Mark Whipple Officially Named Offensive Coordinator + Quarterbacks Coach

[Courtesy Flush]

14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

Mom, is that you?

She said to tell you “No, but you still have laundry to put away.” I told her she shouldn’t be a hypocrite, since she’s always leaving hers on my floor.
 

(Sorry, it was a ball on a tee, and you can’t let that just sit there. )

[lo country]

5 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Not to mention the OC and quarterbacks coach of a Heisman finalist, and not only that, but a Heisman finalist who developed into a Heisman finalist and wasn't a pure phenom from day 1.

Pickett reached out to Peyton Manning after last season to ask about coming out in 2020 or staying.  Peyton said rumors were Pickett was a 5th round pick.  Asked Pickett if that was the type of player he was.  Pickett said no, came back, showed up and showed put.  

[lo country]

12 hours ago, Toe said:

Nebraska’s New OC: Breaking Down the Mark Whipple Offense

 

https://www.cornnation.com/2021/12/9/22826103/breaking-down-the-mark-whipple-offense-nebraska-football-news-scott-frost-huskers

Again, reenforces a guy who uses what he has.  Not what he wants.  I would say that the "better" skill position guys would be the WR's and TE's.  This plays into Whipple's schemes.  Throw in Joseph coaching them up and I think we can have a potent offense depending on QB and OL play.  I do think that he is smart enough to embrace the running game as well.  Dude doesn't spend that much time coaching and not learn to adapt/evolve.  I like that he has a scheme and is well versed in it.  Again, I'd prefer a "run first" guy, but I want to win again.  In the current situation with a potential 1 season HC we could do worse.  Don't think we could have done much better.  

[admo]

Wondering, if the hiring of Whipple & Joseph has Haarberg and Torres (commit) a little more excited?

 

[84HuskerLaw]

2 minutes ago, admo said:

Wondering, if the hiring of Whipple & Joseph has Haarberg and Torres (commit) a little more excited?

 

They sure fit the bill.  I’m guessing Whipple is just as excited.  This is great opportunity for him to be a part of a legendary program in its resurrection and revival.  He has chance to become a household name nationally.  He will get lots of attn this fall no doubt.  

[Toe]

2 hours ago, lo country said:

I like that he has a scheme and is well versed in it.  Again, I'd prefer a "run first" guy, but I want to win again.  In the current situation with a potential 1 season HC we could do worse.  Don't think we could have done much better.  

 

That's pretty much where I'm at. I'm definitely wary of Whipple being a pass-happy guy. But Frost wants an experienced guy he can trust to hand the reins to, and Whipple fits the bill. And bringing in an OC whose team just won the ACC and who coached up a Heisman finalist QB is about as big of a 'splash hire' as we could realistically hope for.

[Undone]

Some thoughts that may not be related to the more recent discussion in this thread.

 

We're just in such a weird position; we went 3-9, so it would almost be hard to not do better than we did this season. But the bar is so obviously much higher than "just doing better than 3-9."

 

When Walters was fired and Lubick was brought in I said that I didn't think the move would make that much of a difference on offense. And it wasn't because I thought Lubick was a bad coach - I thought he was a good coach and I still do.

 

But I'm pretty sure I was right about that call, changing OCs didn't really put a dent in the outcome of games because it was more about turnovers and poor offensive line play then, and it still is now.

 

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column? I saw a post that was quoting some social media post or YouTube video saying something along the lines of "Mark Whipple is the kind of addition that will make this offense score 50 points per game."

 

I just really, really doubt that...

[Hilltop]

7 minutes ago, Undone said:

Some thoughts that may not be related to the more recent discussion in this thread.

 

We're just in such a weird position; we went 3-9, so it would almost be hard to not do better than we did this season. But the bar is so obviously much higher than "just doing better than 3-9."

 

When Walters was fired and Lubick was brought in I said that I didn't think the move would make that much of a difference on offense. And it wasn't because I thought Lubick was a bad coach - I thought he was a good coach and I still do.

 

But I'm pretty sure I was right about that call, changing OCs didn't really put a dent in the outcome of games because it was more about turnovers and poor offensive line play then, and it still is now.

 

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column? I saw a post that was quoting some social media post or YouTube video saying something along the lines of "Mark Whipple is the kind of addition that will make this offense score 50 points per game."

 

I just really, really doubt that...

I don't see anyone scoring 50 points per game in the Big 10.  

[admo]

4 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

I don't see anyone scoring 50 points per game in the Big 10.  

Yeah, there's too many teams that love to chew up clock, punt the ball, kick field goals, play action pass for 15 yards (over the top!). 

 

And if you do score 40, the rest of the game.. (see above with extra running).

[BigRedBuster]

24 minutes ago, Undone said:

Some thoughts that may not be related to the more recent discussion in this thread.

 

We're just in such a weird position; we went 3-9, so it would almost be hard to not do better than we did this season. But the bar is so obviously much higher than "just doing better than 3-9."

 

When Walters was fired and Lubick was brought in I said that I didn't think the move would make that much of a difference on offense. And it wasn't because I thought Lubick was a bad coach - I thought he was a good coach and I still do.

 

But I'm pretty sure I was right about that call, changing OCs didn't really put a dent in the outcome of games because it was more about turnovers and poor offensive line play then, and it still is now.

