when do we admit abandoning the run first offense was a mistake?

[lo country]

Here is the blue print Wisky stole:

Physical up front on both lines

Outstanding LB play

Great RB's

Sound technique

Great at the fundamentals

Same system for ever

Solid coaching

Limited mistakes

Don't kill themselves

Identity on both sides of the ball

Very good at the basics

 

 

 

[VectorVictor]

I was waiting to see how long it would take post-OSU for “run the ball” guy to create a thread. I’m disappointed it took so long.

 

As for the O and D Lines, the only truth that’s been mentioned in this thread is that there needs to be more of a focus on the lines in recruiting, even at the expense of skill positions (right now). Once we’ve gone through a couple of more recruiting cycles with that emphasis, we should then start having kids on the field for both lines that can get the job done...and then we can start swinging back to emphasizing skill positions. 
 

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

20 hours ago, GBRFAN said:

 

Do you really think that SF doesn't make recruiting OL a PRIORITY?

Well, time will tell won't it? 

[Jason Sitoke]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:51 AM, lo country said:

Here is the blue print Wisky stole:

Physical up front on both lines

Outstanding LB play

Great RB's

Sound technique

Great at the fundamentals

Same system for ever

Solid coaching

Limited mistakes

Don't kill themselves

Identity on both sides of the ball

Very good at the basics

 

 

 

But didn't we derive this blueprint from the generic 'Be Awesome At Football Stuff' Mission Statement?

[Jeremy]

32 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

But didn't we derive this blueprint from the generic 'Be Awesome At Football Stuff' Mission Statement?

Yeah, this is a good point. I think it's a lot more specific:

 

- Recruit run-blocking offensive linemen. This is at the expense of pass blocking and the passing game in general.

-Recruit the best backs we can, but focus on big, power backs. The Barry Sanders' of the world are great, but if we can't find any all-world guys, focus on the Calvin Jones' and Dan Alexanders.

- Recruit athletes, not pocket passers, for QB. Before 1980, Osborne normally went after guys like Ferragamo and Jeff Quinn. Tough guys who could run if needed, but weren't recruited for that. Then he made the switch to a much more option-focused offense with Gill, Travis Turner, and Steve Taylor. This is also at the expense of the passing game, but separates us from all the other power/pro-style teams.

- Recruit bruising fullbacks. Not the fastest guys at all, but very powerful athletes for blocking and dives, literally no routes or catching passes out of the backfield. 

- Play Ball-Control. Keep the defense off the field and steadily work down the field with simple ISOs, counters, traps, dives, and several option variations. Big plays are always good, but the key is being patient with gains of 3, 4, 6, 3, 7, 5, 4, etc. with play-action thrown in to keep 9 out of the box. Very few drop-back passes.

 

I'm sure there's more, but this was the unique blueprint that made us so hard to prepare for. Normally, defenses want to force opponents into long drives, as the chance for turnovers steadily increases, but we thrived under that. Tom would grind, grind, grind until they started expecting run every play, and then boom, there's a tight end wide open downfield running under an easy throw. By the time the 4th quarter would roll around, several guys in the opponents' front 7 were absolutely tired of knocking helmets with our tree stumps all game, and the 4 yard gains became 8 and 9. The fullback they were so prepared for in the 1st quarter all the sudden was a whole lot harder to bring down, if they even knew he had the ball.

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

Yeah, this is a good point. I think it's a lot more specific:

 

- Recruit run-blocking offensive linemen. This is at the expense of pass blocking and the passing game in general.

-Recruit the best backs we can, but focus on big, power backs. The Barry Sanders' of the world are great, but if we can't find any all-world guys, focus on the Calvin Jones' and Dan Alexanders.

- Recruit athletes, not pocket passers, for QB. Before 1980, Osborne normally went after guys like Ferragamo and Jeff Quinn. Tough guys who could run if needed, but weren't recruited for that. Then he made the switch to a much more option-focused offense with Gill, Travis Turner, and Steve Taylor. This is also at the expense of the passing game, but separates us from all the other power/pro-style teams.

- Recruit bruising fullbacks. Not the fastest guys at all, but very powerful athletes for blocking and dives, literally no routes or catching passes out of the backfield. 

- Play Ball-Control. Keep the defense off the field and steadily work down the field with simple ISOs, counters, traps, dives, and several option variations. Big plays are always good, but the key is being patient with gains of 3, 4, 6, 3, 7, 5, 4, etc. with play-action thrown in to keep 9 out of the box. Very few drop-back passes.

