Falcons=Huskers??

H

HuskerBob

Well-known member
Okay ive heard this comparison several times now so wanted to hear what you guys thought.

in the Falcons Rams game this past wknd the falcons put up over 300 yds rushing, and only 80 yds passing, and people made comments that they looked like the old Nebraska teams. but you know whats intersting is that the Falcons currently run a west coast offense.. and i don have a very good memory but Im pretty sure the presnet day 'skers ALSO RUN THE WCO!! so i guess it goes to show you that the WCO is flexible and can be smashmouth when needed.

 
That's the entire premise of the West Coast offense - the ability to strike using at whatever the defense gives the offense. The question was why Nebraska seemed so committed to the pass even when the run was working well for them. There are a number of theories - ranging from "Callahan wanted to show his committment to the pass in order to get the right recruits for the system" to "Callahan can't coach". Just my opinion, but I really think it was a case of trying to institute the system fully - both for recruits and to get everyone as indoctrinated as possible. Kinda like pulling off a bandage - you can either do it slowly and prolong the agony, while lessening the suffering, or you can do it all at once, which increases the agony but reduces the time for the pain it causes...

 
That's the entire premise of the West Coast offense - the ability to strike using at whatever the defense gives the offense. The question was why Nebraska seemed so committed to the pass even when the run was working well for them. There are a number of theories - ranging from "Callahan wanted to show his committment to the pass in order to get the right recruits for the system" to "Callahan can't coach". Just my opinion, but I really think it was a case of trying to institute the system fully - both for recruits and to get everyone as indoctrinated as possible. Kinda like pulling off a bandage - you can either do it slowly and prolong the agony, while lessening the suffering, or you can do it all at once, which increases the agony but reduces the time for the pain it causes...
Click to expand...
:) Great analagy with the band-aid statement

I think you have it right on the head....

The WCO can produce great running games, but also has the flexibility to throw the dang ball all over the field

I feel BC knows that NU will always be able to run the football, he needed to establish the fact that we need the personnel to also throw.....With the stable of RB, he needed to get QB and WR to make offense complete

I just hope that ripping the band-aid off fast, doesn't result in an open wound proned to infection ;)

 
Well, first off, Atlanta doesn't really run a WCO - Mora himself calls it the "Alex Gibbs Offense". Some of the differences might be semantic - there are still hot throws, quick reads, and a lot of short passing - but there's also designed QB runs and a vertical passing game (more 5 and 7-step drops) and a lot of power running.

Running from the WCO is dependant on the passing game - the pass sets up the run (instead of the other way around). Since most WCO passing is short to mid yardage routes (5-10 yards), it's designed to stretch the field horizontally. The 3-step drop is the most common timing in a WCO and you see that all the time with quick outs and slants.

Big gains on passing come usually from the athleticism of the receiver - e.g. if you look at all the yardage Montana racked up with the 49'ers; you can probably attribute half of that to receivers making massive YAC. They run an 8 yard out, then turn up field for another 8 or 10.

Since short receiving patterns don't really stretch the field vertically, it's hard to keep LB's and safeties honest and work in off-tackle runs. The best plays to the outside are usually passing plays with a rollout and a dragging TE or FL.

Consequently, most of the running game is inside - by necessity it's a power running game, and that, again, relies upon the athleticism of the O-Line and the RB and coordination in blocking schemes.

With a mobile QB, however, you get something that's not really a Walsh-style WCO (The Alex Gibbs bit).. What made Steve Young and Michael Vick so successful was that they had the green-light to run. With a QB that can run, you open a bunch of possibilities - blitzing becomes super-dangerous, rollouts require disciplined defenders, broken plays are opportunities for big gains, etc.

I'm afraid Dailey had what I call the Holliday Syndrome - a good running QB forced to stay in the pocket against his own instincts. No wonder he looked frazzled at times. If the kid had more leeway to run, I suspect the offense would have been much more successful.

Now, IMHO, if BC and company were *really* clever, they would have had Adams (maybe, depending which of the other 2 QBs were the stronger passer) in at QB, and moved Dailey to Halfback with a split backfield. Imagine having to defend a sextuple-option - FB dive, QB keep, QB pitch, QB pass, HB run, HB pass - all from the same formation. Then start putting in designed rollout/sprintout passes, dragging TEs, wide-hides, FB screens, etc.

Nightmarish to defend, and probably not as huge a change from the option game (therefore an easier transition).

To paraphrase the Sprite slogan - Style is nothing, winning is everything. If the Huskers could win with the wish-bone or the T, then use it.

My $.02. :)

IRISH!

 
Agree. I think that the reason Callahan did not do as you suggested, and did not rely as much on the run as he could, was due to the "show the recruits we're serious about the West Coast offense/get the base offense installed and assimilated by the squad".