 

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column? I saw a post that was quoting some social media post or YouTube video saying something along the lines of "Mark Whipple is the kind of addition that will make this offense score 50 points per game."

 

I just really, really doubt that...

It's much more reliant on improved line play and ST that's going to make the biggest difference in W/L.  That is, if we don't have a drastic drop in D or O.

[admo]

If there's a drop-off in our defense next year, we may be forced to score 38 to win close.

 

[thexyz]

30 minutes ago, Undone said:

Some thoughts that may not be related to the more recent discussion in this thread.

 

We're just in such a weird position; we went 3-9, so it would almost be hard to not do better than we did this season. But the bar is so obviously much higher than "just doing better than 3-9."

 

When Walters was fired and Lubick was brought in I said that I didn't think the move would make that much of a difference on offense. And it wasn't because I thought Lubick was a bad coach - I thought he was a good coach and I still do.

 

But I'm pretty sure I was right about that call, changing OCs didn't really put a dent in the outcome of games because it was more about turnovers and poor offensive line play then, and it still is now.

 

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column? I saw a post that was quoting some social media post or YouTube video saying something along the lines of "Mark Whipple is the kind of addition that will make this offense score 50 points per game."

 

I just really, really doubt that...

50 is a reach. With an upgrade in receivers coaching with better quarterback play and an offensive line with their act together 35-40 and occasionally more is realistic. We need to generate a reliable running game for conversions too. That's a lot of if's but if we can do that'll we'll be winning a lot more games.

 

It seems his scheming is less complicated which should be helpful. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. He does need good quarterbacking. 

[Undone]

1 minute ago, Hilltop said:

I don't see anyone scoring 50 points per game in the Big 10.  

 

Good point.

 

Putting that hyperbole of 50 points aside thought, again I'm not really sure that Whipple puts much of a dent into the outcome of next year's season.

 

But, it seems more and more like he's a good hire.

[thatguy]

22 minutes ago, Undone said:

Some thoughts that may not be related to the more recent discussion in this thread.

 

We're just in such a weird position; we went 3-9, so it would almost be hard to not do better than we did this season. But the bar is so obviously much higher than "just doing better than 3-9."

 

When Walters was fired and Lubick was brought in I said that I didn't think the move would make that much of a difference on offense. And it wasn't because I thought Lubick was a bad coach - I thought he was a good coach and I still do.

 

But I'm pretty sure I was right about that call, changing OCs didn't really put a dent in the outcome of games because it was more about turnovers and poor offensive line play then, and it still is now.

 

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column? I saw a post that was quoting some social media post or YouTube video saying something along the lines of "Mark Whipple is the kind of addition that will make this offense score 50 points per game."

 

I just really, really doubt that...

As far as I can see, based on who the new coaches are, the main benefits here that will address specific weaknesses are: attention to detail on offense, better recruiting at skill positions, and hopefully better line technique. It could also help with a true identity on offense and an ability to counter opponent adjustments. 

 

so for me, if everything else stays the same, that means an additional 3 wins at a minimum. 
 

These changes so far do not address the issues of defensive inconsistencies at times, special teams, head coach maturity, head coach ownership and accountability, and proper roster management. 

[lo country]

33 minutes ago, Undone said:

Some thoughts that may not be related to the more recent discussion in this thread.

 

We're just in such a weird position; we went 3-9, so it would almost be hard to not do better than we did this season. But the bar is so obviously much higher than "just doing better than 3-9."

 

When Walters was fired and Lubick was brought in I said that I didn't think the move would make that much of a difference on offense. And it wasn't because I thought Lubick was a bad coach - I thought he was a good coach and I still do.

 

But I'm pretty sure I was right about that call, changing OCs didn't really put a dent in the outcome of games because it was more about turnovers and poor offensive line play then, and it still is now.

 

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column? I saw a post that was quoting some social media post or YouTube video saying something along the lines of "Mark Whipple is the kind of addition that will make this offense score 50 points per game."

 

I just really, really doubt that...

I am truly hoping that he brings a voice of experience and reason to the offensive strategy as a whole.  One thing I read was that he gets his scheme to work in conjunction with the parts.   The dude has been coaching longer than Frost has been alive.  I hope that this will translate into evaluating where we are, where we want to be and how to get there.  Scheming to actually help the O.  For example, according to PFF, AM was hurried 45% of his drop backs, we had 1 or 2 OL that had actually scored a 0% in pass pro in some games.   Those are both pitiful stats. But rarely did we roll AM consistently.  Rarely did we purposefully "move the pocket".  We did well with long plays, but at what cost to AM.  We called a lot of "longer and slow" developing plays.  Maybe Whipple calls shorter routes, quicker plays, rolls the QB out some.  Can call some plays and scheme to make the D (front 7) pay for pinning their ears back.  I saw he likes to use and HB as an extra blocker (that'll help) as well as use draws.  Again scheming to help.    Something again, I feel for years we really had no answer for.  A good OC can scheme to help poor OL play.  Not fix it, but at least prop it up some.  Problem, this is a 1 season fix.  This isn't a HC and staff getting 3-4 years to rebuild.  Frost and Co need to perform or pack.  Little to no time to fix a laundry list of issues.