Any chance for Bo and/or Beck going for a real identity soon?

[Guy Chamberlin]

The best SEC teams have also been balanced.

You gotta trust us. Balance isn't a dirty word.

 

[Blackshirt316]

Some people are confusing balance. There's different types of balance.

Balance can be play call balance, ie 50% run, 50% pass.

The team needs production balance. ie. Not being forced to run because they can't pass, not being forced to pass because a team takes away the run completely. Production balance means both the run and pass game are effective enough that any given play on a normal field progression (meaning not including 4th and 30 for example) any play could be a run or pass and be effective - thus keeping the defense from keying in on one or the other and never being able to just focus on one player or hot read.

The other kind of balance is field balance. Working the middle, left and right side of the field at any time. We do that pretty well I think. We don't stretch the field vertically as well as we have in the past though, last year teams could play a bit tighter to the line because we didn't have the ability on a consistant basis to break beyond the second level. We could work short and medium but not really force the safties and linebackers too far back.

Play call balance doesn't need to change, you do that based on the makeup of the team, we're a run first team so that balance should and does reflect that. The other two are where we need to find the balance. It's not that we don't pass enough, it's that teams don't respect the pass enough not to key on the run. To stop that we need to be more consistant both at QB and at WR as well as work all three levels of the field more consistantly, not just the short and medium. - ie we need to see more Kyler Reed behind the linebackers and deep routes from the outside testing the safties when they creep up to stop the run.

You can run the ball 80% of the time and do great things.. if the other team still has to respect the other 20%.

 

[hskerholic]

The one thing I would like Beck to run more is misdirection. He doesn't call enough of it, and teams start to over pursue. He ran some in the Minnesota game and those went for big plays, but he never really ran much more after that.

(null)

 

[bshirt]

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.

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.

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....

What would you call "both" Ohio State NC games? Sure, there where some somewhat close games too. So what.

Amazingly, you sound exactly like the ABC/ESPN commentators in the early 1990s. How NU needed to become more "balanced to get to the next level". Going 60 - 3 over the next five years with three NCs shut their mouths up in a big, big way.

Run the ball, Stop the run, Win the game.

 

[bshirt]

The one thing I would like Beck to run more is misdirection. He doesn't call enough of it, and teams start to over pursue. He ran some in the Minnesota game and those went for big plays, but he never really ran much more after that.

(null)

Yes!

They were pure gravy the very few times we used that. I too don't know why it got dumped.

 

[The Dude]

I want our offensive identity to be trick plays 80% of the time and Hail Marys the other 40%. Our opponents won't know what hit 'em.

 

[Hunter94]

The one thing I would like Beck to run more is misdirection. He doesn't call enough of it, and teams start to over pursue. He ran some in the Minnesota game and those went for big plays, but he never really ran much more after that.

(null)

Yes!

They were pure gravy the very few times we used that. I too don't know why it got dumped.

is he infected with the "Watson syndrome"?.......... :ahhhhhhhh

 

[Enhance]

I want an offense that effectively moves the football. Deep down I'd love for that offense to be run based, but we don't move the ball consistently or effectively enough when solely relying on the run. I also want our offense to be effective against stiff competition. That doesn't mean being great, it just means good enough.

The whole "identity" discussion is a little silly to me. Our identity should be to score touchdowns however we can get them. There are plenty of teams that run/pass the ball in similar ratios to us, yet they have identity and we don't?

 

[bshirt]

I want an offense that effectively moves the football. Deep down I'd love for that offense to be run based, but we don't move the ball consistently or effectively enough when solely relying on the run. I also want our offense to be effective against stiff competition. That doesn't mean being great, it just means good enough.

The whole "identity" discussion is a little silly to me. Our identity should be to score touchdowns however we can get them. There are plenty of teams that run/pass the ball in similar ratios to us, yet they have identity and we don't?

Well, if they're really great at something for several years then they probably do have an identity. They probably recruit and specifically develop players to excel at it. It's either that or they've have a big talent edge.

It's difficult to excel when copying everyone else.

You think the term "identity" is just silly? Just "score TDs anyway we can get them" is all there is to think about? Well, that's ok. To each their own my friend.

