History of Nebraska Offenses

[caveman99]

On 12/15/2017 at 0:17 PM, JKinney said:

I had a hard time finding Total Defense Rankings since 1973, but I got these numbers from the NCAA archived stats (in .pdf form) on their website for some context (offensive rank followed by defensive):

 

1989: 2nd, 8th (10-2)

1990: 10th, 7th (9-3)

1991: 3rd, 49th (9-2-1)

1992: 3rd, 24th (9-3)

1993: 7th, 12th (11-1)

1994: 8th, 4th (13-0)

1995: 1st, 13th (12-0) 53.2 ppg 

1996: 3rd, 7th (11-2)

1997: 1st, 5th (13-0)

 

If anyone knows where to find 1973 - 1988 I would love to see that as well.  I think what is undeniable is that (as stated by the OP) Tom Osborne was an offensive guru.  But I do think what helped him get over the hump was a defense that significantly improved after 1992.  In 1995, I think our team was not in the top 10 defensive only because our 2nd or 3rd team would be in by the 2nd half.  If that assumption is correct then from 1994 - 1997 we had a top ten defense and offense every year. 

Not coincidentally that is also right around when McBride convinced TO to let him convert from a 5-2 to a 4-3 and they started recruiting and assigning back 7 position players based on speed.

Edited December 18, 2017 by caveman99

[caveman99]

7 hours ago, Depressed Husker said:

..Brother, I love that 94 team..it was peculiar from all the other years. I know that every year the teams has its own identity, however the 94 husker were my favorite of ALL Husker teams..as a observer, it appeared that years Offensive line set the nasty mood for the team. I also think that years O line was the most powerful and mean bunch Huskers ever had..I’ve watched every game of that season so many times and the grand daddy against Miami perhaps 25 times..that game and that Miami team truly showed how dominant the Husker line was..

 

..a case could be made that years Miami Defensive line was one of their best..that whole Miami defense was remarkably well coached, fast and mean..and the Huskers bull dozers took their constitution away mid 3rd quarter..Stai..probably the most powerful linemen ever at NU, was a sight to watch that night..he had the duty, if I remember rightly, of keeping Warren Sapp out of the backfield, sapps mouth wasn’t running in 4th quarter..he was on his knees...

 

I remember early in that game Sapp was celebrating and dancing around like an idiot a lot. Seeing him in mid 3rd QTR with his hands on his knees gasping for air was beautiful to watch. Took his soul that game.

[MichiganDad3]

8 hours ago, Depressed Husker said:

..Brother, I love that 94 team..it was peculiar from all the other years. I know that every year the teams has its own identity, however the 94 husker were my favorite of ALL Husker teams..as a observer, it appeared that years Offensive line set the nasty mood for the team. I also think that years O line was the most powerful and mean bunch Huskers ever had..I’ve watched every game of that season so many times and the grand daddy against Miami perhaps 25 times..that game and that Miami team truly showed how dominant the Husker line was..

 

..a case could be made that years Miami Defensive line was one of their best..that whole Miami defense was remarkably well coached, fast and mean..and the Huskers bull dozers took their constitution away mid 3rd quarter..Stai..probably the most powerful linemen ever at NU, was a sight to watch that night..he had the duty, if I remember rightly, of keeping Warren Sapp out of the backfield, sapps mouth wasn’t running in 4th quarter..he was on his knees...

 

I heard that Miami had to have additional oxygen tanks brought in during the 4th quarter for Sapp 

[beorach]

Damn it, guys!  When are you going to give the right person credit for that OB win in 1995?

 

http://omahamagazine.com/articles/dave-webber/

[Mavric]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:50 AM, The Dude said:

What's most baffling to me is when people try to use modern rules and modern offenses to justify our poor defenses.

 

All those teams ranked above us play against modern offenses as well!

 

I think it depends on how you’re framing the numbers.  If you’re looking at yards per game or points per game and comparing a recent Nebraska team to teams of years gone by, I think it’s valid to point out that offense has changed significantly in the last 15 or so years.  But you’re correct that isn’t an excuse for why we rank low compared to other teams in the same year.

 

On 12/17/2017 at 0:19 PM, Comfortably Numb said:

And the same people will discount our great defenses of yesteryear by pointing out how much easier it was back in 

those days. If it was so easy how did we manage top rankings while others struggled? Listening to some you would think Husker football operates in a vacuum and has no relationship to the era it occurs in.