 

I'm sure there's more, but this was the unique blueprint that made us so hard to prepare for. Normally, defenses want to force opponents into long drives, as the chance for turnovers steadily increases, but we thrived under that. Tom would grind, grind, grind until they started expecting run every play, and then boom, there's a tight end wide open downfield running under an easy throw. By the time the 4th quarter would roll around, several guys in the opponents' front 7 were absolutely tired of knocking helmets with our tree stumps all game, and the 4 yard gains became 8 and 9. The fullback they were so prepared for in the 1st quarter all the sudden was a whole lot harder to bring down, if they even knew he had the ball.

But Wisconsin didn't steal this. They run a pro style offense.

[Jeremy]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

But Wisconsin didn't steal this. They run a pro style offense.

In a way. Alvarez brought the pre-option days model to Madison when he was hired there. They get more receivers now and throw a little more, but they really do similar stuff to what Devaney did. Pound, pound, pound, play-action.

 

 

[BIG ERN]

I'm more concerned with stopping the run than running the football. 

 

Wisconsin has the #1 defense in the nation...we are 93rd. 

[Jeremy]

1 hour ago, BIG ERN said:

I'm more concerned with stopping the run than running the football. 

 

Wisconsin has the #1 defense in the nation...we are 93rd. 

Definitely - you're absolutely right. It'd be nice to see the Blackshirts of old and '09 make a return. I would submit, however, that this ranking wouldn't be so bad if the offense didn't turn the ball over so much, throw so many incomplete passes, and have so many 3 and outs. 

 

For this offense to be effective (don't get me wrong, it is exciting at times), we have to recruit incredible athletes at receiver and a legit dual-threat QB. Osborne was fine with a running QB that would throw just well enough, and receivers that could stalk block as well as they ran routes. He saved the big recruiting chips for the athletic freaks on defense. Broderick Thomas, the Peter Bros, Terrell Farley, Barron Miles, Kareem Moss, Mike Rucker, Grant Wistrom, Mike Minter, Michael Booker, Jamel Williams, etc.

 

I don't know if we could get the athletic freaks on defense and the weapons we need on offense with our limitations in population and geography. I hope I'm wrong, though.

[Undone]

On 10/1/2019 at 5:51 AM, lo country said:

Here is the blue print Wisky stole:

Physical up front on both lines

Outstanding LB play

Great RB's

Sound technique

Great at the fundamentals

Same system for ever

Solid coaching

Limited mistakes

Don't kill themselves

Identity on both sides of the ball

Very good at the basics

 

 

 

 

This jealousy over Wisconsin's style of football seems to be a yearning for the Osborne years more than anything else.

 

I don't want to be Wisconsin. I don't want to be a one-dimensional offense that only puts up about 260 yards against Northwestern. I want to be 2017 UCF - an offensive so dynamic that it doesn't even matter if you have a good defense that year or not.

[lo country]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

This jealousy over Wisconsin's style of football seems to be a yearning for the Osborne years more than anything else.

 

I don't want to be Wisconsin. I don't want to be a one-dimensional offense that only puts up about 260 yards against Northwestern. I want to be 2017 UCF - an offensive so dynamic that it doesn't even matter if you have a good defense that year or not.

I didn't mention their style of one dimensional play.  More about a few positions and "how" the play and not "what" they play.  

 

For me the yearning to TO days has merit.  We were a solid team top to bottom that executed very well.  Physical on both sides of the ball, solid coaching, continuity of staff and system.  I like that.  I am hoping that Frost goes back to the TO system and copies that to a T.  It's not "what" we play, but "how" we play that will get results.  I just have no idea why the same issues continue to plague us for years ie TO's, penalties, shooting ourselves in the foot etc...In a word disciplined. 

 

Running the "I" exploited OSU and it showed.  Calling the pass was genius had it worked.  OSU was watching for another run.   It didn't work so it sucked.  I think it's a great thing to use as it allows Frost O to have the "UCF" you want with the traditional Husker Power Frost has always mentioned.  A great way to be able to get some very favorable match ups and have the D choose what to defend.  OSU is an anomaly in that they have the athletes to "work around" deficiencies in match ups.

 

[Jeremy]

19 hours ago, Undone said:

 

This jealousy over Wisconsin's style of football seems to be a yearning for the Osborne years more than anything else.

