Is it scheme or play calling?

[BaytownHusker]

16 hours ago, Hilltop said:

The first year they had 2 weeks to fill so not much can be said there.  Year 2 there was no way to predict what was going to happen with Covid so no amount of dirt digging would have fixed that.  I do understand your point but every school being impacted isn't the same across the board.  A school like Nebraska is asking kids to move a long ways from home and we were doing that during a complete rebuild so very little team structure was in place to help hold the guys.  I know, excuses excuses but it is reality.  It was crappy timing and I really don't think there was much you could change about the recruiting during that.     

Umm yea so does every other School in the country lol..

 

To me its 50/50 scheme vs play calling. When the scheme was working the play calling at times was horrible. 

 

Frost was trying to run the Kentucky derby with Sheltan ponies. Once he gets some thorough breds in the stable it will be easier. But I still think he will screw up the play calling.

[Hilltop]

1 hour ago, BaytownHusker said:

Umm yea so does every other School in the country lol..

You couldn't be more wrong.  

 

You do realize that amount of local talent plays a huge role in team strength.  Look up rosters from the SEC schools and see what % is playing there that went to high school within a few hundred miles.  Same can be said for many top schools in recruiting hotbeds around the country.  Yes, Ohio State, Clemson, and Alabama have their pick from around the country but a good portion of schools lean heavily on talent from within a 500 mile radius.     

 

Nebraska is one of the most disadvantaged programs when it comes to local talent to pull from.  

[suh_fan93]

 

[Undone]

2 hours ago, BaytownHusker said:

To me its 50/50 scheme vs play calling. When the scheme was working the play calling at times was horrible. 

 

Frost was trying to run the Kentucky derby with Sheltan ponies. Once he gets some thorough breds in the stable it will be easier. But I still think he will screw up the play calling.

 

But what about this angle: In last year's shortened season, Mills was injured for a decent portion of it. So whether it was him in there still playing with injury or one of the other several guys who weren't as good as him, you just don't have great running back play.

 

On a first down, you call up a vanilla inside zone handoff on 1st & 10.

 

You don't have good running back play for the above listed reasons. This vanilla inside zone run play gets stuffed.

 

Was that bad play calling?

 

[BIG ERN]

Biggest thing I saw was no RB who stepped up outside of 1 or 2 games. I don't see how it isn't going to be Yant at this point. Scott is reliable but meh, Stepp hurt, Johnson hurt, Morrison I hope emerges as the #2. Ervin is solid but just a true freshman. 

[J-MAGIC]

I'm doing a little project and breaking down some of our games from last year. It's amazing how much 12 personnel they were playing last year after Martinez took back over with two of Allen, Volk, or Stoll out there at all times. It's like over 75 percent of the plays I've charted so far. And it's not like traditional 12 personnel formations or plays -- it's 11 personnel formations and they have the tight end split out like an X or Z or even in the slot and just performing those roles. Not everything obviously but I think that's pretty telling on what our coaches thought of our talent level at receiver. 

[Toe]

@BIG ERN Yant seems like a reasonably capable back overall, but I see him as more of a goal line guy than anything. But like I said before, I think it's gonna come down to who's healthy more than anything, so who knows. Stepp is the only one who has seen much high-level action - we don't have a whole lot to go on, here.

 

@J-MAGIC DING DING DING DING!

[Undone]

18 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

I'm doing a little project and breaking down some of our games from last year. It's amazing how much 12 personnel they were playing last year with two of Allen, Volkolek, or Stoll out there. It's like over 60 percent of the plays I've charted so far. And it's not like traditional 12 personnel formations -- it's 11 personnel formations and they have the tight end split out like an X or Z or even in the slot. Not everything obviously but I think that's pretty telling on what our coaches thought of our talent level at receiver. 

 

This is awesome research, dude. Nice work.

 

Since we finally have decent tight end options, these concepts can make you super dynamic - but you still have to have a base running game and a base passing game that teams actually fear.

 

22 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

Biggest thing I saw was no RB who stepped up outside of 1 or 2 games. I don't see how it isn't going to be Yant at this point. Scott is reliable but meh, Stepp hurt, Johnson hurt, Morrison I hope emerges as the #2. Ervin is solid but just a true freshman. 