 

Again, I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong to point out that things have changed.  We absolutely DID have a lot of advantages back in the day.  The biggest one is the distribution of talent is SIGNIFICANTLY different now than it was 30 years ago.  The population of the US has gone up nearly 50% in the last 40 years but there are still (roughly) the same number of schools playing football.  So there is a lot more talent to go around.  A (relatively) few programs could stockpile a lot of talent before scholarship limits started spreading it out.  Nebraska - and others - had an almost insurmountable talent advantage over probably at least half their schedule in a given year and a decent advantage over a couple more teams.   That doesn’t exist anymore.  

 

So I think the argument that it was much easier back in the day is a valid one, at least to a decent extent.  It wasn’t the only factor.  Nebraska was able to sustain success far longer than anyone else.  I’m not discounting coaching and other factors that played a significant role as well.  But it’s simply not the same situation that it was 30-40 years ago.

[JJ Husker]

7 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I think it depends on how you’re framing the numbers.  If you’re looking at yards per game or points per game and comparing a recent Nebraska team to teams of years gone by, I think it’s valid to point out that offense has changed significantly in the last 15 or so years.  But you’re correct that isn’t an excuse for why we rank low compared to other teams in the same year.

 

 

Again, I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong to point out that things have changed.  We absolutely DID have a lot of advantages back in the day.  The biggest one is the distribution of talent is SIGNIFICANTLY different now than it was 30 years ago.  The population of the US has gone up nearly 50% in the last 40 years but there are still (roughly) the same number of schools playing football.  So there is a lot more talent to go around.  A (relatively) few programs could stockpile a lot of talent before scholarship limits started spreading it out.  Nebraska - and others - had an almost insurmountable talent advantage over probably at least half their schedule in a given year and a decent advantage over a couple more teams.   That doesn’t exist anymore.  

 

So I think the argument that it was much easier back in the day is a valid one, at least to a decent extent.  It wasn’t the only factor.  Nebraska was able to sustain success far longer than anyone else.  I’m not discounting coaching and other factors that played a significant role as well.  But it’s simply not the same situation that it was 30-40 years ago.

Absolutely Nebraska of the 90’s had advantages that Nebraska of 2017 does not enjoy but that isn’t what I was saying, or maybe better, that is exactly what I was pointing out. Within the 90’s all the teams in cfb operated under the same rules and conditions. The fact that Nebraska exploited those conditions for our benefit can’t be used in 2017 as an excuse why we can’t compete today. Sure there are new challenges and sure some of them are extremely difficult to overcome (numbers, our geographic location and where the talent hot beds are). But we still are operating in the same environment as all other teams in cfb, just as our 90’s teams did back in the 90’s. It’s fair to point out when comparing between eras but not so much within an era. It’s like making the excuse that bad weather cost you a game against a team that played in the exact same weather. Many people basically lay out their argument as, well yeah, we were actually good in the 90’s and we aren’t now so it isn’t fair. My point is that Kansas of the 90’s had basically the same opportunity as Nebraska did and it is disingenuous to simply now say but it was easier back in those days. Dominance and excellence requires putting in the effort and doing what it takes.  The fact is our effort in that regard has been woefully lacking. However, I think we may have turned the corner here a few weeks ago.

[Mavric]

17 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Absolutely Nebraska of the 90’s had advantages that Nebraska of 2017 does not enjoy but that isn’t what I was saying, or maybe better, that is exactly what I was pointing out. Within the 90’s all the teams in cfb operated under the same rules and conditions. The fact that Nebraska exploited those conditions for our benefit can’t be used in 2017 as an excuse why we can’t compete today. Sure there are new challenges and sure some of them are extremely difficult to overcome (numbers, our geographic location and where the talent hot beds are). But we still are operating in the same environment as all other teams in cfb, just as our 90’s teams did back in the 90’s. It’s fair to point out when comparing between eras but not so much within an era. It’s like making the excuse that bad weather cost you a game against a team that played in the exact same weather. Many people basically lay out their argument as, well yeah, we were actually good in the 90’s and we aren’t now so it isn’t fair. My point is that Kansas of the 90’s had basically the same opportunity as Nebraska did and it is disingenuous to simply now say but it was easier back in those days. Dominance and excellence requires putting in the effort and doing what it takes.  The fact is our effort in that regard has been woefully lacking. However, I think we may have turned the corner here a few weeks ago.

 

Generally I agree with you.  But I don't think the bolded is true.  In theory it is but in practice we were not operating in the same environment as everyone else back in the day.  

[JJ Husker]

19 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Generally I agree with you.  But I don't think the bolded is true.  In theory it is but in practice we were not operating in the same environment as everyone else back in the day.  

 

How so? 

I understand we were doing things others weren't but you'd have to explain how only Nebraska was capable of such things.