2017 Offense

[Mavric]

I don't really know if the Maryland game was as indicative of next years offense as people like to claim. Perhaps it was but I don't think it was much different than what we've been doing. Slightly different mix of plays but not significantly different, imo.

There will be less QB run and probably more passing. So I guess from that standpoint they're kind of right. But I guess I didn't see that drastic of a difference.

I like Langsdorf's passing offense. It will be great to see what it can do with an actual QB.

However, I don't feel he's very good at utilizing the running game. And when he can't get the running game going and has a QB who can throw it, I think he's likely to go that route. So I tend to think next year's offense will still look different from what we saw on Saturday.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Good post, Mav. I think my main concern is the question of whether Langsdorf will be able to get a good running game going. I know the o-line has been pretty average to poor this year, and not all of it is Cav's fault. But, will Riley/Langsdorf/Cav be able to recruit and develop the players needed to have a good run to complement the passing game that Langsdorf likes.

There are going to be games every year where the weather is going to dictate a need to run the ball. Also, will the offense be able to run the ball when protecting the lead.

 

[Mavric]

With those options at QB, I'd like to see an average of 20 passes a game - take the game out of the QBs hands, as much as possible. Win "ugly" if you have to. We have a very weak schedule again next year. Take advantage of that to pound opponents into the ground and work play action off that.

I know we are losing the dynamism of a mobile QB, and that's unfortunate.

We have 3 teams next year that are currently in the top 8 in the country. How is that a "very weak schedule"?

"Very weak" is stretching it.

But we have 2 teams in the top 8 on this year's schedule and still only have the 58th toughest schedule in the country - which is fairly weak. We are #30 according to Sagarin and there are only 5 teams with an easier schedule than we have ahead of us - only two (Western Michigan and Houston) have a significantly easier schedule. Minnesota at #44 is the first Power 5 team that has a noticably easier schedule than we do.

Adding Penn State will make it tougher. Adding Rutgers makes it easier. Changing our three toughest games this year from road games to home games helps to some extent.

I think we have a pretty easy schedule this year and it won't be much tougher next year.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I don't really know if the Maryland game was as indicative of next years offense as people like to claim. Perhaps it was but I don't think it was much different than what we've been doing. Slightly different mix of plays but not significantly different, imo.

Agree. I think Riley and/or Langsdorf decided to use the quick screens to stretch out defenses that were stacking the box. They would keep working the edges as long as the defenses let them, and both Minnesota and Maryland were letting them. That opened up the rushing lanes a bit.

Iowa will watch game film and try to take the screen game away. Riley/Langsdorf will have to enlist a different mix.

We're not good enough to announce our intentions and exert our will. Few teams are.

Using the pass to set up the run is the reverse of how Nebraska has operated in the past, but it's not a bad way to go. When it works, we run the ball more.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Let me chime in so that once again my post can be the one that makes everyone see the light (haha)

You are the new HC for a program and you get your pick of the QB you want...which do you pick.

A. True Statue (Think Hackenberg from PSU)

B. True running QB (Think a Navy QB)

C. A QB that can run and throw

D. None of the above

We all know the answer is C so why can't we just stop this crazy argument?

What's with the word "statue" to describe a guy who knows how to throw the football?

The great passing quarterbacks also have great footwork. The second or two they buy themselves in the pocket can produce sh#tloads of yardage.

And a lot of them are perfectly decent runners without being called running quarterbacks.

 

[cornstar]

If NU tries to run the Maryland gameplan with a first year QB next year, NU will be lucky to finish above .500.

So, you'd like to run the "Tommy Armstrong Offense" with O'Brien, Lee, or Gebbia?

With those options at QB, I'd like to see an average of 20 passes a game - take the game out of the QBs hands, as much as possible. Win "ugly" if you have to. We have a very weak schedule again next year. Take advantage of that to pound opponents into the ground and work play action off that.

I know we are losing the dynamism of a mobile QB, and that's unfortunate.

We have 3 teams next year that are currently in the top 8 in the country. How is that a "very weak schedule"?

Ourl schedule will not be any more favorable than it has been the last 2 years.
Running that "Daffy Duck" offense we saw Saturday will not lead to championships.

