Scratchtown
All-Conference
Well its not like Oregon's defense is very stout. So I don't think your point is as relevant as you want.
Though. This line is much better than last years in the run game so far.
Between the tackles
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
Though. This line is much better than last years in the run game so far.
This is kind of my issue. Langs needs to demonstrate he will stick with what's working, even if the "card" says he should call a certainty play against a certain look.
jsneb83
All-American
And isn't the option, which was supposedly the offense we ran in the 90's, the epitome of taking what the defense gives you?
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Guy,
You keep saying that but the systems we recommend are responsible for multiple championships at Nebraska and lots of .700+ seasons.
The type of system you think is just as good is 55-40 with no conf championship, and that's counting watson's 2008 and 2009 offenses.* Take those away, and NU is 35-32 with those "balanced" systems.
And while you can say we don't understand football, more than a couple of experts, including Osborne, have spoken at length about the exact same beliefs and understandings.
*Note that Watson's "balanced" offense cost NU at least one conf championship even though it had several pro players starting and backing up on the depth chart.
You keep saying that but the systems we recommend are responsible for multiple championships at Nebraska and lots of .700+ seasons.
The type of system you think is just as good is 55-40 with no conf championship, and that's counting watson's 2008 and 2009 offenses.* Take those away, and NU is 35-32 with those "balanced" systems.
And while you can say we don't understand football, more than a couple of experts, including Osborne, have spoken at length about the exact same beliefs and understandings.
*Note that Watson's "balanced" offense cost NU at least one conf championship even though it had several pro players starting and backing up on the depth chart.
Last edited by a moderator:
alwayshusking
Starter
Can't just blame the offensive system for the lack of success in Nebraska football, there are other factors in winning games. Like talent in said system and playing defense for example. The defense has been arguably the biggest issue as to why Nebraska hasn't had more success in recent history.
We are running the ball 62.11% of the time this year which is 22nd most in the country. Pretty run heavy thus far, but we aren't going to be able to run over everybody. I think Langsdorf is doing a great job with Tommy this year.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/rushing-play-pct?date=2016-09-22
We are running the ball 62.11% of the time this year which is 22nd most in the country. Pretty run heavy thus far, but we aren't going to be able to run over everybody. I think Langsdorf is doing a great job with Tommy this year.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/rushing-play-pct?date=2016-09-22
jsneb83
All-American
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
How about this balance? Good offense + Good defense = Championships!
Or more to the point in both the NCAA and NFL = Mistake free offense + Shutdown defense = Championships!
There are many football teams that have won championships not named Nebraska. The all ran the ball. But they didn't all run Tom Osborne's offense. They didn't freakishly monitor their run/pass ratios, nor worry that some semblance of balance would rob them of the singular identity that seems important to certain Nebraskans (but only if that singular identify is running). FWIW...Nebraska also won two championships running a more balanced attack in 70-71.
Your desire to go back to the 1995 way of things is certainly understandable, but if the road to championships was simply adopting Tom Osborne's power option offense, the many, many Osborne admirers in the coaching community would have replicated it. The notion that Nebraska can no longer get good athletes, or that a passing game requires skills beyond our simple prairie ways, is kinda insulting, too.
I mean, hats off to Navy. But we're better than Navy.
And if the vaunted Nebraska offense of old had been backed by any recent Nebraska defense, they wouldn't even qualify as glory days.
In terms of intrinsic resources, Navy is a .500 (or worse) program that goes .666 because of their system.
In terms of intrinsic resources, Nebraska is probably a .650 program that has gone .750+ (and often .800+) in large part because of the run-based option system, which, when you truly boil it down, was the distinguishing feature of Nebraska's program over other Plains-state and B10 opponents.
I've simply stated that we should remain true to the principles that made NU great, and that was hard nosed running system that employed a mobile QB, because that tends to neutralize a certain degree of weakness - it's a big reason NU was able to win championships with 20+ walk on the depth chart each year.
However, I've never once said we should to back to running TO's playbook. I'm fine with running something more akin to what Beck was trying to implement or what Briles, Herman and the other zone spread guys run. That to me is much more effective than being a "balanced offense" simply for the sake of being balanced. I will say that it's very very interesting that you don't realize that many of the principles of today's spread and zone read offenses were heavily influenced by Osborne's system. Go back and look at what TO was doing by the mid-90s.
