OLine Work in Progress

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I don't necessarily agree with this.  In this scheme, the O linemen need to know exactly what they are doing and be proficient at doing it.  And...quite honestly, some of the things (like pulling) is something that physically is tough to get done.  BUT....the scheme makes it easier for them to accomplish because it makes the DEFENSE think so much an so fast.

I think you misinterpreted. Obviously the linemen need to know what they are doing, but I felt last year you could see the 'play fast with no fear of mistakes' mentality on the oline, where it seemed like in years past especially under Riley the line played slow, almost like they had to take a minute to process what they were doing and not mess up. I saw alot of confusion at times and it led to diminished effort. I feel like the line under this staff is the opposite.

[Undone]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't necessarily agree with this.  In this scheme, the O linemen need to know exactly what they are doing and be proficient at doing it.  And...quite honestly, some of the things (like pulling) is something that physically is tough to get done.  BUT....the scheme makes it easier for them to accomplish because it makes the DEFENSE think so much an so fast.

 

Yes, and that aligns with the Greg Austin quote at the top of this page from 11/25/2018. He points out how the linemen in the previous staff's era just weren't even prepared - both physically and mentally - to execute individual plays.

 

And I go back also to the podcast interview of Charlie McBride right after Riley's firing where McBride just gives this information dump on everything he knew about the poor work ethic in practice under Riley. He recounts a time he visited practice and asked Mike Cavanaugh why there were only five guys prepping, and Cavanaugh's response was "because I only play five guys."

There was just no preparation on any reasonable scale for a team that was trying to actually be competitive.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I think you misinterpreted. Obviously the linemen need to know what they are doing, but I felt last year you could see the 'play fast with no fear of mistakes' mentality on the oline, where it seemed like in years past especially under Riley the line played slow, almost like they had to take a minute to process what they were doing and not mess up. I saw alot of confusion at times and it led to diminished effort. I feel like the line under this staff is the opposite.

 

I see what you're saying.

[NUinID]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

I pretty much agree with @BigRedBuster - I don't think the lines have been as bad as people like to make them out to be, at least parts of the time.  They are an easy target for anytime anything goes wrong.  And they get blamed for more than is actually their fault - people still blame the offensive line even if it's a tight end that misses a block or the defense brings more rushers than we have blockers.

 

During the Taylor Martinez-Helu-Burkhead-Ameer years we put up some pretty impressive numbers on offense.  We were basically always a Top 20 rushing offense in the country and regularly in the Top 10.  We had many of the best season and career rushing and total yard marks in school history.  You don't do that without pretty good offensive line play.  And the offense was far from our biggest issue during that stretch.  But people didn't like the overall results so they just complained about what was easy to complain about.

 

During the Riley era, I think the biggest problem was scheme.  People were so excited to get rid of Beck's offense and get back to using the fullback.  But when you line up in a bunch of heavy sets - fullback and tight ends - all that does is bring more defenders into the box.  If there are 8 or 9 guys in the box, how are five offensive linemen supposed to block them all?  And that's before you take into account how predicable our play-calling was and how basic our running schemes were.

 

So I think our line can definitely get better.  But I don't think they've been nearly as bad as most people seem to want to believe.  We have several OL in the NFL right now - Lewis, Sirles, Slauson, Sterup, Gates, Long and Qvale.  Each of those guys was a mulit-year starter here.  They were on the field a lot during what was supposedly a bad time for our OLine.  I don't think those two things make much sense when you put them together.

 

During Riley's tenure the run game was simplistic and an after thought.  Langford and Riley talked about running the ball, but they really weren't committed to doing it.  It just wasn't what they wanted to do.  The 2017 team was actually a pretty good pass pro team, they just couldn't run the ball.  I think it has more to do with scheme and what they wanted the offense to do than anything else.  

 

People like to bitch about what Cav was doing with the O-line, well he moved on to Syracuse and improved their line a ton last year.  It was more a lack of commitment to running the ball than anything else.  

[Hunter94]

no slack for Cav, he didn't give a s#!t for conditioning either. 

