Difficulty of Changing Offensive Scheme

[Elf]

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

It really isn't a huge issue, Coach is right. Yeah you have to learn some new verbage but these guys are not morons and they practice and rep a ton. Now...where the issues might be is with certain players "fitting" but really learning the new stuff is not as hard as some of the fans would like it to be.

 

Side note. I once "installed" a brand new defense for a high school (3-5-3) during pregame, about 5-10 minutes on a marker board. Then another 5 minutes on the field. We lost the game 14-6 in OT...on of the TD's the other team scored was on a punt return for a TD. It was the least amount of points we let up all year by far.

 

Look at trick plays...you might practice those 5 times, total...and then you are good to go. The players get it.

 

If it's so easy to install a new offense, why did your team only score 6 points?

 

Sounds to me like the defense carried the team to OT that day while the offense didn't live up to its billing.

[junior4949]

 

It still amazes me that Fullmer ran an offense with one of the greatest pro-passing QBs of all time (P. Manning), and won the MNC the next year with a running QB. Why would a coach recruit these two players? The same situation happened at Oklahoma. Troy Aikman is lighting up the field passing, gets hurt and Jamele Holliway ends up leading Oklahoma to the MNC. Both of these cases look like coaches getting the best available talent and morphing their system to fit the talent available.

Jamelle Hollieway would have most likely beaten out Aikman eventually even w/o Aikman's injury. His injury ensured Jamelle would get the job over him so he transferred to USC where he had an excellent career.

 

 

I could have sworn it was UCLA. I could have sworn he was the QB for UCLA that absolutely destroyed us in 88' when we came into the game ranked #2.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Humm and Ferragamo could certainly pass like pro quarterbacks, but Nebraska still ran the ball more than twice as often as they passed.

 

The transition to power option wasn't all that abrupt. It needed the right quarterback -- Turner Gill -- and it took Turner and Osborne a couple years to make it really click. After Gill left, it worked effectively but less dynamically with QBs like Craig Sundberg and McCaythorn Clayton. Then better with Taylor and Gdowski. Then less good with Mickey Joseph and Keithan McCant. Then much better with Tommy Frazier, who shared the job with passing QB Brook Berrigner, who Osborne could substitute without confusing anyone on the offense because it's still the game of football.

 

Seems like every successful team has carried a legit dual threat QB and a better pure passer at the same time, and can make the shift mid-season or even mid-game as needed.

 

Just because this is a transition year doesn't mean it has an excuse. Riley has the kind of QB he prefers, and Tanner Lee is no rookie. Offensive playcalling isn't that different to what Beck and Watson ran under Bo, and even a modest upgrade in consistency and execution should make a difference. Nobody is learning to ride a bicycle here.

 

btw....when looking up old Husker offensive stats, make sure to take a gander at the defense. I imagine every OC loves being backed by a defense that only gives up 10 points a game.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

It still amazes me that Fullmer ran an offense with one of the greatest pro-passing QBs of all time (P. Manning), and won the MNC the next year with a running QB. Why would a coach recruit these two players? The same situation happened at Oklahoma. Troy Aikman is lighting up the field passing, gets hurt and Jamele Holliway ends up leading Oklahoma to the MNC. Both of these cases look like coaches getting the best available talent and morphing their system to fit the talent available.

Jamelle Hollieway would have most likely beaten out Aikman eventually even w/o Aikman's injury. His injury ensured Jamelle would get the job over him so he transferred to USC where he had an excellent career.

 

 

I could have sworn it was UCLA. I could have sworn he was the QB for UCLA that absolutely destroyed us in 88' when we came into the game ranked #2.

 

 

Yeah, Aikman was the QB for UCLA in 1988 when they blitzed Nebraska early -- and the Huskers were mistake-prone and confused by the big game pressure.

 

Fun fact: Steve Taylor actually out-gained Aikman in total yards.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

It really isn't a huge issue, Coach is right. Yeah you have to learn some new verbage but these guys are not morons and they practice and rep a ton. Now...where the issues might be is with certain players "fitting" but really learning the new stuff is not as hard as some of the fans would like it to be.

 

Side note. I once "installed" a brand new defense for a high school (3-5-3) during pregame, about 5-10 minutes on a marker board. Then another 5 minutes on the field. We lost the game 14-6 in OT...on of the TD's the other team scored was on a punt return for a TD. It was the least amount of points we let up all year by far.

 

Look at trick plays...you might practice those 5 times, total...and then you are good to go. The players get it.

 

If it's so easy to install a new offense, why did your team only score 6 points?

 

Sounds to me like the defense carried the team to OT that day while the offense didn't live up to its billing.

