Auburn's O becomes our O?

ColoradoHusk said:
TGHusker said:
Agree - Stanford is closer to the old NU style of play and may help us in the big 10
Click to expand...
I understand that many Husker fans love the Stanford style of football, because it reminds us of the good old days of power football under Osborne. Stanford gets a lot of credit in beating Oregon twice in the past 2 seasons, but this is a team that lost to a terrible Utah team and also lost to USC. We could argue that Nebraska moved the ball better against Michigan State than Stanford did in the Rose Bowl.

I agree that it would be nice for NU to have an "identity" on offense, but Stanford almost seems "too conservative" at times. It works great against matchups against Oregon, but they typically have 1 or 2 losses each year where I think "how the heck did they lose to that team?"
Click to expand...
That's true, but I would argue regardless of what style of offense you play, those kinds of losses are still going to happen. My desire to run an offense like Stanford's is because of identity (like you pointed out) and, quite simply, personal preference. I think their offensive style is powerful and no nonsense, but I also think that identity is pretty crucial. Fourth and short in the Rose Bowl, it was man on man - great defense against one of the best offensive lines in the country. We all knew what was coming, and Stanford did it anyways. That day, they got beat and MSU stuffed them. But, I like that in a make or break it situation, they relied on what they felt they were best at doing. Sometimes, I don't think Nebraska has any idea what that is.

Lastly, Stanford lost twice during the regular season, won their conference and went to the Rose Bowl. I would take that season over anything we've had the last ten years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ColoradoHusk said:
TGHusker said:
Agree - Stanford is closer to the old NU style of play and may help us in the big 10
Click to expand...
I understand that many Husker fans love the Stanford style of football, because it reminds us of the good old days of power football under Osborne. Stanford gets a lot of credit in beating Oregon twice in the past 2 seasons, but this is a team that lost to a terrible Utah team and also lost to USC. We could argue that Nebraska moved the ball better against Michigan State than Stanford did in the Rose Bowl.

I agree that it would be nice for NU to have an "identity" on offense, but Stanford almost seems "too conservative" at times. It works great against matchups against Oregon, but they typically have 1 or 2 losses each year where I think "how the heck did they lose to that team?"
Click to expand...
Okay then give me Michigans state offensive scheme, of this year, at least. Not players, not production, etc. But give me their scheme. They at least had an identity.

I'll take it. They play power football but also have the ability to get vertical in a hurry.

 
The King said:
ColoradoHusk said:
TGHusker said:
Agree - Stanford is closer to the old NU style of play and may help us in the big 10
Click to expand...
I understand that many Husker fans love the Stanford style of football, because it reminds us of the good old days of power football under Osborne. Stanford gets a lot of credit in beating Oregon twice in the past 2 seasons, but this is a team that lost to a terrible Utah team and also lost to USC. We could argue that Nebraska moved the ball better against Michigan State than Stanford did in the Rose Bowl.

I agree that it would be nice for NU to have an "identity" on offense, but Stanford almost seems "too conservative" at times. It works great against matchups against Oregon, but they typically have 1 or 2 losses each year where I think "how the heck did they lose to that team?"
Click to expand...
Okay then give me Michigans state offensive scheme, of this year, at least. Not players, not production, etc. But give me their scheme. They at least had an identity.

I'll take it. They play power football but also have the ability to get vertical in a hurry.
Click to expand...
You and Enhance make great points. I too have been very frustrated with Beck's thought that his "multiple" offense is a good identity. It's a "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy. I would like more reliance on the power RB run game, utilizing the QB run as a change-up to keep defenses honest, and mix in a vertical passing game for the big play. I guess I am basically saying that I want Osborne's offense back at NU, hahaha.

 
After reading the thread, it sounds to me like we just need a better QB, better O-line, better playcaller and better strategy. We're that close to being an elite offense. All the other pieces are in place.

 
JTrain said:
After reading the thread, it sounds to me like we just need a better QB, better O-line, better playcaller and better strategy. We're that close to being an elite offense. All the other pieces are in place.
Click to expand...
I am very interested in the QB battle next spring/fall. Armstrong brings game experience, athleticism, and leadership abilities, while Stanton brings more size, power running abilities, and unknown passing skills. I know Stanton excelled in the Elite 11 camp, but his high school offense was run out of the same formation every play and didn't require a lot of reading defenses.

