Between the tackles

[Scratchtown]

Wait, so now everyone's on the "run the ball" bandwagon?

 

What happened to "We could only run the ball because UCLA was small and terrible at run defense. We can't expect to have that type of game plan going forward."

 

Well its not like Oregon's defense is very stout. So I don't think your point is as relevant as you want.

 

Though. This line is much better than last years in the run game so far.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

This is the kind of thinking that leads to games like Purdue.

Not true

 

Actually, that was the kind of thinking that got us to beat Oregon last week.

 

Losing to Purdue was a result of a lot of bad fortune in the previous weeks - that snowballed / players that didn't know what to think about the new staff / coaches that didn't have a handle of exactly what the players could do / and probably about 5 other things that us fans don't know about.

Bad fortune? You've got to be kidding me. We got straight up outcoached. Purdue stacked the box in the first half and Langford got pass happy even though we were able to run the ball against them. Which is even more puzzling with Fyfe getting his first start.

This is kind of my issue. Langs needs to demonstrate he will stick with what's working, even if the "card" says he should call a certainty play against a certain look.

[jsneb83]

 

 

My problem with taking what the defense gives you is that it is playing into the hands of the defense.

Yes and no. You're always trying to attack a defense's weaknesses or sometimes call an audible out of a play if it doesn't look good.

 

I think people sometimes get caught up in what we've heard over and over again about some of Nebraska's best teams - 'we'd tell them what play we were going to run and they still couldn't stop it.' I think that over-simplifies everything. Plus, Nebraska just isn't that type of team right now.

 

All that said, I've been pleased with their strength in the run game down the stretch this season. I think it shows we've been more physically fit than some of the opposition and that we're able to make some really good halftime adjustments.

And isn't the option, which was supposedly the offense we ran in the 90's, the epitome of taking what the defense gives you?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

This is the kind of thinking that leads to games like Purdue.

Not true

 

Actually, that was the kind of thinking that got us to beat Oregon last week.

 

Losing to Purdue was a result of a lot of bad fortune in the previous weeks - that snowballed / players that didn't know what to think about the new staff / coaches that didn't have a handle of exactly what the players could do / and probably about 5 other things that us fans don't know about.

Bad fortune? You've got to be kidding me. We got straight up outcoached. Purdue stacked the box in the first half and Langford got pass happy even though we were able to run the ball against them. Which is even more puzzling with Fyfe getting his first start.

This is kind of my issue. Langs needs to demonstrate he will stick with what's working, even if the "card" says he should call a certainty play against a certain look.

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of thinking that leads to games like Purdue.

Games like Purdue happen because the opponent has guys on scholarship, too.

 

Games like Purdue happen because guys on our team aren't fully bought in.

 

Games like Purdue happen because the coaches ask a green QB to throw it 40+ times.

 

Games like Purdue happen because your starting QB, WR, WR & RB are injured & out.

 

 

 

That is also the kind of thinking that gets you games like:

 

Michigan State

Rutgers

Iowa

UCLA

Oregon

 

It's the kind of thinking most every OC in America, at all levels of the game, do. Maybe Kiffin in Alabama can just line up and do whatever he wants, maybe the OC in Louisville this year. There aren't more than ten in the country who can do that.

 

Everyone else takes what the defense gives them. That includes teams trying to claw back into relevance like Nebraska.

 

I agree with very little in this post. If you go back and look at the 3 big wins on that list what do they all have in common? We stayed committed to the run game. Even if it didn't pay huge dividends on the stat sheet. (Mich State) Games like Purdue and Illinois happen because we settled for what the defense was giving them.

 

On the second point I'd like you to point out one of these balanced teams that has been consistent over the last 5 to 10 years? Before you say Alabama I'll stop you and point out that they are not a balanced offense. They are a power running team first and foremost. If you don't think so watch Sabin chew Kiffins a$$ every time he try's getting cute.

