Good bad ugly
- Thread starter HuskerBob
- Start date
Blackshirt
Team HuskerBoard
Thats an interesting comment, and one that I think is now relevant to our situation at NU. During the proverbial "good days" we could almost take one glance at the sched and fill in big red "dubs" throughout the win column. But with our new system it just doesnt seem so sure... and Im not so sure it will EVER feel that way again.
With an offense that isnt centered around the running game, teams are so much more vulernable to getting snake bitten every odd week when the guard is let down. And IMO its much more vital that both sides of the ball show up EVERY game within a pass oriented offense, b/c you never know if the offense might be off its game that week, or if the ball will just "bounce the other way" - which is obviously more common in a pass focused offense.
So this requires the D to always be on its toes. When they arent, and one day the offense shows up anemic, & the D is on the field the majority of the game - we are in big big trouble. See the records of most pass-happy teams over the past several years - i.e. Florida, Tenn, Oregon, Purdue - they always seem to drop at least 2 games. And Im afraid that may be the same direction we are headed, with the only thing predictable about NU football being inconsistency from game to game. Which may cause a bit of indigestion with the "common Nebraska folk" who, from the football field to the corn fields, were raised on routine and consistency. Better keep some rolaids & rum handy... :waste
Last edited by a moderator:
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Hmmmm...ultimately, it comes down to talent, all things being equal. The scheme isn't as important as recruiting the talent to run it.
The option had some inherent advantages - ball control kept almost any defeat from being a blow-out. It did limit turnovers from passing. It was difficult for a defense to practice for it on short notice.
But think back to the '80s. During that time, while we could pencil in some sure wins, it seemed that each year we came up a game or two short; i.e., we would lose one or two games. There always seemed to be a team or two that would limit or stuff our running game, and when it happened, we were dead in the water. We had nothing to fall back on. When we got some better talent in the '90s, we won those games.
The same applies to the West Coast, the Veer, the Wishbone, or the "Fun-and-Gun" or any other offense. When elite teams running those offenses had outstanding talent, they won it all - when they didn't, they'd lose one or two a year, but dominate the remainder on the talent discrepancy.
I think the belief that the option was more "consistent" is a bit of an illusion for that reason. For decades, NU has had talent that was simply better than most of the teams it faced. For those years in the '90s, we had better talent than all the teams we faced.
When I look at our team now, I don't see that level of talent. I see some very good players at some positions. Ruud is one. Is he the best linebacker in the nation? Is he All-American material? I'd answer "No" for the former, and "Yes" to the latter. But that's because the criteria for All-American is differnt than "best". For what he means to the team, for the stats he puts together, I think he's All-American. But there are a number of other linebackers out there that are arguably "better" - guys that have the same recognition skills, better speed, stronger, quicker, whatever. How many of the players on the team can you look at and objectively say, "A definite All-American"?
I don't see the West Coast as being inherently inconsistent; if anything, when implemented correctly and with the right athletes, it should be one of the more consistent offenses given it's balance. That is, if one facet isn't working, you emphasis the other facet. While Oklahoma's offense is not, perhaps, strictly a West Coast offense, they employ the same philosophy of balance. This year particularly, they have mostly won with the run. But when it's been slowed or stopped, they've been able to turn to the pass. The same holds true for virtually every teams that's won the National Championship over the last two decades. Whether Miami, Ohio State, Florida State, USC or whomever, those teams have featured both good running attacks and the ability to move the ball through the air. A team may, due to their talent, favor one slightly more than the other, but when necessary they could turn to both with virtually equal ability. Actually, Nebraska has been the lone exception to that rule - and only when it had clearly superior talent.
It's rare to find a defense that is so good - so dominate - that it can stop both. Every once in a while one will appear, but it is rare. An offense that can attack where a defense is weakest should be able to generate offense more consistently than a pass-oriented or run-oriented offense.
Consistency will return when the talent returns.
Good Post AR. The only question I have for you is, Where would you put the Ohio State team. They were not good at either the run or the past. They did have a few play makers that could go out and make a big catch (Jenkins and Gamble). But they were not consistant. Clarrett was injuried most of the time and teams actually started stopping him around the second half of the season. IMO, they seemed to win with defense and special teams. They would always win the field position battles, and their defense was great at causing turnovers. If any one remembers, their longest drive against Miami in the National Championship was 25 yards.
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
They still had balance, which allowed them to use whichever - the pass or the run - they needed to win. However, I agree that they had a great defense, and that took a lot of pressure off the offense. But they could both run and throw - they may not have been great at either one, but that's sort of the point; they could go to whichever was working.
I don't think that I would consider them being able to do either one. They had one of the worst offenses in the nation that year (98th in the country if I remember). Hell, I think that NU had a better passing attack than they had that year. IMO, you can't have one of the worst offenses in the nation and still have an offense that can be considered balanced.
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Balance doesn't mean "great". It means doing each about as well as the other - being able to turn to one without a significant drop-off compared to the other.
Again, there will be instances in which a team will have a great defense, and doesn't have to have a great offense. Last year, in the pros, we saw Carolina do it. The Giants did it under Parcells. When that's the case, you can get by with a less-than-great offense. There are always going to be those instances - but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
But if the defense isn't "all world", then the offense has to pick up more of the slack.
Again, there will be instances in which a team will have a great defense, and doesn't have to have a great offense. Last year, in the pros, we saw Carolina do it. The Giants did it under Parcells. When that's the case, you can get by with a less-than-great offense. There are always going to be those instances - but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
But if the defense isn't "all world", then the offense has to pick up more of the slack.
walksalone
Heisman Trophy Winner
I want to win, more than anything. Changing the offense as drastically as it has been, just isn't the way to do it. You just don't come right out and change everything so radically, that aside from the uniform, you wouldn't recognize your own team.
You work into the WCO, not jumping into it with both feet. Callahan has set himself up for a potential failure. We are not known for recruiting WR's, but for O-line, defense, and running backs. By switching the offense, we have to recruit for more skill position players.
Being selfish, I want them to win running the ball and with defense. I know that's not going to happen anymore. Not so sure how much winning is going to come along with the west coast offense.
What it boils down to is that our team isn't going to be the same anymore. And as for it, "being for the better", I really doubt it...