 

[Mavric]

Agree. I think Riley and/or Langsdorf decided to use the quick screens to stretch out defenses that were stacking the box. They would keep working the edges as long as the defenses let them, and both Minnesota and Maryland were letting them. That opened up the rushing lanes a bit.

Not to derail the thread, but people seem to often refer to teams stacking the box against us. I really don't see that happening too much. To me, it seems to be kind of an unintentional excuse for when we aren't running the ball very well.

We often run the ball straight ahead into a crowd so perhaps it seems like the box is stacked. Or - more likely - it's just a function of the offense we run. We run a lot of 12 personnel along with a decent amount of 21 and even 22. When you almost always have 5 lineman, a QB, a RB, a TE and often another TE/HB, that's at least 9 guys in a tight offensive formation. It's only prudent for the defense to have at least 7 if not 8 guys in the box against formations like that.

In my opinion, that's not "stacking the box." That's simply matching the offenses' personnel. Maybe that's splitting hairs but I didn't really don't think Maryland was selling out to stop the run, which would be my definition of "stacking the box." They were playing a pretty base defense.

The fact that the offensive formations we run bring a lot of defenders into the box is one of the detriments of using more TE/FB formations.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Let me chime in so that once again my post can be the one that makes everyone see the light (haha)

You are the new HC for a program and you get your pick of the QB you want...which do you pick.

A. True Statue (Think Hackenberg from PSU)

B. True running QB (Think a Navy QB)

C. A QB that can run and throw

D. None of the above

We all know the answer is C so why can't we just stop this crazy argument?

What's with the word "statue" to describe a guy who knows how to throw the football?

The great passing quarterbacks also have great footwork. The second or two they buy themselves in the pocket can produce sh#tloads of yardage.

And a lot of them are perfectly decent runners without being called running quarterbacks.

I think we are actually talking about the same exact thing. I want (Sounds like you do as well) as QB that can run and throw...For some reason a lot of fans think that you can't have both.

If Riley and Langs are as great at coaching up QBs as we have been told, I don't know why they can't take a really good running QB and help that QB become really good at passing.

Unless of course, we are saying that coaching doesn't really matter when it comes to passing the ball and that it is all just natural...along with reading defenses.

 

[lo country]

Let me chime in so that once again my post can be the one that makes everyone see the light (haha)

You are the new HC for a program and you get your pick of the QB you want...which do you pick.

A. True Statue (Think Hackenberg from PSU)

B. True running QB (Think a Navy QB)

C. A QB that can run and throw

D. None of the above

We all know the answer is C so why can't we just stop this crazy argument?

What's with the word "statue" to describe a guy who knows how to throw the football?

The great passing quarterbacks also have great footwork. The second or two they buy themselves in the pocket can produce sh#tloads of yardage.

And a lot of them are perfectly decent runners without being called running quarterbacks.

I think we are actually talking about the same exact thing. I want (Sounds like you do as well) as QB that can run and throw...For some reason a lot of fans think that you can't have both.

If Riley and Langs are as great at coaching up QBs as we have been told, I don't know why they can't take a really good running QB and help that QB become really good at passing.

Unless of course, we are saying that coaching doesn't really matter when it comes to passing the ball and that it is all just natural...along with reading defenses.

I agree. As mentioned before, in the top 10 there is a good mix of "dual" threat guys who are doing well in passing and running. There are a few others who I would describe as "mobile" in that they can run well enough to get yards with their feet, be a threat when running and carry some designed runs per game. And they also throw well.

My question would be is this what Langs and Riley want. Was TA an anomaly they worked with, but still plan to go the way of a more "pure" passer. Lee appears to be more pocket passer as does Gebbia. POB appears, per HS tape, to be mobile... I'd much rather have a dual threat or mobile guy over a pocket passer. I think it just adds some more wrinkle a DC has to contend with. It would appear that other teams can find them that IMHO, are less desirable places than NU.....