As for balance in '70 and '71, NU ran the ball 71% each of those years, including 734 times during in 1971 - a total that indicates they rushed more per game than the '83 scoring explosion offense and the '94 and '95 championship teams and just a little less than the '97 championship team (based on 12 game's worth of stats each of those years - bowl games weren't included later).
To your last statement, you are missing the fact that that offense and the mentality that it fostered was a big reason why NU had solid defensive performances during years when we actually weren't all that great on the defensive side of the ball.
But yes, if you count only the 90s as "glory days" then it's worth also noting that the '95 team was the GOAT (not just a typical NC team) - and that's not because there have been no other more talented teams before or since - it's because of the system.
And why don't more people adopt it? Because coaches teach what they learned coming up and it's not an easy process for most coaches to change, because, frankly, many aren't that smart. It's guys like Urban Meyer, who was a totally different kind of offensive mind before his ND met Nebraska in the early 00s, who are able to make the change. But that's rare.
It's also the stigma of a "high school offense" or "gimmick system" that makes it unpalatable to many prideful fan bases - Husker fans just used to be able to keep their pride in check if it meant wins. I don't think that's the case anymore.
In terms of intrinsic resources, Nebraska is probably a .650 program that has gone .750+ (and often .800+) in large part because of the run-based option system, which, when you truly boil it down, was the distinguishing feature of Nebraska's program over other Plains-state and B10 opponents.
I've simply stated that we should remain true to the principles that made NU great, and that was hard nosed running system that employed a mobile QB, because that tends to neutralize a certain degree of weakness - it's a big reason NU was able to win championships with 20+ walk on the depth chart each year.
However, I've never once said we should to back to running TO's playbook. I'm fine with running something more akin to what Beck was trying to implement or what Briles, Herman and the other zone spread guys run. That to me is much more effective than being a "balanced offense" simply for the sake of being balanced. I will say that it's very very interesting that you don't realize that many of the principles of today's spread and zone read offenses were heavily influenced by Osborne's system. Go back and look at what TO was doing by the mid-90s.
As for balance in '70 and '71, NU ran the ball 71% each of those years, including 734 times during in 1971 - a total that indicates they rushed more per game than the '83 scoring explosion offense and the '94 and '95 championship teams and just a little less than the '97 championship team (based on 12 game's worth of stats each of those years - bowl games weren't included later).
To your last statement, you are missing the fact that that offense and the mentality that it fostered was a big reason why NU had solid defensive performances during years when we actually weren't all that great on the defensive side of the ball.
But yes, if you count only the 90s as "glory days" then it's worth also noting that the '95 team was the GOAT (not just a typical NC team) - and that's not because there have been no other more talented teams before or since - it's because of the system.
And why don't more people adopt it? Because coaches teach what they learned coming up and it's not an easy process for most coaches to change, because, frankly, many aren't that smart. It's guys like Urban Meyer, who was a totally different kind of offensive mind before his ND met Nebraska in the early 00s, who are able to make the change. But that's rare.
It's also the stigma of a "high school offense" or "gimmick system" that makes it unpalatable to many prideful fan bases - Husker fans just used to be able to keep their pride in check if it meant wins. I don't think that's the case anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Didn't realize this. I had lumped you in with everyone who simply transferred their dislike of Watson to their dislike of Beck to their dislike of Langsdorf, not realizing that they didn't necessarily seek balance for balance's sake, but simply wanted as many weapons as possible to make the DCs job harder.
I do think you are woefully underestimating Osborne defenses that gave up between 8 and 14 points a game in the glory years, as compared to Callahn/Pelini/Riley defenses that gave up more than twice that.
You also seem torn between saying coaches are too dumb to adopt Osborne's lessons, while simultaneously giving Osborne credit for many of the offenses currently being run.
I knew I might get a bold-faced reprimand on the 70-71 championships. I'll take it like a man. Specifically an old man who remembers that Devaney's first two NCs with Osborne came with far more balance, sophistication and trickery than the offense that came before it.
RedDenver
Heisman Trophy Winner
Bolded for truth.
Nebraska's offensive scheme/identity is far less relevant to playing championship football than the defense. Look back over the years and you'll find a strong correlation between our best years and our best defenses.