 

We didn't install a new offense that day...used the same one we had all year.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

 

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

[ColoradoHusk]

Spot on, Power T. With limited practice time in college, I would want to have a less complex offense compared to a more complex offense.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

there is usually more to verbose language than just coming up with some ridiculous name for a play. Usually verbose lingo for plays means multiple concepts stitched into the play. Yes you could come up with names for each of these combination of concepts, but it seems just as easy to me to just string them together creating these long verbose playcalls.

[marko polo]

 

We have gone through a couple of changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

It's not an excuse but you will continue to believe it is.

 

Every coaching change situation is different and each brings its own challenges. Osborne simply changed the offensive philosophy, he didn't change the entire coaching staff. He already had significant talent and depth on the team. Riley had some talent when he showed up, but very little of it in depth.

 

Riley is building for the long term, I get it, you don't like that because you wanted results last year. We all did, but it didn't happen. Most of us moved on.

 

we have been forced to "move on " for untold yrs.

thanks

[MyBloodIsRed16]

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

While I agree with you on this concept on a HS level it would be more difficult at a collegiate level just because of volume. I've done both and the problem I ran into with just having a name for a play is that say you have a smoke play and a fire play. You might have a kid who isn't the brightest or someone who is nervous and switches the two and you have guys running the wrong play. I used the process of numbering the route tree so that way kids just need to remember the corresponding number for a route. Then I can give any formation and strength plus the route combo I want. Then they should know exactly what they are doing no matter where they are lined up. Also makes it easier to put a play in on the fly if you don't already have that combo installed.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

While I agree with you on this concept on a HS level it would be more difficult at a collegiate level just because of volume. I've done both and the problem I ran into with just having a name for a play is that say you have a smoke play and a fire play. You might have a kid who isn't the brightest or someone who is nervous and switches the two and you have guys running the wrong play. I used the process of numbering the route tree so that way kids just need to remember the corresponding number for a route. Then I can give any formation and strength plus the route combo I want. Then they should know exactly what they are doing no matter where they are lined up. Also makes it easier to put a play in on the fly if you don't already have that combo installed.

 

Yeah, that is pretty true!

[Guy Chamberlin]

Remember when Pelini was worried that his players wouldn't understand a more complex defense and kept the whole thing really simple and consistent?

 

That was a pretty sh**ty defense.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

 

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

 

 

I agree completely.

 

However, "jet blue ace 37 whiskey 96 giggity giggity" is how every team in the NFL, and those that run west coast offenses in college, do things.

 

Why?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

 

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

 

 

I agree completely.

 

However, "jet blue ace 37 whiskey 96 giggity giggity" is how every team in the NFL, and those that run west coast offenses in college, do things.

 

Why?

 

 

I always assumed it was because the QB could walk up to the line with a set play, and seeing the defensive alignment he could call variations on the play without going full audible.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

 

 

We have gone through a couple of coaches changes with Offensive scheme changes. We hear the excuse that it take time to put the scheme in place and to recruit the right players. How valid is this excuse? Tennessee went from Peyton Manning to T-Martin and won a MNC. TO switched from a pro passing O with Humm and Ferragamo to an option attack with no performance issues. Does changing offensive philosophy really take a couple of years with sub-par performance?

At the D1 level. Its not an issue. Fans like to claim it as one so they can have an excuse for when the team stinks.

 

 

It absolutely is an issue.

 

The offensive terminology Riley and Langsdorf use are exactly what is used in the NFL. It takes most QBs 2-3 years of playing in a pro-style offense before they really begin to "get" it.

 

If I was coaching I'd keep it simple in terms of the verbiage. If I want to win, why make it harder on your players? The verbiage isn't what wins you games. The scheme and simplicity to understand it (i:e Less verbiage).

 

I'm not worried about sending guys to the NFL. I want to win here. Same way in HS, I coach my guys to win games, not put them into the college game. Here's what's easy too. You win, you get recruited. Simple as that.

 

As a coach its hard to learn all the verbiage and memorize it. But that's also why you have coaches that rarely switch scheme. They knkow what they know and that's what they stick to. In HS, us coaches RELY on being a jack of all trades because you aren't going to have the same kind of talent each and every year. Some years I may want to line up and shove it down your throats and others I may need to try to out speed you and get to the perimeter.

 

I just don't see the need for saying "Gat 4 X dig banana bubbles 45 pull right, READY, Break!"

 

You can literally call a play "SMOKE" and each person knows what they are doing. Period. Don't confuse everyone by writing a poem for 1 stupid play.

 

 

I agree completely.

 

However, "jet blue ace 37 whiskey 96 giggity giggity" is how every team in the NFL, and those that run west coast offenses in college, do things.

 

Why?

 

 

I always assumed it was because the QB could walk up to the line with a set play, and seeing the defensive alignment he could call variations on the play without going full audible.

 

 

But could also do that with "Smoke 2" or "Smoke 3", etc.

 

The 2 or 3 would be the variations you practiced for against a certain look.

 

But I dunno...I'm not an actual coach, I just pretend to be one since fans always know more than coaches...