 

I don't think fans realize how much of the problem last year was not having a reliable workhorse starting RB...and it probably won't be much different this year.

 

The only hope is finally cleaning up the special teams, penalties, and turnovers issues. That could be worth 2-3 extra wins just all by themselves.

[admo]

Those quick screens suck when they are over used and become predictable.  The efficiency in the RZ looks questionable at times.  Over all I am ok with the scheme and most of the play calling.  There will always be a few play calls that are head scratchers, but that's just football.  Sometimes it works out, and when it doesn't, it will look like the OC is over thinking.

 

Overall I just don't think we've been physical enough on running plays, and our pass protection has been a concern.  WR and RB has been blah blah blah. 

 

So yeah, better talent & more experience will do wonders.  I really, really like this 2021 team.  I'm excited because it feels like it's coming together.  The line, the receivers, and Adrian Martinez of course. 

 

And Ryan Held - yo dawg - you NEED to get your group ready to go, lol.  I'm sure we will be ok at running back.  Just got to trust them and get them all out there.  The cream rises to the top, as always.

[Cobra Kai]

35 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

But what about this angle: In last year's shortened season, Mills was injured for a decent portion of it. So whether it was him in there still playing with injury or one of the other several guys who weren't as good as him, you just don't have great running back play.

 

On a first down, you call up a vanilla inside zone handoff on 1st & 10.

 

You don't have good running back play for the above listed reasons. This vanilla inside zone run play gets stuffed.

 

Was that bad play calling?

 

Yes

[Undone]

5 minutes ago, admo said:

Those quick screens suck when they are over used and become predictable.

 

I feel pretty sure they would get called less frequently if our base running game was stronger - but it isn't. So do you just slam an injured or relatively talentless running back downhill and watch it not work over and over, or do you try to find high-percentage run replacement plays to work the ball outside a bit more?

 

I think this is where people accuse Frost of being a bad play caller when the real issue is that the base run game lacks the right personnel.

 

 

1 minute ago, Cobra Kai said:

Yes

 

Explain why, and what should he do differently? Try to throw downfield to Wyatt Liewer?

[Cobra Kai]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Explain why, and what should he do differently? Try to throw downfield to Wyatt Liewer?

A play callers job is to put his guys in the best position to be successful.  If we don't have rbs with good vision, running an inside zone play with any of them is poor play calling.  We could run power, with or without a FB, we could run options/reads with the qbs or the often overused screen game.  

 

Running an inside zone is not like running isos with a FB...ramming it down people's throats.  You have to be able to make split second judgment calls on where to go based upon the leverage of the guys up front.  

 

Good play caller-puts players in the best position for success

 

[admo]

8 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I feel pretty sure they would get called less frequently if our base running game was stronger - but it isn't. So do you just slam an injured or relatively talentless running back downhill and watch it not work over and over, or do you try to find high-percentage run replacement plays to work the ball outside a bit more?

 

I think this is where people accuse Frost of being a bad play caller when the real issue is that the base run game lacks the right personnel.

 

 

 

Explain why, and what should he do differently? Try to throw downfield to Wyatt Liewer?

Regarding the bubble screens.  They worked well at Oregon because of the talent and speed they had was way better.  I like our current group so those quick throws will look a lot better this year. 

[Cobra Kai]

9 minutes ago, Undone said:

 Try to throw downfield to Wyatt Liewer?

Throwing downfield to anyone would be a welcome sight.  I hope we see that this year...we've got some weapons out wide that are either new...or haven't been given many chances to make plays.

[Undone]

@Cobra Kai: "Inside Zone handoff" was just something I threw out there as a visual for looking at one single play and then judging the fans' reactions if the play doesn't work. Don't get too hung up on "inside zone" generically.

 

Frost has tried the big sets, and J-MAGIC was even just commenting on how often he used those sets even last year.

 

But anyway, this still dovetails with the conversation on the screen passes; to me he's dialing those up because nothing he tries in the base running game is working. So it's an attempt at this very concept:

 

Quote

"Good play caller-puts players in the best position for success"

 

...but he still gets railed either way.