 

 

You love your theories, but you don't understand football.

[BRV920]

Anytime you want to breakdown game tape let me know. Should be good for a laugh. You stick with your hodge podge offensive plan. I'm going to stick with a proven way to win at Nebraska.

[cm husker]

Guy,

 

You keep saying that but the systems we recommend are responsible for multiple championships at Nebraska and lots of .700+ seasons.

 

The type of system you think is just as good is 55-40 with no conf championship, and that's counting watson's 2008 and 2009 offenses.* Take those away, and NU is 35-32 with those "balanced" systems.

 

And while you can say we don't understand football, more than a couple of experts, including Osborne, have spoken at length about the exact same beliefs and understandings.

 

*Note that Watson's "balanced" offense cost NU at least one conf championship even though it had several pro players starting and backing up on the depth chart.

[Enhance]

An awful amount of shade is being thrown at the Nebraska offensive systems of the last 15 years while some simultaneously ignore, or are ignorant to, the failed defensive performances in the same time frame.

[alwayshusking]

Can't just blame the offensive system for the lack of success in Nebraska football, there are other factors in winning games. Like talent in said system and playing defense for example. The defense has been arguably the biggest issue as to why Nebraska hasn't had more success in recent history.

 

We are running the ball 62.11% of the time this year which is 22nd most in the country. Pretty run heavy thus far, but we aren't going to be able to run over everybody. I think Langsdorf is doing a great job with Tommy this year.

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/rushing-play-pct?date=2016-09-22

[The Dude]

Oh good, another topic derailed with this same tired conversation.

[jsneb83]

Oh good, another topic derailed with this same tired conversation.

What else did you expect?

[Guy Chamberlin]

Guy,

 

You keep saying that but the systems we recommend are responsible for multiple championships at Nebraska and lots of .700+ seasons.

 

The type of system you think is just as good is 55-40 with no conf championship, and that's counting watson's 2008 and 2009 offenses.* Take those away, and NU is 35-32 with those "balanced" systems.

 

And while you can say we don't understand football, more than a couple of experts, including Osborne, have spoken at length about the exact same beliefs and understandings.

 

*Note that Watson's "balanced" offense cost NU at least one conf championship even though it had several pro players starting and backing up on the depth chart.

 

How about this balance? Good offense + Good defense = Championships!

 

Or more to the point in both the NCAA and NFL = Mistake free offense + Shutdown defense = Championships!

 

There are many football teams that have won championships not named Nebraska. The all ran the ball. But they didn't all run Tom Osborne's offense. They didn't freakishly monitor their run/pass ratios, nor worry that some semblance of balance would rob them of the singular identity that seems important to certain Nebraskans (but only if that singular identify is running). FWIW...Nebraska also won two championships running a more balanced attack in 70-71.

 

Your desire to go back to the 1995 way of things is certainly understandable, but if the road to championships was simply adopting Tom Osborne's power option offense, the many, many Osborne admirers in the coaching community would have replicated it. The notion that Nebraska can no longer get good athletes, or that a passing game requires skills beyond our simple prairie ways, is kinda insulting, too.

 

I mean, hats off to Navy. But we're better than Navy.

 

And if the vaunted Nebraska offense of old had been backed by any recent Nebraska defense, they wouldn't even qualify as glory days.

[cm husker]

In terms of intrinsic resources, Navy is a .500 (or worse) program that goes .666 because of their system.

 

 

In terms of intrinsic resources, Nebraska is probably a .650 program that has gone .750+ (and often .800+) in large part because of the run-based option system, which, when you truly boil it down, was the distinguishing feature of Nebraska's program over other Plains-state and B10 opponents.

 

I've simply stated that we should remain true to the principles that made NU great, and that was hard nosed running system that employed a mobile QB, because that tends to neutralize a certain degree of weakness - it's a big reason NU was able to win championships with 20+ walk on the depth chart each year.

