Tommy A. - And various other Husker QBs

[cm husker]

I'm going to guess that -- at best -- Tom Osborne opined that Eric Crouch would also have been a talented wide receiver.

 

As I recall, Newcombe was a surprisingly decent passer, and a surprisingly ineffective runner. His speed and shiftiness never translated into the decision making required of an option QB.

He also suffered a pretty impactful knee injury, iirc. He ran a slow 40 as result at the combine.

 

Of course it didn't help either QB to be running behind an inexperienced line, which was an area that actually did fall back as Tenipor and Young aged and the pipeline of local NE elite linemen ran a bit dry.

[cm husker]

 

 

Did Tom Osborne really say that Bobby Newcombe should have stayed at QB?

 

I thought Newcombe was given a fair shot at the position, but it never quite clicked.

If Newcombe would have stayed at QB, it would have denied Frank the opportunity to repeatedly call wing-bone option plays into the short side of the field with Lance Brown as the option man instead of calling it to the wide side of the filed where we could have had Crouch and Newcombe running the option.

Wait... What?

[huskerfan2000]

 

I'm going to guess that -- at best -- Tom Osborne opined that Eric Crouch would also have been a talented wide receiver.

 

As I recall, Newcombe was a surprisingly decent passer, and a surprisingly ineffective runner. His speed and shiftiness never translated into the decision making required of an option QB.

He also suffered a pretty impactful knee injury, iirc. He ran a slow 40 as result at the combine.

 

Of course it didn't help either QB to be running behind an inexperienced line, which was an area that actually did fall back as Tenipor and Young aged and the pipeline of local NE elite linemen ran a bit dry.

 

 

When Newcombe first got here he was electric, but after the injury he never ran the same.

[Mavric]

 

 

Did Tom Osborne really say that Bobby Newcombe should have stayed at QB?

 

I thought Newcombe was given a fair shot at the position, but it never quite clicked.

If Newcombe would have stayed at QB, it would have denied Frank the opportunity to repeatedly call wing-bone option plays into the short side of the field with Lance Brown as the option man instead of calling it to the wide side of the filed where we could have had Crouch and Newcombe running the option.

Wait... What?

 

Um .... that was a pretty straight-forward post. Self-explanatory.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

Did Tom Osborne really say that Bobby Newcombe should have stayed at QB?

 

I thought Newcombe was given a fair shot at the position, but it never quite clicked.

If Newcombe would have stayed at QB, it would have denied Frank the opportunity to repeatedly call wing-bone option plays into the short side of the field with Lance Brown as the option man instead of calling it to the wide side of the filed where we could have had Crouch and Newcombe running the option.

Wait... What?

Um .... that was a pretty straight-forward post. Self-explanatory.

Ok, just confused because didn't Lance have more carries as a junior on the '97 championship team than he did as a senior in '98?

 

So it seems like an illegitimate criticism of Solich's play calling, if that's what was intended.

 

For the record, he had 2 carries in '97 for 12 yards. And one carry in '98 for 13.

 

Oh, and as you know, an option's direction is based on defensive alignment and angles, not which side of the field is wide or short.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

Did Tom Osborne really say that Bobby Newcombe should have stayed at QB?

 

I thought Newcombe was given a fair shot at the position, but it never quite clicked.

If Newcombe would have stayed at QB, it would have denied Frank the opportunity to repeatedly call wing-bone option plays into the short side of the field with Lance Brown as the option man instead of calling it to the wide side of the filed where we could have had Crouch and Newcombe running the option.

Wait... What?

Um .... that was a pretty straight-forward post. Self-explanatory.

Ok, just confused because didn't Lance have more carries as a junior on the '97 championship team than he did as a senior in '98?

 

So it seems like an illegitimate criticism of Solich's play calling, if that's what was intended.

 

For the record, he had 2 carries in '97 for 12 yards. And one carry in '98 for 13.

 

Oh, and as you know, an option's direction is based on defensive alignment and angles, not which side of the field is wide or short.

 

 

For Lance to get many carries on that play, Crouch would actually have to have pitched him the ball.

 

I sat in the stands and watched the games. I could literally call what play we were going to run about 40% of the time simply based on the formation we lined up in. I know what happened. We ran the play to Lance's side a lot. We rarely ran it to Newcombe. And it was pretty often to the short side of the field. Out of a formation that didn't have a strong or weak side.

[cm husker]

The defense always has a strong or weak side. That's what dictates the direction of many option play, which is why counter scheme is an important component.

 

Is your contention also that Crouch ignored his reads and refused to pitch to Lance?

 

I don't want to get into a debate about Solich's play calling but like many of our OC's, we criticize too much and he was especially held to an unfair standard as an HC. People forget that TO wasn't regarded as a brilliant play caller by many until his 90s run. Crazy, I know, especially because of his work for Devaney. But people wanted him to give up play calling and change the offense too.

