Auburn's O becomes our O?

[True2tRA]

I shouldn't have said "anybody". I may have been a bit buzzed up. I think he could play for a lot of teams, but you're right, there's plenty of teams he wouldn't start for. Some really good QBs out there. I think Tommy will be talked about amongst the good ones by the end of next season though. Or, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. I've learned to live with that "being wrong" thing a long long time ago.

 

[Shockley03]

I would have liked to have seen Tommy Armstrong and Rex Burkhead in the same backfield together running the option play. Now, that would have been nice!

 

[BigRedBuster]

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.

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.

So, you are saying they run a lot more than we do? The stats don't hold up to that.

 

[Count 'Bility]

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.

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.

So, you are saying they run a lot more than we do? The stats don't hold up to that.

it's not that they do it more. It's how they do it. it's not cutesy stuff. Sure there's fakes, but it's very unfinesse. It's also situational. They stick with it. They dont go away from it within a series when they only get 2 yards on first down. they dont panic and start passing on 2nd and 8, hence making it 3rd and 8. They go again setting up a 3rd and 3 or 4. Then they have a full book to work with and can run again. They dictate and remain unpredicatable. They use their play action on 1st down and 2nd and short. Even though we have a similar percentage of run to pass ratio, tell me you werent surprised that it was that way. Cuz it sure didnt seem like it to me.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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.

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.

So, you are saying they run a lot more than we do? The stats don't hold up to that.

it's not that they do it more. It's how they do it. it's not cutesy stuff. Sure there's fakes, but it's very unfinesse. It's also situational. They stick with it. They dont go away from it within a series when they only get 2 yards on first down. they dont panic and start passing on 2nd and 8, hence making it 3rd and 8. They go again setting up a 3rd and 3 or 4. Then they have a full book to work with and can run again. They dictate and remain unpredicatable. They use their play action on 1st down and 2nd and short. Even though we have a similar percentage of run to pass ratio, tell me you werent surprised that it was that way. Cuz it sure didnt seem like it to me.

Well, since everyone constantly harps on "no identity", I had actually been paying attention to the stats all year...so, no, I wasn't surprised with our run/pass ratio.

I completely agree with you that some times we tend to go away from the run in odd situations and that is frustrating. It isn't anywhere close to as bad as when Watson was here.

I find it interesting that you spend your post talking about how much they run, then claim they are unpredictable....then....you are surprised at how much we run. If watching our games you think we pass a lot more than we do, wouldn't that mean we are more unpredictable?

Our receiving corp was one of the main strengths coming into this season. Wouldn't it make sense to use them in important situations?

 

[Count 'Bility]

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.

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.

So, you are saying they run a lot more than we do? The stats don't hold up to that.

it's not that they do it more. It's how they do it. it's not cutesy stuff. Sure there's fakes, but it's very unfinesse. It's also situational. They stick with it. They dont go away from it within a series when they only get 2 yards on first down. they dont panic and start passing on 2nd and 8, hence making it 3rd and 8. They go again setting up a 3rd and 3 or 4. Then they have a full book to work with and can run again. They dictate and remain unpredicatable. They use their play action on 1st down and 2nd and short. Even though we have a similar percentage of run to pass ratio, tell me you werent surprised that it was that way. Cuz it sure didnt seem like it to me.

Well, since everyone constantly harps on "no identity", I had actually been paying attention to the stats all year...so, no, I wasn't surprised with our run/pass ratio.

I completely agree with you that some times we tend to go away from the run in odd situations and that is frustrating. It isn't anywhere close to as bad as when Watson was here.

I find it interesting that you spend your post talking about how much they run, then claim they are unpredictable....then....you are surprised at how much we run. If watching our games you think we pass a lot more than we do, wouldn't that mean we are more unpredictable?

Our receiving corp was one of the main strengths coming into this season. Wouldn't it make sense to use them in important situations?

The unpredictable part was more about how they use the run. I know, i'm not being clear enough and am kind of jumping around a bit. Youre right, our receivers were the strength coming into the year. But by mid-season, they werent. Turner was our for the last half, and Kenny Bell was hampered all year long. But we continued to operate under the notion that they were. Again, it's not that we run at that rate, but rather how we use it. It just feels like we have no patience with it whatsoever, and the situational playcalling is just so far off. Hence, we have no identity. I dont fell like we put the right guys in the right position to utilizing their strengths. Hence, slamming Ameer into the middle for a play, then running a stretch or sweep with Imani, then following that up with Tommy taking a 5 step drop and having to dicipher a 7man coverage on third and long with no threat from playaction. How many times did that scenario play out?

