Any chance for Bo and/or Beck going for a real identity soon?
- Thread starter bshirt
- Start date
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Oh hell yeah. Those triple-option Husker teams averaged 7 yards a carry.
Going by HuskerMax stats, 1983 Huskers had 6.7 yards per carry and 8.9 per passing attempt.
'95 Huskers had 7.0 yards per carry, and 7.5 per passing attempt.
Randomly chosen 1986 Osborne team had 5.1 yards per carry, and 6.4 yards per passing attempt.
2012 Huskers had 4.6 yards per carry and 7.2 per passing attempt (I must have grabbed 5.5 from another line)
Surprisingly not that much to learn from this.
We got more rushing yards when we ran more and had awesome national championship teams.
The lower per carry average isn't because we don't run the ball enough, it's because we're not as good of a team.
Although I bet we could beat the '86 Huskers.
Going by HuskerMax stats, 1983 Huskers had 6.7 yards per carry and 8.9 per passing attempt.
'95 Huskers had 7.0 yards per carry, and 7.5 per passing attempt.
Randomly chosen 1986 Osborne team had 5.1 yards per carry, and 6.4 yards per passing attempt.
2012 Huskers had 4.6 yards per carry and 7.2 per passing attempt (I must have grabbed 5.5 from another line)
Surprisingly not that much to learn from this.
We got more rushing yards when we ran more and had awesome national championship teams.
The lower per carry average isn't because we don't run the ball enough, it's because we're not as good of a team.
Although I bet we could beat the '86 Huskers.
Blackshirt316
Starter
The main reasons YPG and YPC went down is 1. We didn't get as many big plays last year as we did in the Big 12. A large majority of the reason for that is we no longer had Helu to break them. Rex is a stud but he's not going to break for 60 very often. He can do it but not like Roy could. 2. We also weren't running Taylor in the same way as we did before his injury either. He wasn't taking on the safties trying to beat them to the middle of the field this year like he did even at times last year (and nowhere near like he did pre injury), instead he was opting to slide or head for the sideline once he got the first down regardless of how soon contact was coming. 3. We weren't getting nearly as many quick outs on defense - and far fewer 3 and outs that we had been getting with better secondary play the previous two years. That led to more offensive touches and thus fewer YPG overall.
To add to all of this I'm not all Old school my first game was TO in 1979. He was a great play caller but when I watch old games what sticks out to me was execution and perfection, Tom knew how to put a mentally preped top notch team on the field than, he called great games. I do think the identity is needed so players can get year after year of training for players, the result can be great execution when well coached, than add to the great playing calling and you have what you need. A bad a$$ team.
bshirt
Banned
:frenchy
Hey, I already surrendered on this issue for the reasons you mentioned and the tougher schedule. Again, point well taken and your analysis makes nothing but good sense.
Loaded For Bear
Walk-on
I would like to see a scaled down playbook, with more of a focus on execution and fundamentals. The power play, the toss, fb trap, belly g option, among others, provide a solid nucleus on which to build upon.
Saunders
Heisman Trophy Winner
RedRedJarvisRedwine
All-American
Yeah I agree... The only thing that was simple was if the opponent couldn't stop something, TO "simply" ran it till they did.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Tom Osborne teams were generally able to dominate 9 teams every season because his teams were built in Boyd Eppley's weight room. They were physically strong and dominating teams. They ran the ball because they could. There is little reason to pass if you're running the ball successfully. Even when they weren't playing great, they could wear a team down in the fourth quarter. Strength and conditioning.
But Osborne teams would lose a couple games every season when up against teams who could match them physically. Osborne offenses did not adjust well when their bread and butter plays were not working, and they got in real trouble when forced to play catch up ball. For 20 years Tom Osborne teams were not Big Game teams. They played too tight and too predictible. That was part of their identity, too.
As I recall, Osborne claims the step up from those 9 win seasons to the National Championship teams was a decision to recruit for speed over strength, especially on defense. His offensive lines were never anything but strong.