[cm husker]

And, just to put a point on how sometimes we misremember things, Lance apparently only played in 6 games that 1998 season.

 

And Newcombe was still playing QB that year.

[Mavric]

The defense may have a strong or weak side but that doesn't have to dictate the direction of the option play. Against an offensive set that is balanced, they defense can be balanced as well such that there isn't an advantage to running one side or the other - other than you would have a lot more room to run to the wide side of the field. It's just another instance of Frank showing he didn't really understand play-calling strategy. Just like when he was asked about why he was running the fullback so much. His response was that you had to run the fullback to keep the defense from cheating out against the option. But for years we did the exact opposite. We'd run the option all game until the defense forgot about the fullback and in the fourth quarter the fullback could run wild, such as in the 1995 Orange Bowl.

 

Crouch wouldn't have to be ignoring his reads. That would be a great thing for you to speculate about to avoid blaming Frank for anything. But he could have just been that much better that we had a better chance of making yards with him keeping the ball instead of pitching it.

 

I probably don't remember the player correctly. Doesn't appear that it was Lance Brown. But the formation and situation are accurate. We ran that play a lot and it rarely went Newcombe's way. Crouch kept it a lot but Newcombe only had about three carries a game as a junior and less than one as a senior. Running Crouch and Newcome on that option play would have been a heck of a combination but we almost never did that.

[Savage Husker]

To throw my 2¢ in about the Crouch era...I lived in WA and only got to see a handful of televised games, plus not many games were televised back then, but every game felt like "Crouch to the left!" or "Crouch to the right!" or "Crouch up the middle!" The team became so one-dimensional it was frustrating to watch. He was dynamic, but I think it also took away from the team as a whole.

[cm husker]

The defense may have a strong or weak side but that doesn't have to dictate the direction of the option play. Against an offensive set that is balanced, they defense can be balanced as well such that there isn't an advantage to running one side or the other - other than you would have a lot more room to run to the wide side of the field. It's just another instance of Frank showing he didn't really understand play-calling strategy. Just like when he was asked about why he was running the fullback so much. His response was that you had to run the fullback to keep the defense from cheating out against the option. But for years we did the exact opposite. We'd run the option all game until the defense forgot about the fullback and in the fourth quarter the fullback could run wild, such as in the 1995 Orange Bowl.

 

Crouch wouldn't have to be ignoring his reads. That would be a great thing for you to speculate about to avoid blaming Frank for anything. But he could have just been that much better that we had a better chance of making yards with him keeping the ball instead of pitching it.

 

I probably don't remember the player correctly. Doesn't appear that it was Lance Brown. But the formation and situation are accurate. We ran that play a lot and it rarely went Newcombe's way. Crouch kept it a lot but Newcombe only had about three carries a game as a junior and less than one as a senior. Running Crouch and Newcome on that option play would have been a heck of a combination but we almost never did that.

 

 

Just focusing on the bolded for a second, with 11 players, there's almost always a strong or weak side to a D, unless they are perfectly stacked and that would be unusual. Almost always there's strong/weak defensive alignment... e.g. a 2i and a 3 Tech, which leads to an unbalanced back 7.

 

But yes, you can run an option to either side; the thing is, as an offense, you have a numbers advantage to one side. By running to that side, you give your combo block an angle advantage and, in the option game, you make it, in theory a situation where everyone is blocked and either your QB or your RB will be running free.

 

Anyway, Osborne was oft criticized for the same "poor play calling." Here are some links discussing it:

 

http://journalstar.com/sports/football/college/husker-obsession-emotions-about-short-side-option-are-close-call/article_90215cfa-0e5e-56de-a0a3-dc37b70be200.html

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ikyie5548-0C&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=tom+osborne+short+side+option&source=bl&ots=UT8ULFzYLh&sig=6BH1FiCHFdyGtYOVXNAwNbgNb8o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjskM3_nJbNAhUL7mMKHXUpDTIQ6AEIVDAL#v=onepage&q=tom%20osborne%20short%20side%20option&f=false

 

https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/myths

 

And from TO:

 

 

 

"I like football and I watch it anyways so I thought I'd go ahead and do it," Osborne said. "Mainly because I'm interested that we do as good of a job as we can. I feel like I can add something to it. They have a lot of really good people, and people with intelligence and people who have made decisions and have good judgement. I think it's important to have people who know a little about a zone blitz, and the short-side option, which I used to run all the time and people didn't like it."

 

and

 

 

Osborne certainly had his reasons for going short-side during his years as Husker coach.

“Option football is a numbers game, so you always try to run where you have the numerical advantage,” he said earlier this week. “Of course, people are going to generally overload you to the wide side of the field. Sometimes we’d run out of room on the sidelines. But sometimes we’d have some big plays.”