 

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

who is our offense most similar to? general consensus...

 

[BigRedBuster]

The unpredictable part was more about how they use the run. I know, i'm not being clear enough and am kind of jumping around a bit. Youre right, our receivers were the strength coming into the year. But by mid-season, they werent. Turner was our for the last half, and Kenny Bell was hampered all year long. But we continued to operate under the notion that they were. Again, it's not that we run at that rate, but rather how we use it. It just feels like we have no patience with it whatsoever, and the situational playcalling is just so far off. Hence, we have no identity. I dont fell like we put the right guys in the right position to utilizing their strengths. Hence, slamming Ameer into the middle for a play, then running a stretch or sweep with Imani, then following that up with Tommy taking a 5 step drop and having to dicipher a 7man coverage on third and long with no threat from playaction. How many times did that scenario play out?

I do agree on the play action. I would think that a team that runs the ball over 60% of the time( and is very successful at it) would use play action constantly in the passing game. I really don't understand why we don't do that more.

I don't really remember Cross running that much to the outside. In fact, when he would come into the game, I thought that was the most predictable play calling. If he was going to get it, it was an inside play of some kind with no threat of catching the ball out of the back field.

 

[NUinID]

Pretty sure that's the vision Bo had 3 years ago. It just hasnt come to fruitiion yet. And I believe that Beck is not yet capable of being that patient with the run game, and using the pass situationally, and stretching the field when you do.

What Auburn is basic simple foot ball. Read fakes and pounding the ball. They just do with temp. Lots and lots of tempo.

This I agree with. Beck is not patient enough with the run. But, the reason is that he really wants to throw the ball. I think he is much more comfortable throwing it 35x a game. When most of us want to see less than 20 passes a game.

 

[junior4949]

One of the biggest reasons I like the power running game of Stanford is because it takes a lot of pressure off of the QB. The offense we're trying to run now places almost all of the emphasis on the QB making the right read etc. Back in 95', Matt Turman could have led us to a NC. Before the 94' season, most people didn't even know who Brook Berringer was. We didn't have to have a Heisman trophy candidate at QB to be successful. With the offense we run now, we do. Personally, I'd like to see our recruiting put a lot more emphasis on the guys in the trenches rather than the skill positions. TO was fortunate to have all of those gifted athletes walk on who played fullback. This is a luxury we don't have anymore. We need to recruit one or two stud fullbacks. Auburn lost the NC game because their offense got stuffed in the third quarter and their defense got gassed. This has been a problem of ours from time to time.

Stanford did lose the Rose Bowl. However, they lost to a team that had one of if not the best defenses in the country and was one fluke messed up call away from being undefeated. Trying to duplicate what a lot of other teams are doing more than likely will not work out well for us. The Clownahan era should have taught us that. It worked great when it worked, but it failed miserably when it wasn't working. Any defense will look poor except the 2009 Husker defense when it's on the field three out of the four quarters.

 

[Stumpy1]

Bama has the ideal offense for me. They play a power run with play action mixed in, along with a little finese also. I like watching Stanford and Bama play because they just beat you up and there is nothing fancy about how they do it.

 

[NoLongerN]

+1 to Junior4949. This is my view as well.

 

[BigRedBuster]

One of the biggest reasons I like the power running game of Stanford is because it takes a lot of pressure off of the QB. The offense we're trying to run now places almost all of the emphasis on the QB making the right read etc. Back in 95', Matt Turman could have led us to a NC. Before the 94' season, most people didn't even know who Brook Berringer was. We didn't have to have a Heisman trophy candidate at QB to be successful. With the offense we run now, we do. Personally, I'd like to see our recruiting put a lot more emphasis on the guys in the trenches rather than the skill positions. TO was fortunate to have all of those gifted athletes walk on who played fullback. This is a luxury we don't have anymore. We need to recruit one or two stud fullbacks. Auburn lost the NC game because their offense got stuffed in the third quarter and their defense got gassed. This has been a problem of ours from time to time.

Stanford did lose the Rose Bowl. However, they lost to a team that had one of if not the best defenses in the country and was one fluke messed up call away from being undefeated. Trying to duplicate what a lot of other teams are doing more than likely will not work out well for us. The Clownahan era should have taught us that. It worked great when it worked, but it failed miserably when it wasn't working. Any defense will look poor except the 2009 Husker defense when it's on the field three out of the four quarters.

HUGE exaggeration.