What did we learn-Wyoming edition

[Count 'Bility]

Who cares what Mich. St. Is doing. Let's do what we do.

I'm sure glad McBride didnt have this attitude towards Fla St and Miami in 1992.

[BRV920]

The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense. Very little changed on the offensive side of the ball. Also why do you guys always imply that I don't want to pass the ball? I want to, but not as the foundation of my offense.

[BRV920]

You can't be serious about that Elf. Trying to compare Devaney and Osbornes offenses to Callahans is a joke. You try to make it sound like we were airing it out all over the place when in actuality we ran it at least 70% of the time.

[Undone]

The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense.

 

I very rarely enjoy getting sucked into the whole "let's discuss the old teams to see how it translates today" nonsense...but what about Tommie Frazier and Lawrence Phillips?

[Count 'Bility]

The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense. Very little changed on the offensive side of the ball. Also why do you guys always imply that I don't want to pass the ball? I want to, but not as the foundation of my offense.

and nutrition and strength and conditioning and psychology and personnell and probably most importantly the urgency of which the entire staff began to work with.

[MichiganDad3]

 

My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.

That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

 

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.

 

Give me a dominating defense and great special teams first, then worry about the offense. As bad as the 2009 offense was, we were still in every game, and should have won the Big XII title because of that defense.

[cm husker]

So in one post we dont wanna be like Michigan St who is consistently winning conference titles, and was in the playoffs last year, while in the next post we wanna emmulate Navy, who hasnt doen jack sh#t, but the run the option and occasionally beat more talented teams, so it's all good.

You'd be quite wrong about Navy doing "jack sh#t" recently. But that's ok. Many don't "get it" when it comes to talent versus production ratios.

 

Navy had to pull a QB out of the stands recently, and was still productive.

 

That telling in the "scheme" versus "talent" argument, as are teams like Baylor under Briles and Houston under Herman.

 

As for being like MSU, let me know when we rehire a defensive mind on par with Dantonio.

 

P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.

[cm husker]

The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense. Very little changed on the offensive side of the ball. Also why do you guys always imply that I don't want to pass the ball? I want to, but not as the foundation of my offense.

 

 

I love the whole times have changed argument. I remember when they said the the game has passed Osborne by while we were in the midst of a 7 game bowl losing streak. We all know how that turned out. Navy is a great example of what can be accomplished when you establish a identity for you team and then build and recruit for it. They routinely beat teams with far more talent.

When they were saying the game passed Osborne by, it wasnt simply him sticking to his plan that led to 60-3. he didnt just simply stick with it and prove everyone wrong. There were other significant changes made to just about every single other facet of the program from the defensive plan to what the players were eating for an afternoon snack. So this is another false perception "Osborne ran the option and made it work, so we should do it today". He didnt sxclusively "make it work". He made changes to numerous other areas that allowed for the whole system to work. At a very dominant level. And he didnt line up in the i pro and pound it 50 times a game. he didnt line up in the ace and run spring option 50 times a game either. He did a little bit of everything and when games were still in doubt (which in them days, was not long) he was throwing a lot more than ppl wanna remember, cuz it's inconvenient for the run-the-ball guy's argument. Osborne was doing things with spread concepts and the option and tempo way back then long before Chip kelly and his genius ever came along.

 

 

Osborne constantly changed tactics, but he never changed strategy.

 

Any student of Nebraska history knows he talked constantly about his process and priorities, and first and foremost, he was run-oriented (and by the late 70s, he wanted a mobile QB because he understood the pressure that places on a D).

 

You're making things up about tempo, but I agree that his concepts, especially in the zone option game, are the basis of the best offenses today.

 

Oh, and that just reinforces the central point, which is that we should emulate the best offenses of today, not chase a dying paradigm of "balanced" offense, which apparently means 20 or so rush attempts up the middle with no diversity or diversion at all, mixed with 30 pass attempts (of which some will turn into scrambles).

[fb30]

 

 

The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense. Very little changed on the offensive side of the ball. Also why do you guys always imply that I don't want to pass the ball? I want to, but not as the foundation of my offense.

and nutrition and strength and conditioning and psychology and personnell and probably most importantly the urgency of which the entire staff began to work with.

[BRV920]

Please list all of these exact changes? Did the training table start having steak on Tuesday instead of Wednesday? Not sure why you guys keep moving the goalposts here. Osbornes offense didn't change between 90 and 94. We ran the same basic stuff

[Undone]

P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.

 

Agreed, currently. I was referring to Cousins and Cook though when MSU was pretty undeniably dominant in the B1G and even in Rose Bowl appearances.

[Blackshirt316]

Can we at least let these guys actually install their offense before we judge it?

 

Right now they are workinfg with what Tommy can give them but he isn't their ideal guy.

 

It would have been very easy for Riley to have brought in a transfer and told Tommy to take a walk like Jim Harbaugh and Gary Andersen did. Heck, he could have just brought in Luke Del Rio, the guy he had lined up to replace Mannion in Corvallis when Amdersen kicked hom to the curb. Del Rio is at Florida and just may be the best QB in the SEC. He didn't do that to Tommy. That's called respect.

 

Maybe we show him enough respect in return to see what he can do with not just this team but the team he actually puts together to run his game before we claim he has none.

[Elf]

 

My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.

That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

 

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.

 

Osborne had some of those peaks and valleys to be sure. He kinda struck out with at least three quarterbacks, Mike Grant, Mickey Joseph and Keithen McCant. None of those three quarterbacks really panned out at NU. Considering we had Turner Gill and Steve Taylor before those three and Tommie Frazier and Scott Frost after, that was a pretty serious valley.

[Landlord]

P.s. FYI, NU has a higher ranked QB out of high school starting than MSU.

 

 

....so?

[cm husker]

 

 

My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.

That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

 

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.

 

Osborne had some of those peaks and valleys to be sure. He kinda struck out with at least three quarterbacks, Mike Grant, Mickey Joseph and Keithen McCant. None of those three quarterbacks really panned out at NU. Considering we had Turner Gill and Steve Taylor before those three and Tommie Frazier and Scott Frost after, that was a pretty serious valley.

 

 

 

Osborne did not have valleys, at least not in the sense the word is commonly used.

That - not the championships - is the most incredible aspect of his tenure.

 

You're proving BRV's point, which was that the beauty of Osborne's system is that it wasn't so heavily dependent on elite QB play. We had three QBs who were not "amazing" by NU fan standards.*** Yet, NU won a 3 of 5 conference championships between Steve Taylor leaving and Frazier emerging as a freshman. NU also went 39-9-1 those years.

 

In no world or era of CFB would that be considered a "valley" by an objective observer.

 

***Note, this is often absurd standard, considering that, for example, McCant was first team all-conference and offensive player of the year as a senior.