But Osborne teams would lose a couple games every season when up against teams who could match them physically. Osborne offenses did not adjust well when their bread and butter plays were not working, and they got in real trouble when forced to play catch up ball. For 20 years Tom Osborne teams were not Big Game teams. They played too tight and too predictible. That was part of their identity, too.
As I recall, Osborne claims the step up from those 9 win seasons to the National Championship teams was a decision to recruit for speed over strength, especially on defense. His offensive lines were never anything but strong.
huskerfan333157
Starter
I dont understand why some of you are obsessed with running the ball 80% of the time. Those days are long gone and that philsophy would not be successful today. Defensive players are bigger, faster and stronger. You need to be BALANCED in order to succeed. All the times that have won the national championship in the past decade could run the ball well and could also pass when they needed to. You cant expect to run the ball 80 percent of the time and be successful, especially against SEC teams. It seems to be mandatory that you need a good passing game in order to be in the "elite" category. Lets look at the NFL, they dont have to run the ball 80 percent of the time in order to win. 50/50=balance which is what teams do when they win national championships.
druski_2k5
Five-Star Recruit
I think the identity we need to have is not an offensive one of what style we run, but a defensive one, in which our team is going to punish opposing offenses, play wih fire on every down with the most passion possible.
I like a balanced 50/50 offense and we need to keep defenses honest. We have brought in good players with speed to be able to do that. If we run an 80-20 run to pass ratio, we won't be able to bring in great athletes on the outside.
1997 Nebraska was the last team to win a National Title with a heavy run oriented scheme. But there were many factors that played into it: defense, bigger rosters, weight room advantage, solid veteran loyal coaches, and Tom Osborne.
Bo is not Tom.
If we mix in options, misdirections, isos, dives, counters, zone reads, and traps with an effective passing game, we will be hard to defend.
Then we can recruit at every position of offense as opposed to taking a hit at one position because of style of offense.
Tom's offenses were multiple, regardless if you believe it or not, but we didn't need to throw to win because of our advantages.
Times have changed an we need to be balanced. But we still need to run well and have the option game as an important step because that's who we are. But with a more solid balanced passin attack.
However, our true identity always should be an intense defense that hits hard, covers well, plays with fire, and when that team plays next weekend, they are still feeling the effects from the blackshirts from the previous weekend.
I like a balanced 50/50 offense and we need to keep defenses honest. We have brought in good players with speed to be able to do that. If we run an 80-20 run to pass ratio, we won't be able to bring in great athletes on the outside.
1997 Nebraska was the last team to win a National Title with a heavy run oriented scheme. But there were many factors that played into it: defense, bigger rosters, weight room advantage, solid veteran loyal coaches, and Tom Osborne.
Bo is not Tom.
If we mix in options, misdirections, isos, dives, counters, zone reads, and traps with an effective passing game, we will be hard to defend.
Then we can recruit at every position of offense as opposed to taking a hit at one position because of style of offense.
Tom's offenses were multiple, regardless if you believe it or not, but we didn't need to throw to win because of our advantages.
Times have changed an we need to be balanced. But we still need to run well and have the option game as an important step because that's who we are. But with a more solid balanced passin attack.
However, our true identity always should be an intense defense that hits hard, covers well, plays with fire, and when that team plays next weekend, they are still feeling the effects from the blackshirts from the previous weekend.
bshirt
Banned
What?
Defensive player are now bigger, stronger and faster but offensive players aren't?
I haven't seen "anybody" have consistent success vs SEC teams for several years. The best SEC teams have crushed the best balanced teams like Ohio State, Oregon, Oklahoma & Texas. What proof is there that a good smashmouth team would do worse?
Lastly, the NFL is totally different animal.
Last edited by a moderator:
huskerfan333157
Starter
Crushed? Did you even watch those games? Auburn didnt crush oregon, oregon stuck with them. You also realize oregon had more yards than LSU, correct? Sometimes i wonder if you watch college football outside of Nebraska. Also, i said the SEC teams run balanced offenses as well. What team has had success in the past 10 years who runs the ball 80 percent of the time and doesnt have a good passing game? They also had to have been in the national championship picture....