I disagree with that, those teams weren't option-based running teams. They ran the option occasionally out of the spread formation, these option plays were open and successful because of the successful passing game(as noted by newearth saying LeFors completed 73% of his passes). All 3 of those teams you listed were in the top 20 in passing completion percentage, Louisville #1, Utah #5 and Boise State #18. All 3 of those teams were in the top 20 in passing yards per game as well. The option play still works, yes, but these teams utilize it in different offenses and a different fashion than what was used here at Nebraska. The notion that the offense will be successful if the defense ain't where the ball is, that's where efficiency, execution and play calling come in. Calling the right play, running it correctly and showing the ability to execute it on a consistent basis. I think once the completion percentage climbs in Lincoln, the holes in the defense will become wider and the play book will open up from there.The 3 top Offenses in Div 1A last year - Louisville, Boise St. and Utah, all used option systems from the spread formation.
It doesn't matter how fast a defense is, if they aren't where the ball is it doesn't matter (remember, Space, Time, Position...).
IRISH!
can the Huskers do it with the WCO?
- Thread starter turkwilliams
- Start date
OU may be getting to NC games, but they, like Nebraska prior to 94', can't finish the job.
I support the Big 12 in NC games, but watching Stoops get his butt handed to him by USC was grand.
And as far as all of this talk about "can the WCO work for Nebraska, can they win it all?" I say, with time and talent, yes.
Having a high caliber QB is a good start. Great leadership in the huddle is 75% of the battle.
GO HUSKERS!
I can understand your disagreement, but I'm afraid you're quite wrong gentlemen. 
Those teams weren't Power-I option teams, but they were option teams for sure - passing percentage has nothing to do with that. In fact, those teams *ran* about 60% of the time and all 3 were in the top 15 rushing.
Utah
Passing - Att: 344 Comp: 232 Pct: 67.4 Yrds: 3164
Rushing - Att:520 Yrds: 2844
Louisville:
Passing - Att:357 Comp: 256 Pct: 71.7 Yrds: 3463
Rushing - Att:529 Yrds:v3010
Boise St -
Passing - Att: 353 Comp:221 Pct: 62.6 Yards: 3154
Rushing - Att: 592 Yards: 2769
Unless you're defining Option purely as "fast QB that can't pass Option" or "we pass on 3rd down only and even then only 7 times a game Option". Those things are team-controlled and have nothing to do with the system, so that's a bit of an inaccurate assessment.
However, since the objection to the Option is due to defenses being able to shut it down easily, that implies that having the QB carry the ball and have the ability to pitch to a trailing back is no longer viable - and that's clearly not the case.
Just as the Power-I was an evolution of the Option from the old Wishbone, so is the Spread Option an evolution of the Power I.
IRISH!
Those teams weren't Power-I option teams, but they were option teams for sure - passing percentage has nothing to do with that. In fact, those teams *ran* about 60% of the time and all 3 were in the top 15 rushing.
Utah
Passing - Att: 344 Comp: 232 Pct: 67.4 Yrds: 3164
Rushing - Att:520 Yrds: 2844
Louisville:
Passing - Att:357 Comp: 256 Pct: 71.7 Yrds: 3463
Rushing - Att:529 Yrds:v3010
Boise St -
Passing - Att: 353 Comp:221 Pct: 62.6 Yards: 3154
Rushing - Att: 592 Yards: 2769
Unless you're defining Option purely as "fast QB that can't pass Option" or "we pass on 3rd down only and even then only 7 times a game Option". Those things are team-controlled and have nothing to do with the system, so that's a bit of an inaccurate assessment.
However, since the objection to the Option is due to defenses being able to shut it down easily, that implies that having the QB carry the ball and have the ability to pitch to a trailing back is no longer viable - and that's clearly not the case.
Just as the Power-I was an evolution of the Option from the old Wishbone, so is the Spread Option an evolution of the Power I.
IRISH!
You completely missed the point. The reasons those offenses were successful with the option is because the passing game was so efficient. Just because you attain rushing yards and you run the option some does not mean that you attained all those yards with the option. If Jammal Lord was a 65% passer, the offense would have been a lot more successful and wide open when he was quarterback. There's no need to get too cerebral when a straight-forward point is made.I can understand your disagreement, but I'm afraid you're quite wrong gentlemen.
Those teams weren't Power-I option teams, but they were option teams for sure - passing percentage has nothing to do with that. In fact, those teams *ran* about 60% of the time and all 3 were in the top 15 rushing.
Utah
Passing - Att: 344 Comp: 232 Pct: 67.4 Yrds: 3164
Rushing - Att:520 Yrds: 2844
Louisville:
Passing - Att:357 Comp: 256 Pct: 71.7 Yrds: 3463
Rushing - Att:529 Yrds:v3010
Boise St -
Passing - Att: 353 Comp:221 Pct: 62.6 Yards: 3154
Rushing - Att: 592 Yards: 2769
Unless you're defining Option purely as "fast QB that can't pass Option" or "we pass on 3rd down only and even then only 7 times a game Option". Those things are team-controlled and have nothing to do with the system, so that's a bit of an inaccurate assessment.
