A lot to like in this article

lo country said:
I'm picking a kool-aid flavor, but not mixing it up yet. This year I think we finally see what Austin alluded to last year wiht what we saw down the stretch last year with play calling.  I truly think Frost thought he could come in and play basketball on grass and make the B1G adjust.  I don't think we had the players to do this and I think Frost underestimated the B1G.  This year I think we still try some of the "speed", but we will get a lot more mismatches based on size, play calling and speed. I like this from Lubick.  Hoping we have a base that is multiple in play calling and formations from the same 12/13 personnel.  A lot like our D having JoJo who can stay on the field and act as OLB, DE, nickle etc....Doesn't have to come out.  Go uptempo and lean on the D.  create mismatches and just beat them down.

Where Nebraska had once intended to use pure speed to put defenses in a bind, it’ll now use a blend with an emphasis on size and, more specifically, tight ends. NU wants to be able to toggle players like Austin Allen (6-8, 260) and Travis Vokolek (6-6, 260) between playing in space and moving to in-line roles, preferably with the kind of no-huddle tempo that precludes a defense from making personnel changes based on formations. The opponent, thus, has to make a choice on what to do with its 11th defender.

“What’s a defense going to do?” offensive coordinator Matt Lubick said. “Are they going to take a corner and put him inside and now he has to play the run? Or are they going to play a linebacker, and then you have to split him outside and play man-to-man? If you have a guy who can be physical at the point of attack but still run routes, it just gives you a lot of options.”


 
Click to expand...
I read the article, I hear what you're saying. I also heard the same story last year. 

I'll believe it when I see it! :lol:

:Runza2:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like this quote from the article.  One can think of how several of the NFL teams are very successful in utilizing athletic TEs.  Hopefully AM is up to the task of distributing the ball.  Having TEs like this will open up the run game in 2 ways - big size= great blockers.  Pass catching threat will keep the LBs honest - they can't just crowd the line and allow a TE get behind them for a quick pass.  I can imagine the old triple option in which Frazier or Frost - pulled the ball away from the RB - took a step back and hit a TE or WR on a surprise pass.   I trust Frost is imagining it as well.

“What’s a defense going to do?” offensive coordinator Matt Lubick said. “Are they going to take a corner and put him inside and now he has to play the run? Or are they going to play a linebacker, and then you have to split him outside and play man-to-man? If you have a guy who can be physical at the point of attack but still run routes, it just gives you a lot of options.”
Click to expand...

 
TGHusker said:
“What’s a defense going to do?” offensive coordinator Matt Lubick said. “Are they going to take a corner and put him inside and now he has to play the run? Or are they going to play a linebacker, and then you have to split him outside and play man-to-man? If you have a guy who can be physical at the point of attack but still run routes, it just gives you a lot of options.”
Click to expand...


The RUN/PASS conflict the spread creates w/slot defenders is unquestionably it's primary schematic advantage.  That's why I've always had difficulty understanding the lack of play action passing in this offense and the frequency of short drop back passing.  

 
floridacorn said:
The RUN/PASS conflict the spread creates w/slot defenders is unquestionably it's primary schematic advantage.  That's why I've always had difficulty understanding the lack of play action passing in this offense and the frequency of short drop back passing.  
Click to expand...


Because with RPOs they are creating a lot of the conflict before the snap and have already decided the best way to attack a particular look.  Very similar to what a play-action pass is doing but making the defense react to a formation instead of the first couple steps of the play.

 
Mavric said:
Because with RPOs they are creating a lot of the conflict before the snap and have already decided the best way to attack a particular look.  Very similar to what a play-action pass is doing but making the defense react to a formation instead of the first couple steps of the play.
Click to expand...


I get it, there are other ways to exploit the leverage of &/or put those same defenders in conflict w/pass game concepts.  Philosophically however, if you define yourself as a running team, your not exploiting your tendencies, & you're pushing closer to being an air raid offense.  

I get that prob comes across as semantics, but there are times when NU's play calling is really disjointed, & grab baggish.  I feel it's because their run game and pass game aren't always tied together.  