[bisonwiches]

As athletic as Jurgens is, it is hard for me to believe he won’t work his way into a spot(maybe not this year but if I were a betting man I’d say sooner rather than later). Yeah he has had his health issues, but i find it really hard to believe Frost would make this kind of drastic switch without seeing something he believed has

 the potential for being special. I mean the kid could’ve switch to linebacker, defensive line or stayed in the fullback/tight end spot and contributed. 

[Enhance]

On 1/22/2019 at 11:31 AM, NUinID said:

People like to bitch about what Cav was doing with the O-line, well he moved on to Syracuse and improved their line a ton last year.  It was more a lack of commitment to running the ball than anything else.  

I don't know about Syracuse, but, I do agree with the general idea that people need to be careful who and what they criticize. By several accounts, there was a general lack of a hard working culture under Riley and it's tough to put that blame on Cav. That's not to absolve him of everything, but, it does alleviate some of the pressure.

[NUinID]

21 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't know about Syracuse, but, I do agree with the general idea that people need to be careful who and what they criticize. By several accounts, there was a general lack of a hard working culture under Riley and it's tough to put that blame on Cav. That's not to absolve him of everything, but, it does alleviate some of the pressure.

 

No of coarse it doesn't absolve Cav of all that was wrong under Riley.  I am just saying he was doing what he was asked to do.  Just because a certain coach didn't get it done at Nebraska doesn't automatically mean he sucks, has always sucked and will always suck.  

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, NUinID said:

No of coarse it doesn't absolve Cav of all that was wrong under Riley.  I am just saying he was doing what he was asked to do.  Just because a certain coach didn't get it done at Nebraska doesn't automatically mean he sucks, has always sucked and will always suck.  

For the record, I was agreeing with everything you were saying and also agree with this. 

[NUinID]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

For the record, I was agreeing with everything you were saying and also agree with this. 

 

That was probably directed more at Hunter94

[BigRedBuster]

This is a great article explaining why some on here don't believe just saying "our line has sucked" really tells the story.  I believe we now have an OC (Frost) that fully understands what is discussed in this article and THAT will cause many to claim our O line is vastly improved.

 

 

[brophog]

Frost takes it a step further by attaching screens to the backside of a play. We may not actually throw many tight end screens, but that action alone forces defenders away from the box. He will also do it out of a 2 back set, sending a second back to the boundary. There is a whole series of plays ran off of that action, including screens and option plays, to prevent defenses from just ignoring him.

 

 

[OTHusker]

On 1/30/2019 at 11:17 AM, BigRedBuster said:

This is a great article explaining why some on here don't believe just saying "our line has sucked" really tells the story.  I believe we now have an OC (Frost) that fully understands what is discussed in this article and THAT will cause many to claim our O line is vastly improved.

 

 

Great article

 

Yes, Frosts scheme and playcalling will make the Oline look better than they are

When NU is in 11 personnel and getting 6 man boxes they can run the ball well- just like the stats say

Because of:

Backside action away from the play

Playside RPO concepts

The ability to run to both sides of the field thanks to a QB with legs or the threat thereof

RBs that can split out as receivers or catch the ball out of the backfield- so Defenses have a tougher time platooning into run Defense packages

LOTS of key breaking stuff- pulling guards and running away from the pull for a negative yardage or HUGE gain to take defenses off their keys  

[Toe]

On 1/30/2019 at 11:17 AM, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

What a weird article. "The secret to the Rams' blocking success isn't their lineman - my statistics prove that their linemen are merely the best in the NFL this year and top five of all teams in the past decade!" It's like 1500 words of someone trying to make themselves sound smart, only to reach the same obvious conclusion that anyone can see.

[BigRedBuster]

59 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

What a weird article. "The secret to the Rams' blocking success isn't their lineman - my statistics prove that their linemen are merely the best in the NFL this year and top five of all teams in the past decade!" It's like 1500 words of someone trying to make themselves sound smart, only to reach the same obvious conclusion that anyone can see.

 

You really did t understand the article did you. 

 

Yes, the linemen are good. But what the article is pointing out is that the offensive scheme helps them succeed. 

 

Which is true.