However, since the objection to the Option is due to defenses being able to shut it down easily, that implies that having the QB carry the ball and have the ability to pitch to a trailing back is no longer viable - and that's clearly not the case.
Just as the Power-I was an evolution of the Option from the old Wishbone, so is the Spread Option an evolution of the Power I.
IRISH!
Point taken, DJR - I was simply responding to Blackshirt34's assertion that the option is no longer viable. Does that mean the option as run by UNL between 1999 and 2004? Well, perhaps, perhaps not. It might be just semantics and I'll grant that (and you should know by now that I'll get all cerebral with this stuff...that's what I enjoyYou completely missed the point. The reasons those offenses were successful with the option is because the passing game was so efficient. Just because you attain rushing yards and you run the option some does not mean that you attained all those yards with the option. If Jammal Lord was a 65% passer, the offense would have been a lot more successful and wide open when he was quarterback. There's no need to get too cerebral when a straight-forward point is made.I can understand your disagreement, but I'm afraid you're quite wrong gentlemen.
Those teams weren't Power-I option teams, but they were option teams for sure - passing percentage has nothing to do with that. In fact, those teams *ran* about 60% of the time and all 3 were in the top 15 rushing.
Utah
Passing - Att: 344 Comp: 232 Pct: 67.4 Yrds: 3164
Rushing - Att:520 Yrds: 2844
Louisville:
Passing - Att:357 Comp: 256 Pct: 71.7 Yrds: 3463
Rushing - Att:529 Yrds:v3010
Boise St -
Passing - Att: 353 Comp:221 Pct: 62.6 Yards: 3154
Rushing - Att: 592 Yards: 2769
Unless you're defining Option purely as "fast QB that can't pass Option" or "we pass on 3rd down only and even then only 7 times a game Option". Those things are team-controlled and have nothing to do with the system, so that's a bit of an inaccurate assessment.
However, since the objection to the Option is due to defenses being able to shut it down easily, that implies that having the QB carry the ball and have the ability to pitch to a trailing back is no longer viable - and that's clearly not the case.
Just as the Power-I was an evolution of the Option from the old Wishbone, so is the Spread Option an evolution of the Power I.
IRISH!
).There is one thing to consider, however: perhaps the passing of those teams was successful because the *running* game was efficient.
These teams averaged 5.2 yrd/carry in total, and, oddly enough, there is a direct correlation between yards per carry rushing and passing percentage (you'll note the passing pct of the respective teams goes up as yards per carry goes up and vice versa).
Louisville:
Passing Pct 71.,7
Yrd/Carry: 5.7
Utah:
Passing Pct: 67.4
Yrd/Carry: 5.5
Boise St.
Passing Pct: 62.6
Yrd/Carry: 4.7
Granted, the inverse is true as well (yrd/carry goes up with completion pct)- but given the preponderance of rushing attempts over passing attempts, I would tend to think of it as being rush to support the pass in these cases.
How much of that rushing was option and how much straight ahead running? I can't say for sure as I didn't see every game these teams played. What I can say is that not every rushing yard under Osbourn or Solich was option either.
It's water under the bridge now, of course, as far as the Huskers are concerned. However, as I've stated in the past: the option is not dead and in fact is the dominant offensive scheme in college football. It's just not the Osbourn/Solich version of option.
IRISH!
I agree with you about the correlation, but I will say that you couldn't have one without the other in those 3 offenses. They feed off of each other. I think the numbers are just a by-product of a good scheme, good execution and good players. I wouldn't have minded seeing an offensive attack like Utah has come to Lincoln after Solich was let go. It would have been a smoother transition, since Barney used some spread formation when he was here. But like you say, it is water under the bridge and the WCO is here. That is what Callahan knows, so that is what he teaches and coaches(although some would disagree that he even knows itPoint taken, DJR - I was simply responding to Blackshirt34's assertion that the option is no longer viable. Does that mean the option as run by UNL between 1999 and 2004? Well, perhaps, perhaps not. It might be just semantics and I'll grant that (and you should know by now that I'll get all cerebral with this stuff...that's what I enjoy
There is one thing to consider, however: perhaps the passing of those teams was successful because the *running* game was efficient.
These teams averaged 5.2 yrd/carry in total, and, oddly enough, there is a direct correlation between yards per carry rushing and passing percentage (you'll note the passing pct of the respective teams goes up as yards per carry goes up and vice versa).
Louisville:
Passing Pct 71.,7
Yrd/Carry: 5.7
Utah:
Passing Pct: 67.4
Yrd/Carry: 5.5
Boise St.
Passing Pct: 62.6
Yrd/Carry: 4.7
Granted, the inverse is true as well (yrd/carry goes up with completion pct)- but given the preponderance of rushing attempts over passing attempts, I would tend to think of it as being rush to support the pass in these cases.