Most options could go either direction once the play was called. But Osborne often had his quarterbacks audible to go to the side where the defense had one less player.

“It was all X’s and O’s, where you can get them a hat on a hat and have them outmanned,” said Steve Taylor, a Husker quarterback from 1985-88.

[cm husker]

The defense may have a strong or weak side but that doesn't have to dictate the direction of the option play. Against an offensive set that is balanced, they defense can be balanced as well such that there isn't an advantage to running one side or the other - other than you would have a lot more room to run to the wide side of the field. It's just another instance of Frank showing he didn't really understand play-calling strategy. Just like when he was asked about why he was running the fullback so much. His response was that you had to run the fullback to keep the defense from cheating out against the option. But for years we did the exact opposite. We'd run the option all game until the defense forgot about the fullback and in the fourth quarter the fullback could run wild, such as in the 1995 Orange Bowl.

 

Crouch wouldn't have to be ignoring his reads. That would be a great thing for you to speculate about to avoid blaming Frank for anything. But he could have just been that much better that we had a better chance of making yards with him keeping the ball instead of pitching it.

 

I probably don't remember the player correctly. Doesn't appear that it was Lance Brown. But the formation and situation are accurate. We ran that play a lot and it rarely went Newcombe's way. Crouch kept it a lot but Newcombe only had about three carries a game as a junior and less than one as a senior. Running Crouch and Newcome on that option play would have been a heck of a combination but we almost never did that.

 

I have zero problem with substantiated and accurate criticisms of Frank. But I don't react well to unfounded, unsubstantiated or otherwise unfair criticisms of a Husker HOFer.

 

Talk to some of the players and TO about Frank's role during the 90s. He was calling a lot of the plays. Look back at some of that tape in '98 when he had about 8 first time starters on offense. He carved up KSU on the first drive, for example, and then had some guys make some serious errors in that game (not to mention a ref blowing a call in an mindboggling way).

 

And again, in '98, Newcombe was a QB. Or do you mean the play was later than '98?

[cm husker]

To throw my 2¢ in about the Crouch era...I lived in WA and only got to see a handful of televised games, plus not many games were televised back then, but every game felt like "Crouch to the left!" or "Crouch to the right!" or "Crouch up the middle!" The team became so one-dimensional it was frustrating to watch. He was dynamic, but I think it also took away from the team as a whole.

 

 

If you're willing to reconsider your opinion, I can post some statistics and other info that refutes that narrative, which was based more on perception than reality.

 

Then again, it's tough to argue we should take the ball out of the hands of our heisman QB (the most gifted runner at that position that NU has ever fielded).

 

Football is about winning games, not posting "well balanced" stat lines.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Yeah, I was never crazy about all the weak side and short side rollouts Osborne used to call. Seemed like you were limiting your chance of success from the get-go, and it wasn't the most entertaining football.

 

But I figured Tom knew more about football than I did, and I'm pretty sure he and other coaches often call less-obvious plays in order to keep defenses off balance and to set up the next play.

 

As far as Savage's Crouch memories: Dan Alexander and Correll Buckhalter both had outstanding seasons with Crouch as QB, and several other Husker RBs got meaningful touches, so I don't think the team suffered from Crouch - or Solich - calling the QB's number too often. Although they did slide down that slope when Jamaal Lord took over.

[Savage Husker]

 

 

To throw my 2¢ in about the Crouch era...I lived in WA and only got to see a handful of televised games, plus not many games were televised back then, but every game felt like "Crouch to the left!" or "Crouch to the right!" or "Crouch up the middle!" The team became so one-dimensional it was frustrating to watch. He was dynamic, but I think it also took away from the team as a whole.

 

If you're willing to reconsider your opinion, I can post some statistics and other info that refutes that narrative, which was based more on perception than reality.

 

Then again, it's tough to argue we should take the ball out of the hands of our heisman QB (the most gifted runner at that position that NU has ever fielded).

 

Football is about winning games, not posting "well balanced" stat lines.

Wow, dude. Wow.

 

And no, my opinion is more than just perception and does have merit. Under Solich, the quarterback run game became a higher percentage of the offense than the championship years. Check the stats for yourself and you'll see the progression of attempts by the QB, it was even higher with Lord - who wasn't close to being a Heisman.

 

% of QB run attempts to Total Run Attempts:

1990- 22% '95- 19% 2000- 30%

'91- 24% '96- 21% '01- 34%

'92- 22% '97- 28% '02- 35%

'93- 23% '98- 30% '03- 34%

'94- 17% '99- 32%

 

CM, you can take it however you want. Being balanced has multiple meanings when dealing with offenses in college football. I'm not stating that Crouch shouldn't have ran the ball, he was obviously a phenomenal athlete, but an observation on how the dynamic of the offense shifted.