 

[Enhance]

I want an offense that effectively moves the football. Deep down I'd love for that offense to be run based, but we don't move the ball consistently or effectively enough when solely relying on the run. I also want our offense to be effective against stiff competition. That doesn't mean being great, it just means good enough.

The whole "identity" discussion is a little silly to me. Our identity should be to score touchdowns however we can get them. There are plenty of teams that run/pass the ball in similar ratios to us, yet they have identity and we don't?

Well, if they're really great at something for several years then they probably do have an identity. They probably recruit and specifically develop players to excel at it. It's either that or they've have a big talent edge.

It's difficult to excel when copying everyone else.

You think the term "identity" is just silly? Just "score TDs anyway we can get them" is all there is to think about? Well, that's ok. To each their own my friend.

The identity idea gets misconstrued into meaning something it isn't. People think 'identity' and they want the "well-done throwback Husker definition of blah blah blah smash mouth blah blah make 'em stop us blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about." It's unintelligent blather. Identity is given far more credit than what it deserves. There are more talented teams with tenured coaches, and losing teams with young coaches, that have similar pass/run ratios as we do within a couple of percentages. That's wide ranging variability. Yet, some teams have more yards and more points while others have less. This is an identity problem?

The problem is execution and coaching. It's silly to suggest the issue is we don't have an overarching theme, and that this theme will make us successful.

If you really think an identity will fix that...well, then yes, each to his own. I disagree. Teams are good at what they do because they practice, they're well-coached and they execute. I don't see how having a stamped-in-the-earth identity will fix execution levels. We can say all we want that we need to do something or be a certain way. Actually doing it is what matters, and we often can't. Actions speak louder than words, and I'd rather us fix our actions on the field rather than worry about fitting into some idiotic concept of identity.

 

[walksalone]

The identity idea gets misconstrued into meaning something it isn't. People think 'identity' and they want the "well-done throwback Husker definition of blah blah blah smash mouth blah blah make 'em stop us blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about." It's unintelligent blather. Identity is given far more credit than what it deserves. There are more talented teams with tenured coaches, and losing teams with young coaches, that have similar pass/run ratios as we do within a couple of percentages. That's wide ranging variability. Yet, some teams have more yards and more points while others have less. This is an identity problem?

The problem is execution and coaching. It's silly to suggest the issue is we don't have an overarching theme, and that this theme will make us successful.

If you really think an identity will fix that...well, then yes, each to his own. I disagree. Teams are good at what they do because they practice, they're well-coached and they execute. I don't see how having a stamped-in-the-earth identity will fix execution levels. We can say all we want that we need to do something or be a certain way. Actually doing it is what matters, and we often can't. Actions speak louder than words, and I'd rather us fix our actions on the field rather than worry about fitting into some idiotic concept of identity.

I agree with the majority of what you said. Well thought out, and well represented. But there's one thing that seems to be missing.

Identity or not, this teams success has generally been built on the strength of the offensive and defensive lines. Execution is huge, you're dead on with that. We need the bodies that not only can physically execute, but also be able to do it mentally as well. I'm not trying to over simplify this, but it seems that the play of your offensive line has taken a back seat to the dual threat QB.

I would just like to see old school, well executed, fundamental football. Does that mean running the ball, sure does. The now antiquated, using the run to set up the pass and the well executed play action throw to the wide open tight end.

 

[bshirt]

I want an offense that effectively moves the football. Deep down I'd love for that offense to be run based, but we don't move the ball consistently or effectively enough when solely relying on the run. I also want our offense to be effective against stiff competition. That doesn't mean being great, it just means good enough.

The whole "identity" discussion is a little silly to me. Our identity should be to score touchdowns however we can get them. There are plenty of teams that run/pass the ball in similar ratios to us, yet they have identity and we don't?

Well, if they're really great at something for several years then they probably do have an identity. They probably recruit and specifically develop players to excel at it. It's either that or they've have a big talent edge.

It's difficult to excel when copying everyone else.

You think the term "identity" is just silly? Just "score TDs anyway we can get them" is all there is to think about? Well, that's ok. To each their own my friend.

The identity idea gets misconstrued into meaning something it isn't. People think 'identity' and they want the "well-done throwback Husker definition of blah blah blah smash mouth blah blah make 'em stop us blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about." It's unintelligent blather. Identity is given far more credit than what it deserves. There are more talented teams with tenured coaches, and losing teams with young coaches, that have similar pass/run ratios as we do within a couple of percentages. That's wide ranging variability. Yet, some teams have more yards and more points while others have less. This is an identity problem?