 

I don't want to be Wisconsin. I don't want to be a one-dimensional offense that only puts up about 260 yards against Northwestern. I want to be 2017 UCF - an offensive so dynamic that it doesn't even matter if you have a good defense that year or not.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point. I don't think we'll ever be '17 UCF for the simple fact that we play Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St., Michigan St., while they play East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, UConn, Cinci, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, and Navy. 

 

We're in maybe the biggest Big Boy League. Every program in the B1G invests millions upon millions into facilities, recruiting, and EVERYONE has fast players. UCF has the geographical and population recruiting advantage over us and almost everyone in their dinky conference. They can out-athlete everyone else and we simply can't. 

 

We're never going to get multiple 5 star receivers, running backs, and O-linemen, while at the same time getting the speed we need on defense to not lose 48-7. 

 

As much as I hate to admit, the Wisconsin Model is absolutely tried and true. In the last 24 years, they have one losing season. We have 5, almost 6.  2 Years ago, they were a few possessions away from the Playoff, and still finished 13-1. They went 8-5 last year, which was considered a down year, but still dismantled and emasculated Miami in the bowl game.

 

Understand that I'm no Badger fan, but they did a feature on ESPN yesterday about how every other team in the top 10 has AT LEAST 40 4 and 5 star guys, and Wisconsin has...wait for it...8. That's crazy.

 

Run the ball. Stop the run. Win the game.

[Undone]

12 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

Understand that I'm no Badger fan, but they did a feature on ESPN yesterday about how every other team in the top 10 has AT LEAST 40 4 and 5 star guys, and Wisconsin has...wait for it...8. That's crazy.

 

Run the ball. Stop the run. Win the game.

 

Everything you're saying has merit, and Wisconsin is no doubt the poster child for "doing more with less." They're arguably the pound-for-pound best program of this century so far.

 

But...their offensive style has a fairly low ceiling in big games. They're limited by their scheme. And that's one of the reasons that they don't beat Ohio State in conference title games. They won the conference in '11 & '12 for one simple fact - Ohio State had just been cleaned out from Tattoogate. They only played in the 2012 game because Ohio State was on sanction but if memory serves went undefeated that year. They shouldn't have even played in that game.

 

My argument boils down basically to this: If guys like Bryce Benhart, Brant Banks, Turner Corcoran, and Cam Jurgens stick around, do their squats & cleans and eat their steak & eggs, this thing turns around big time. Then you've got the linemen, and you can run anything you want at that point. Anything. 

So there's a lot of talk of "we'll never recruit in the Top 10 like _______ does." Maybe not. But our class last year was ranked #15 by one site. If we're stacked with big, strong 4* linemen across the board this thing turns around.

[Jeremy]

10 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Everything you're saying has merit, and Wisconsin is no doubt the poster child for "doing more with less." They're arguably the pound-for-pound best program of this century so far.

 

But...their offensive style has a fairly low ceiling in big games. They're limited by their scheme. And that's one of the reasons that they don't beat Ohio State in conference title games. They won the conference in '11 & '12 for one simple fact - Ohio State had just been cleaned out from Tattoogate. They only played in the 2012 game because Ohio State was on sanction but if memory serves went undefeated that year. They shouldn't have even played in that game.

 

My argument boils down basically to this: If guys like Bryce Benhart, Brant Banks, Turner Corcoran, and Cam Jurgens stick around, do their squats & cleans and eat their steak & eggs, this thing turns around big time. Then you've got the linemen, and you can run anything you want at that point. Anything. 

So there's a lot of talk of "we'll never recruit in the Top 10 like _______ does." Maybe not. But our class last year was ranked #15 by one site. If we're stacked with big, strong 4* linemen across the board this thing turns around.

I like your thinking, and agree that we should turn it around starting next year, hopefully. If these new recruits are as good as advertised, the run game should get a boost, and like you said, everything gets better from there.

[Undone]

One other thing that's a finer point that some may find minutia. The late Milt Tenopir had a really famous quote where he said (of his offensive linemen) that "we recruit on bone structure." Although it wasn't stated explicitly, what he meant by that was examining the guy's body for its overall genetic potential to hold lean mass. This can be roughly calculated by a function of several measurements.

 

That was then combined with an outstanding culture of year round weightlifting. It wasn't just the lifting though, as many probably believe.

 

We have got to get back to that level of attention to detail.