 
RPO's, in my opinion puts the auspice on the QB to make the right read.  I forget what game, maybe UCLA vs NU when they just tackled the RB every play regardless.  It took away some of the stress if they spied the QB or RB.  IF, we can run 12/13 personnel and still keep some speed with it and not have to switch out players we can put the stress/conflict on the D and take a lot of pressure off the QB.  They'll have to stay in a "heavy set" and have a LB on a slot or edge receiver or stay in a nickel package and have a CB cover a TE.  LB's will have to stay in to help cover the passing game and not just automatically cram the box.  IMHO, this is a flip of the switch in Frost's scheme to adjust to the B1G.  And I like it.  

 
lo country said:
RPO's, in my opinion puts the auspice on the QB to make the right read.  I forget what game, maybe UCLA vs NU when they just tackled the RB every play regardless.  It took away some of the stress if they spied the QB or RB.  IF, we can run 12/13 personnel and still keep some speed with it and not have to switch out players we can put the stress/conflict on the D and take a lot of pressure off the QB.  They'll have to stay in a "heavy set" and have a LB on a slot or edge receiver or stay in a nickel package and have a CB cover a TE.  LB's will have to stay in to help cover the passing game and not just automatically cram the box.  IMHO, this is a flip of the switch in Frost's scheme to adjust to the B1G.  And I like it.  
Click to expand...
I say this whenever I see lots of these types of options, teams should hit the opposing QB every single play. Get in their heads for running the QB.

 
floridacorn said:
I get it, there are other ways to exploit the leverage of &/or put those same defenders in conflict w/pass game concepts.  Philosophically however, if you define yourself as a running team, your not exploiting your tendencies, & you're pushing closer to being an air raid offense.  
Click to expand...


But you are exploiting your tendencies if they start cheating up to defend the run and you throw a pass instead.

I get that prob comes across as semantics, but there are times when NU's play calling is really disjointed, & grab baggish.  I feel it's because their run game and pass game aren't always tied together.  
Click to expand...


RPOs are the most direct tie between the run and pass game there is.  You are literally running both of them on the same play.

 
Mavric said:
But you are exploiting your tendencies if they start cheating up to defend the run and you throw a pass instead.

RPOs are the most direct tie between the run and pass game there is.  You are literally running both of them on the same play.
Click to expand...


To your 2nd point, agree, no question.  But, when I referred to the short drop back game, I'm not referring to RPO's.  

To your 1st point, fair enough, true in the sense you are exploiting a more favorable coverage on a run down.  Typically, you're talking about a switch from some type of 2 high structure to a 1 high structure like cover 3.  I would argue the effectiveness is still maximized in that situation w/a play fake, but that's not the point.    

When I reference RUN/PASS conflict, I'm referencing the individual defender(s) in that bind, and the slot defender is naturally in that bind versus the spread.   W/o some form of play fake however, he's off the hook. 

Example, in NU's D, Jo Jo is typically flexed out versus a #2 receiver.  He's not on the LOS, he's not playing over the #2 receiver, he's off the LOS between the end of the LOS & the #2.  He's likely got contain responsibility versus run, flat or curl/hook responsibility versus pass.  Play action forces him to read run and freezes him or even forces him to take false steps before he reads pass and gets to his coverage assignment.  That's specifically the conflict I'm referring to that the spread creates.

 
floridacorn said:
The RUN/PASS conflict the spread creates w/slot defenders is unquestionably it's primary schematic advantage.  That's why I've always had difficulty understanding the lack of play action passing in this offense and the frequency of short drop back passing.  
Click to expand...
I think you will see more as our offensive line play improves.  Hard to feel comfortable calling them when the D-line is regularly in our backfield.

 
floridacorn said:
I get it, there are other ways to exploit the leverage of &/or put those same defenders in conflict w/pass game concepts.  Philosophically however, if you define yourself as a running team, your not exploiting your tendencies, & you're pushing closer to being an air raid offense.  

I get that prob comes across as semantics, but there are times when NU's play calling is really disjointed, & grab baggish.  I feel it's because their run game and pass game aren't always tied together.  
Click to expand...


My biggest frustration with Frost is the grab-bag nature of the playcalling. He's always wanted to get tricky -- I remember one Oregon game I watched he called a receiver screen double pass on a 4th and 1 -- but Oregon could do it's base stuff really well and mixed in the exotic stuff. Some of the best offenses in football like the Chiefs or OU can be "grab-bag" so I don't really mean that as an insult, but we aren't consistent with our base concepts so the grab-bag stuff we do just feels unearned.

Like we bust out the flexbone against OSU the last two years and then never do it again. Why? Playing that way makes it feel like we're trying to do 1,000 things OK instead of just doing 100 things really well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPOs are very dependent on the QB making the correct read.  Have issues with that and you have issues with your offense. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top