The problem is execution and coaching. It's silly to suggest the issue is we don't have an overarching theme, and that this theme will make us successful.

If you really think an identity will fix that...well, then yes, each to his own. I disagree. Teams are good at what they do because they practice, they're well-coached and they execute. I don't see how having a stamped-in-the-earth identity will fix execution levels. We can say all we want that we need to do something or be a certain way. Actually doing it is what matters, and we often can't. Actions speak louder than words, and I'd rather us fix our actions on the field rather than worry about fitting into some idiotic concept of identity.

Talking about the need for an identity we excel at is just "unintelligent blather" but "score TDs anyway we can get them" is the mark of supreme cfb insight.

.

​

Makes sense to me.

 

[Enhance]

Talking about the need for an identity we excel at is just "unintelligent blather" but "score TDs anyway we can get them" is the mark of supreme cfb insight.

.

​

Makes sense to me.

I take it you missed what I thought was not-so-subtle sarcasm.

Offenses are obviously more complicated than just scoring touchdowns any way you can get them. I could spend awhile talking about all the things we need to do to be better on offense.

The issue, however, is I think absolutely none of this has to do with "identity."

 

[Enhance]

The identity idea gets misconstrued into meaning something it isn't. People think 'identity' and they want the "well-done throwback Husker definition of blah blah blah smash mouth blah blah make 'em stop us blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about." It's unintelligent blather. Identity is given far more credit than what it deserves. There are more talented teams with tenured coaches, and losing teams with young coaches, that have similar pass/run ratios as we do within a couple of percentages. That's wide ranging variability. Yet, some teams have more yards and more points while others have less. This is an identity problem?

The problem is execution and coaching. It's silly to suggest the issue is we don't have an overarching theme, and that this theme will make us successful.

If you really think an identity will fix that...well, then yes, each to his own. I disagree. Teams are good at what they do because they practice, they're well-coached and they execute. I don't see how having a stamped-in-the-earth identity will fix execution levels. We can say all we want that we need to do something or be a certain way. Actually doing it is what matters, and we often can't. Actions speak louder than words, and I'd rather us fix our actions on the field rather than worry about fitting into some idiotic concept of identity.

I agree with the majority of what you said. Well thought out, and well represented. But there's one thing that seems to be missing.

Identity or not, this teams success has generally been built on the strength of the offensive and defensive lines. Execution is huge, you're dead on with that. We need the bodies that not only can physically execute, but also be able to do it mentally as well. I'm not trying to over simplify this, but it seems that the play of your offensive line has taken a back seat to the dual threat QB.

I would just like to see old school, well executed, fundamental football. Does that mean running the ball, sure does. The now antiquated, using the run to set up the pass and the well executed play action throw to the wide open tight end.

I used "execution" as all-encompassing to describe what we need to do to get better. I didn't want to reiterate what I've said in handfuls of threads already this off season about the lines, the execution, etc. I completely agree with you.

I'm not saying that having an identity is a bad thing. There are many teams in the country who I can look at and say "this is their identity." What I'm most trying to illustrate is how our execution levels prevent us from having any kind of identity. Right now, our identity is that we're inconsistent with a good chance of playing well and an equally good chance of doing something stupid. This is not the identity we want, but it is what we have developed through coaching and our execution levels. For the last several years I've seen journalists, other posters and even myself claim we need an identity. Now, I think it's difficult to put things so simply.

We need a way to get more out of our coaches so they can get more out of our players. From there, we can let an identity develop naturally. I think the more you try and be something specific the more difficult it is to succeed.

Winning isn't about identity - it's about doing more things correctly versus the other team.

 

[walksalone]

The identity thing is an overanalysis of the offense. Did TO worry about the identity of his offense? Only in the past few years where an offense of a football team is under a microscope from us here on the board, to the jackasses at ESPN. You can't just hand an offense the ball, and they'll go out and score. It's one of the more complex things in sports and therein is the beauty of it, the fundamentals, the ability to execute. From the line, all the way to the skill players, it takes a tremendous amount of teamwork.