Jump to content


Calling out all Frost Supporters


Recommended Posts


18 hours ago, Jeremy said:

And we're 3-9. Congrats. Thank you for wanting more of the same. We don't get sacked, AND THEN sacked for a safety if we're running flexbone. I'd love to get a clue as to why anyone wants to keep doing this kind of crap. 60% isn't nearly enough.

What type of offense we run doesn't determine whether or not we are successful. It's the coaches and players that determine whether or not the team succeeds.

 

Ffs, no one recalls that Callahan had two winning seasons with the West Coast Offense. Or that Osborne ran a pro style offense in the 70's.

 

Being one dimensional only helps your opponent.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jeremy said:

Iowa can line up with a fullback and run the ball. Why can't we? 

Because we don't have them on our roster.

 

 

2 hours ago, Jeremy said:

I would contend Yant and Scott would do nearly as well behind a line that blocks like Wisconsin. They have no room with our zone-blocking, patty-cake scheme that leaves at least one linebacker unblocked on every play.

I don't think you even know what zone blocking is. Wisconsin uses it plenty. Again, literally everyone uses zone blocking from highschool to NFL. It's a staple of blocking schemes and is actually better and easier than the drive blocking you raved about. It creates advantages in numbers and leverage, double teams at the point of attack, as well as accounting for LBs at the second level. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

18 hours ago, Jeremy said:

Stats are for losers. The only stat that matters is the score, and we've averaged 23 points per game against FBS competition under Frost. That's NOT a solid scheme. In fact, that SUCKS. You don't know what a flexbone offense would do against the B1G. Army has done well against both Michigan and Wisconsin with a FRACTION of our talent, so you literally couldn't be MORE wrong. 

 

This scheme in Lincoln has never won anything of significance. We're one of the worst teams in the conference. A doormat. It's idiotic to want to continue doing the same crap that has gotten us here.

How many teams in the B1G 10 run more than 70% of the time and what significant achievements have they made with their offense?

 

Looking at Army's record it looks like they lost both of those games. That isn't doing well in my book and in fact I'd call that losing which is exactly what we don't want for our team.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Because we don't have them on our roster.

 

 

I don't think you even know what zone blocking is. Wisconsin uses it plenty. Again, literally everyone uses zone blocking from highschool to NFL. It's a staple of blocking schemes and is actually better and easier than the drive blocking you raved about. It creates advantages in numbers and leverage, double teams at the point of attack, as well as accounting for LBs at the second level. 

Does it really create an advantage, though? What 'numbers and leverage' did you see against Iowa? Are we really accounting for LBs at the second level? Because the actual results of what's happening on the field don't reflect what you're trying to tell me here AT ALL. The leading rusher for Nebraska this season was Adrian Martinez - by A LOT -, and a good deal of his yards came from scrambling on pass plays. Our running backs have very little space to run, and people are definitely NOT getting blocked.  

 

Please explain why a sane person would want to continue doing more of what we have been doing? I'm not saying to do away with zone blocking altogether - the service academies zone block every few downs, too. But we don't have a mindset of domination - like we can't block a defensive linemen unless it's 2 on 1. That's just weak.

 

I know that Iowa has always used zone blocking in their scheme, and it plays very well into their boot game. But, do you know what else they have? A fullback to lead block as well. What a concept.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Not very good. I might look at the data before then as well. Even the heavy running teams have a 65:35 run to pass ratio. This whole "more than 70%" concept is absurd.

It absolutely is absurd.

 

It's my opinion that folks who want us to run all the time simply want Osborne's 90's offense back. They seem to think that is the only way we've been successful while forgetting that same coach ran a pro style offense in 70 and 71. In the 70's we were sending quarterbacks to the NFL. Tagge, Ferragamo and Humm (probably forgetting a couple) at the least.

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

How many teams in the B1G 10 run more than 70% of the time and what significant achievements have they made with their offense?

 

Looking at Army's record it looks like they lost both of those games. That isn't doing well in my book and in fact I'd call that losing which is exactly what we don't want for our team.

Who cares what other B1G teams are doing? What significant achievements has Nebraska made with this 23 pts/game offense?

 

Army did lose, but they did better than Nebraska with WAY less talent in comparison. That's the point. If Army can roll into Ann Arbor or Madison and put themselves in a position to win, with their talent level, why couldn't we do better while utilizing their scheme? We have much bigger and faster guys than they do. Who says we don't roll over teams?

 

We had 129 yards rushing against Iowa. We're never going to win anything with 129 yards.

Link to comment

Don’t mistake improvement for underachievement. A lot of dudes this year are gonna be off to the NFL. This team should’ve gotten 7 wins. If this would’ve been last year getting new staff I would’ve been all for it. Imagine if we still had Wan’Dale & Culp doesn’t play like s#!t. Goddamn. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

It absolutely is absurd.

 

It's my opinion that folks who want us to run all the time simply want Osborne's 90's offense back. They seem to think that is the only way we've been successful while forgetting that same coach ran a pro style offense in 70 and 71. In the 70's we were sending quarterbacks to the NFL. Tagge, Ferragamo and Humm (probably forgetting a couple) at the least.

The 'pro-style' offense from the 70's was still very much run-heavy. We passed, at most, 30% of the time. Don't forget that Osborne switched to an option-style look with Turner Gill because he was sick of being beat by Oklahoma and their option offense.

 

I don't want Osborne's 90's offense back because he's the only one who could really coach it. But there are plenty of guys who coach good, ground-based offensive attacks out there today.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

That is on the offensive line and the coaches. Good thing we canned our O-Line coach eh?  ;)

Hey, if they come out next year running this stuff and put points on the board, I'll be the first to shut up and eat crow while doing it. I'm just saying that it's highly unlikely.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

What type of offense we run doesn't determine whether or not we are successful. It's the coaches and players that determine whether or not the team succeeds.

 

Ffs, no one recalls that Callahan had two winning seasons with the West Coast Offense. Or that Osborne ran a pro style offense in the 70's.

 

Being one dimensional only helps your opponent.

I absolutely disagree with that. If we run the ball, move the sticks, work the clock, then Iowa doesn't get the ball back, and we win. Callahan's 2 winning seasons is the standard? Callahan, really? 

 

Osborne's 'pro-style' offense was still, at most, 30% pass. I would LOVE that kind of offense now. 

 

He also went away from the 'pro-style' because Oklahoma was KILLING us with the Wishbone.

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...