How much of that rushing was option and how much straight ahead running? I can't say for sure as I didn't see every game these teams played. What I can say is that not every rushing yard under Osbourn or Solich was option either.
It's water under the bridge now, of course, as far as the Huskers are concerned. However, as I've stated in the past: the option is not dead and in fact is the dominant offensive scheme in college football. It's just not the Osbourn/Solich version of option.
IRISH!
). It very well could be successful here.I just hope the Huskers don't get Willingham'ed like the Irish did.
I've always supported the idea that balance for balance's sake is a bad idea - why pass when you're running all over a team or run when you're lighting up their secondary?
Last year, NU had about 4.7 yrds/carry - a pretty respectable average, but only 6.4 yrds/pass and a completion pct under 48%. If the QB can't throw, dont' throw. If the QB can run, then run him.
Here's an interesting quote from a notable Offensive genius with 3 Superbowl rings who also happens to coach a team I'm rather fond of :
"Q. Could you talk about the offense you plan to run here at Notre Dame?
...First of all, you find out what your players can do and that's what you have them do. We have a very broad, wide expansive offensive package, but you have to be able to utilize the personnel that you have available. If you have a team that has multiple tight ends that can play, use multiple tight ends. If you have a team that has multiple wide receivers that can play, use multiple wide receivers. ..
...One week we might play against a team with no defensive backs, and we might throw a higher percentage than we run it. Or if we are playing against a team that's not very good against stopping the run, we might run a lot more than we throw it.
It's really not rocket science when you think about it now. You exploit their weaknesses. We are into team and attacking weaknesses of the team both schematically and personnel-wise."
Hopefully Callahan heard the words of the Master here, takes them to heart, and doesn't make the same mistakes next year. The personnel changes he's suggesting are a good sign of this, in my opinion. :horns2 :
IRISH!
I've always supported the idea that balance for balance's sake is a bad idea - why pass when you're running all over a team or run when you're lighting up their secondary?
Last year, NU had about 4.7 yrds/carry - a pretty respectable average, but only 6.4 yrds/pass and a completion pct under 48%. If the QB can't throw, dont' throw. If the QB can run, then run him.
Here's an interesting quote from a notable Offensive genius with 3 Superbowl rings who also happens to coach a team I'm rather fond of
:"Q. Could you talk about the offense you plan to run here at Notre Dame?
...First of all, you find out what your players can do and that's what you have them do. We have a very broad, wide expansive offensive package, but you have to be able to utilize the personnel that you have available. If you have a team that has multiple tight ends that can play, use multiple tight ends. If you have a team that has multiple wide receivers that can play, use multiple wide receivers. ..
...One week we might play against a team with no defensive backs, and we might throw a higher percentage than we run it. Or if we are playing against a team that's not very good against stopping the run, we might run a lot more than we throw it.
It's really not rocket science when you think about it now. You exploit their weaknesses. We are into team and attacking weaknesses of the team both schematically and personnel-wise."
Hopefully Callahan heard the words of the Master here, takes them to heart, and doesn't make the same mistakes next year. The personnel changes he's suggesting are a good sign of this, in my opinion. :horns2 :
IRISH!
Pedro Guerrero
Team HuskerBoard
It will be interesting to see how Weiss' version of the WCO plays out at ND.
Weis doesn't use a WCO. He's got no attachment to the Walsh family of offenses in terms of pedigree or style.
It's pro-style with lots of variantions - vertical and horizontal passing, 0, 1 and 2 back sets, bunched and spread formations, timing and break routes, interior and perimeter running. It's a Stone Soup of offensive football - watching New England the past few years was like watching a completely different offense almost every Sunday, and sometimes in the same game.
He won't be able to replicate that perfectly at the college level, but I suspect he'll do a pretty good job of it.
You're right though...it's going to be way interesting to watch and a *ton* of fun! WOO HOO! I can't wait... :horns2 :
IRISH!
It's pro-style with lots of variantions - vertical and horizontal passing, 0, 1 and 2 back sets, bunched and spread formations, timing and break routes, interior and perimeter running. It's a Stone Soup of offensive football - watching New England the past few years was like watching a completely different offense almost every Sunday, and sometimes in the same game.
He won't be able to replicate that perfectly at the college level, but I suspect he'll do a pretty good job of it.
You're right though...it's going to be way interesting to watch and a *ton* of fun! WOO HOO! I can't wait... :horns2 :
IRISH!
I still remember when cally said (before the first game) that "we will take what we want, not what the defense gives us." That just shows either how conceited he is or his total lack of understanding of the game of football.
One thing that he certainly did not do was figure out what the players could do well and formulate a gameplan accordingly.
I have a hard time believing that this year will be much different.
I can't believe Fabian is running sub 4.4 times at the combine, Bullocks is doing nearly the same, but they couldn't play man-to-man D last year?
This year will be much different. We are bringing playmakers in, guys that will make a difference. And we have great coaches as well.