The injuries to the o-line this year was actually a good thing to give experience to some younger guys. Plus, there are some young pups that didn't play in 2013 that could contribute in 2014.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Warrior10 said:
The King said:
Nick Marshall as a runner eats Tommy Armstrong for breakfast and compares to a healthy T-Magic.
Click to expand...
Can't really compare a RSJR to a RSFR....by the time TA gets two more years under his belt he could be nearly as good. I don't think TA will ever be as fast as Marshall though.
Click to expand...
Is he the one they said started his career somewhere else as a safety?
Click to expand...
He was at Georgia as a CB as a frosh. Something happened and he was kicked off Georgia's team, and went the JUCO route. He then transferred to Auburn this fall as QB. Supposedly, Marshall was a great basketball player, too and could have gone D-1.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
TGHusker said:
Agree - Stanford is closer to the old NU style of play and may help us in the big 10
Click to expand...
I understand that many Husker fans love the Stanford style of football, because it reminds us of the good old days of power football under Osborne. Stanford gets a lot of credit in beating Oregon twice in the past 2 seasons, but this is a team that lost to a terrible Utah team and also lost to USC. We could argue that Nebraska moved the ball better against Michigan State than Stanford did in the Rose Bowl.

I agree that it would be nice for NU to have an "identity" on offense, but Stanford almost seems "too conservative" at times. It works great against matchups against Oregon, but they typically have 1 or 2 losses each year where I think "how the heck did they lose to that team?"
Click to expand...
I'd rather lose "doing what we do" then wonder week to week, hell sometimes half to half, what offense is going to show up.

I know our run/pass ratio is where we want it, and we have an all B1G rusher, but we also have this bizzaro spread/motion/zone/vertical passing offense too. Any of those as "what we are" is fine; but all of them together?

We need a "mulitple power game". One that runs downhill and off tackle. That uses traps and counters to attack a superior D, and playaction to keep balance.

Just "do what we do", win or lose, I think most would be happy w some consistency.

 
I constantly read on here people who complain because the Huskers don't "have an identity". So.....what is Auburn's identity?

last night I thought I saw them running similar type plays that we run plus some that we don't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I constantly read on here people who complain because the Huskers don't "have an identity". So.....what is Auburn's identity?

last night I thought I saw them running similar type plays that we run plus some that we don't.
Click to expand...
Malzahn has stated that they are an up-tempo offense, based on Wing T principles. Basically, everything they run comes from variations out of old Wing T plays.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I constantly read on here people who complain because the Huskers don't "have an identity". So.....what is Auburn's identity?

last night I thought I saw them running similar type plays that we run plus some that we don't.
Click to expand...
Their identity is that they pound the ball. They gain 3 on first down with a run. They gain 4 on second down with the same play. Then they run a read sweep for 6 yards and a first down on 3rd. Then comeback with more power on 1st down or PA and start all over again. Again, there is nothing complicated about what they do. They just do it, do it very well, and add tempo to on top of it all. Tell, what do we do very well? What can you always count on from our offense week in, week out. Hell, possession in , possession out. Until the Gator bowl, turnovers were about the only identity our offense had. The offensive plan in the Gator bowl is how we need to play from here on out. The offensive plan against Minnesota, UCLA, Iowa, hell even Northwestern i would say, was borderline embarrassing.

 
QMany said:
Last night, Auburn was 34% pass and 66% run. For the season we were 39% pass and 61% run.
Click to expand...
I think NU evolved to a higher run % once Martinez got hurt. I haven't compared the game stats, but Beck seemed to think that he could unleash Taylor Martinez "Pocket Passer" more often this season. The Minnesota game comes to my mind right away. That was a game where NU was having great success running the ball with Ameer, but Beck still wanted to force things with the pass game to "exploit 1-on-1 coverages":

 
True2tRA said:
I agree Warrior. I wish we ran this offense!!!!!

Still the part I disagree with, TA gonna show all of you something. This guy could start for anyone in the country.
Click to expand...
Yes he could start for anyone in the country he would totally take WInstons spot at FSU they would drop him in a heart beat. TA would be FSU 3rd string QB if he tried to play for them. I could list off the top 25 team in the country and he would be 2nd string at best. TA is good but not that damn good

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