 

[Nebfanatic]

Gebbia is an athlete too and I'm sure Lee can move around. We need exactly what Fyfe gave us on the ground against Maryland. If we can get a QB who can do that, maybe run 5 times on a few draws and scrambles and pick up 35-50 yards, that would be sufficient in my eyes. I don't want another guy like TA or Martinez, give me a guy like Joe Ganz for a few years.

Expanding on that note, it seems as if when you have a player like TA or Martinez you really rely on their play as an offense. The offense really went through those players but I wouldn't mind a game manager type who really is facilitating the offense to our other guys rather than being the main player you scheme against as a defense.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Besides talking about the QB type, one thing that will be key going forward is getting better o-line play. The excuses have been given to Cav the past 2 years, it's time for his unit to produce next season. The most productive running play the past 2 years has been the QB run game, and that's gone next year, so it will be dependent on the line to be effective to make the RB run game effective.

 

[Count 'Bility]

If POB's high school ability and success were to proportionately transpire into his college career, he will be exponentially more successful as a pure qb than Armstrong ever wouldve. Just watch his film. he not merely a "statue". Jeebus kriest. enough of the statue crap already. It's not Sage Rosefells standing back there. These guys are athletes now. Then can move around plenty enough.

 

[lo country]

If POB's high school ability and success were to proportionately transpire into his college career, he will be exponentially more successful as a pure qb than Armstrong ever wouldve. Just watch his film. he not merely a "statue". Jeebus kriest. enough of the statue crap already. It's not Sage Rosefells standing back there. These guys are athletes now. Then can move around plenty enough.

This is what I'm hoping for. A mobile QB who can scramble to avoid pressure/buy time in the pocket as well as execute some designed runs during the course of a game.

I can only imagine how potent our offense would be with a strong running game and a QB who can hit guys in stride to allow them some YAC. That's probably my biggest knock on TA was his inability to hit guys in stride allowing them YAC.

 

[lo country]

Besides talking about the QB type, one thing that will be key going forward is getting better o-line play. The excuses have been given to Cav the past 2 years, it's time for his unit to produce next season. The most productive running play the past 2 years has been the QB run game, and that's gone next year, so it will be dependent on the line to be effective to make the RB run game effective.

You're correct. Regardless of how great our QB play is, craptastic OL play will negate most of this. I am hoping that when Langs talks of injuries on the OL prevent him from calling some counters and power that it's not coach speak and that he would like to add more of those going forward when healthy.....

 

[Count 'Bility]

If POB's high school ability and success were to proportionately transpire into his college career, he will be exponentially more successful as a pure qb than Armstrong ever wouldve. Just watch his film. he not merely a "statue". Jeebus kriest. enough of the statue crap already. It's not Sage Rosefells standing back there. These guys are athletes now. Then can move around plenty enough.

This is what I'm hoping for. A mobile QB who can scramble to avoid pressure/buy time in the pocket as well as execute some designed runs during the course of a game.

I can only imagine how potent our offense would be with a strong running game and a QB who can hit guys in stride to allow them some YAC. That's probably my biggest knock on TA was his inability to hit guys in stride allowing them YAC.

yeah. but it's not even about scrambling. Simple pocket presence and the ability to just move withing the pocket, step up in the pocket, to buy the additional fraction of a second needed till the read he's on comes open.

Does Tommy Armstrong have good pocket presence? No. When's the last time he felt the pressure and stepped up in the pocket and delivered a good crisp ball, not off his back foot, on time and on target? And this goes all the way back to high school. It's his style. it's not bad. Theres more than one way to skin it. But he's not a good fit for this system. he's always been a run and chuck. When pressure comes, he doesnt side step, avoid, stay on his progression, step up and throw the ball on time. When pressure comes, he immediately bails and scrambles and the routes are not even given a chance. it works in some systems. Not this one. it's only a matter of fit.

This is not a bash tommy thing. it's a simple and easy observation of confidence moving forward after seeing Saturday to calm the panic of this laughable "what ever will we do without the running qb" thing. Cuz if that qb is considerably better than Tommy in accuracy and pocket awareness, and is able to execute the things these coaches are comfortable with, then what's the difference?

Also very good point above though. This is also all heavily reliant on oline play. Until that gets where it needs to be, we will remain stagnant on offense.