 

However, I've never once said we should to back to running TO's playbook. I'm fine with running something more akin to what Beck was trying to implement or what Briles, Herman and the other zone spread guys run. That to me is much more effective than being a "balanced offense" simply for the sake of being balanced. I will say that it's very very interesting that you don't realize that many of the principles of today's spread and zone read offenses were heavily influenced by Osborne's system. Go back and look at what TO was doing by the mid-90s.

 

As for balance in '70 and '71, NU ran the ball 71% each of those years, including 734 times during in 1971 - a total that indicates they rushed more per game than the '83 scoring explosion offense and the '94 and '95 championship teams and just a little less than the '97 championship team (based on 12 game's worth of stats each of those years - bowl games weren't included later).

 

To your last statement, you are missing the fact that that offense and the mentality that it fostered was a big reason why NU had solid defensive performances during years when we actually weren't all that great on the defensive side of the ball.

 

But yes, if you count only the 90s as "glory days" then it's worth also noting that the '95 team was the GOAT (not just a typical NC team) - and that's not because there have been no other more talented teams before or since - it's because of the system.

And why don't more people adopt it? Because coaches teach what they learned coming up and it's not an easy process for most coaches to change, because, frankly, many aren't that smart. It's guys like Urban Meyer, who was a totally different kind of offensive mind before his ND met Nebraska in the early 00s, who are able to make the change. But that's rare.

 

It's also the stigma of a "high school offense" or "gimmick system" that makes it unpalatable to many prideful fan bases - Husker fans just used to be able to keep their pride in check if it meant wins. I don't think that's the case anymore.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

However, I've never once said we should to back to running TO's playbook. I'm fine with running something like more akin to what Beck was trying to get implemented or what Briles and the other zone spread guys run.

 

 

Didn't realize this. I had lumped you in with everyone who simply transferred their dislike of Watson to their dislike of Beck to their dislike of Langsdorf, not realizing that they didn't necessarily seek balance for balance's sake, but simply wanted as many weapons as possible to make the DCs job harder.

 

I do think you are woefully underestimating Osborne defenses that gave up between 8 and 14 points a game in the glory years, as compared to Callahn/Pelini/Riley defenses that gave up more than twice that.

 

You also seem torn between saying coaches are too dumb to adopt Osborne's lessons, while simultaneously giving Osborne credit for many of the offenses currently being run.

 

I knew I might get a bold-faced reprimand on the 70-71 championships. I'll take it like a man. Specifically an old man who remembers that Devaney's first two NCs with Osborne came with far more balance, sophistication and trickery than the offense that came before it.

[RedDenver]

 

 

However, I've never once said we should to back to running TO's playbook. I'm fine with running something like more akin to what Beck was trying to get implemented or what Briles and the other zone spread guys run.

 

 

Didn't realize this. I had lumped you in with everyone who simply transferred their dislike of Watson to their dislike of Beck to their dislike of Langsdorf, not realizing that they didn't necessarily seek balance for balance's sake, but simply wanted as many weapons as possible to make the DCs job harder.

 

I do think you are woefully underestimating Osborne defenses that gave up between 8 and 14 points a game in the glory years, as compared to Callahn/Pelini/Riley defenses that gave up more than twice that.

 

You also seem torn between saying coaches are too dumb to adopt Osborne's lessons, while simultaneously giving Osborne credit for many of the offenses currently being run.

 

I knew I might get a bold-faced reprimand on the 70-71 championships. I'll take it like a man. Specifically an old man who remembers that Devaney's first two NCs with Osborne came with far more balance, sophistication and trickery than the offense that came before it.

 

Bolded for truth.

 

Nebraska's offensive scheme/identity is far less relevant to playing championship football than the defense. Look back over the years and you'll find a strong correlation between our best years and our best defenses.

[Cdog923]

The dirty truth is that, had Callahan had a competent D-coordinator, he may still be coaching here.