. He was specifically talking about his inability to get touches for his best offensive player, who happen to be a WR:

 

I'm not a coach by profession, but I would recommend either passing the ball to the WR, or handing it off to him.

[The Dude]

I agree that a traditional WCO is about horizontal "safe" passes, but the one thread across all WCO is a "pass first" mentality.

Sure, but not all pass-first offenses are WCOs. To be clear, Mike Riley's offense is based more on Air Coryell principles than West Coast principles.

 

http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com/2009/08/difference-between-west-coast-and-air.html

[cm husker]

Neither of those descriptions sound appealing to me for Nebraska.

[The Dude]

I'm not a particularly big fan of either in their purest forms. What I do like about Norv Turner and Mike Riley's version is they're more balanced with a power running game.

 

Turner's offense in Dallas was my favorite offense of all time. One of the most difficult to defend in the history of the game.

 

So I have no problems if Riley plans on doing something similar here. Especially when I notice him offering a scholarship to a fullback.

 

But as Guy pointed out, if you don't have the defense to go along with it, you don't have to concern yourself with winning championships, regardless of what you're doing on offense.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm pretty concerned about our defensive line this year.

 

You can't ask an offense to be patient if the defense doesn't return the favor.

[cm husker]

You can take pressure off the D by controlling the ball, though (however, I'm not a huge believer in the importance of TOP generally).

[Guy Chamberlin]

You can take pressure off the D by controlling the ball, though (however, I'm not a huge believer in the importance of TOP generally).

 

Sure. To a degree.

 

It's still about execution, offensive lines and a touch of unpredictability. You can get plenty of three and outs by pounding the rock, too. Ball control is about first downs. And, you know, not losing the ball.

 

I just think that on balance, the problems with Nebraska football the past five years have leaned more heavily on the defense, although offense gets the brunt of the internet debate.

 

Actually, it's more about execution and mentality in all phases of the game.

[Saunders]

The single biggest thing holding NU back is turnover margin. Before last season, there was a graph I saw that showed the top 25 teams (based on win %) over a 4-5 period. Nebraska was the only team with a negative turnover margin.

 

NU needs to hold on to the ball, and force turnovers, to take the next step.

[Enhance]

The single biggest thing holding NU back is turnover margin. Before last season, there was a graph I saw that showed the top 25 teams (based on win %) over a 4-5 period. Nebraska was the only team with a negative turnover margin.

 

NU needs to hold on to the ball, and force turnovers, to take the next step.

That and line play, on both sides of the ball. The two things that separate the good from the great, imo, are 1) turnovers and 2) line play.