As time goes on, and the team becomes composed of more players who thrive in the West Coast offense - coupled with improved understanding of the offense - we'll see some of what you talked about.

 
That's a good point, AR - perhaps commiting to a "system" has some advantages, though I am not completely convinced it brings in better recruits, just ones looking to play that style of ball.

I've been trying to gather some stats on the effect of recruiting on team success - and even though I don't have that much data yet (finding historical recruiting ranks is sort of tough) from 2001 to 2005, the correlation between finishing in the top 25 polls, and then having a top 25 recruiting class for the following season is unmistakable.

Conversely, having a losing season, or bowl-game loss, reduces recruiting rankings (which is what makes NU's recruiting run this year quite remarkable, and probably the only hopeful kernel I have for BC's staff).

Although, there seems to be a perennial effect as well - Tennessee, Ohio State, USC, Iowa, Michigan, Texas, Miami, Georgia, etc. seem to maintain top 10-15 recruiting classes regardless of the previous year's record (which is something that contributes to my notion that a National Championship really requires a 2 year run).

I'm hoping there's significant improvement next year, or else we might fall out from under the perennial effect and the losses start counting heavier against recruiting.

IRISH!

 
That's a good point, AR - perhaps commiting to a "system" has some advantages, though I am not completely convinced it brings in better recruits, just ones looking to play that style of ball.
I've been trying to gather some stats on the effect of recruiting on team success - and even though I don't have that much data yet (finding historical recruiting ranks is sort of tough) from 2001 to 2005, the correlation between finishing in the top 25 polls, and then having a top 25 recruiting class for the following season is unmistakable.

Conversely, having a losing season, or bowl-game loss, reduces recruiting rankings (which is what makes NU's recruiting run this year quite remarkable, and probably the only hopeful kernel I have for BC's staff).

Although, there seems to be a perennial effect as well - Tennessee, Ohio State, USC, Iowa, Michigan, Texas, Miami, Georgia, etc. seem to maintain top 10-15 recruiting classes regardless of the previous year's record (which is something that contributes to my notion that a National Championship really requires a 2 year run).

I'm hoping there's significant improvement next year, or else we might fall out from under the perennial effect and the losses start counting heavier against recruiting.

IRISH!
Click to expand...
very intersting comments guys, thanks for the input. would be real intersted to check those stats out Irish if you get em. :thumbs

 
Well, first off, Atlanta doesn't really run a WCO - Mora himself calls it the "Alex Gibbs Offense". Some of the differences might be semantic - there are still hot throws, quick reads, and a lot of short passing - but there's also designed QB runs and a vertical passing game (more 5 and 7-step drops) and a lot of power running.
Running from the WCO is dependant on the passing game - the pass sets up the run (instead of the other way around). Since most WCO passing is short to mid yardage routes (5-10 yards), it's designed to stretch the field horizontally.  The 3-step drop is the most common  timing in a WCO and you see that all the time with quick outs and slants.

Big gains on passing come usually from the athleticism of the receiver - e.g. if you look at all the yardage Montana racked up with the 49'ers; you can probably attribute half of that to receivers making massive YAC. They run an 8 yard out, then turn up field for another 8 or 10. 

Since short receiving patterns don't really stretch the field vertically, it's hard to keep LB's and safeties honest and work in off-tackle runs. The best plays to the outside are usually passing plays with a rollout and a dragging TE or FL.

Consequently, most of the running game is inside - by necessity it's a power running game, and that, again, relies upon the athleticism of the O-Line and the RB and coordination in blocking schemes.

With a mobile QB, however, you get something that's not really a Walsh-style WCO (The Alex Gibbs bit).. What made Steve Young and Michael Vick so successful was that they had the green-light to run.  With a QB that can run, you open a bunch of possibilities - blitzing becomes super-dangerous, rollouts require disciplined defenders,  broken plays are opportunities for big gains, etc.

I'm afraid Dailey had what I call the Holliday Syndrome - a good running QB forced to stay in the pocket against his own instincts. No wonder he looked frazzled at times. If the kid had more leeway to run, I suspect the offense would have been much more successful.

Now, IMHO, if BC and company were *really* clever, they would have had Adams (maybe, depending which of the other 2 QBs were the stronger passer) in at QB, and moved Dailey to Halfback with a split backfield. Imagine having to defend a sextuple-option - FB dive, QB keep, QB pitch, QB pass, HB run, HB pass - all from the same formation. Then start putting in designed rollout/sprintout passes, dragging TEs, wide-hides, FB screens, etc.

Nightmarish to defend, and probably not as huge a change from the option game (therefore an easier transition).

To paraphrase the Sprite slogan - Style is nothing, winning is everything.  If the Huskers could win with the wish-bone or the T, then use it.

My $.02. :)

IRISH!
Click to expand...
WOW!! :woo

These YOUR two posts on this thread are awesome to say the least!!!

Keep it coming!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top