druski_2k5
Five-Star Recruit
I think some people are confusing strictly power football, with what we ran in before 2004.
If anyone thinks that the offense that we fielded under Osborne and Solich is even remotely close to what Wisconsin runs, they aren't looking at things with perspective.
Our offenses under Osborne and Solich had speed on the offensive side of the ball. Wisconsin is big, heavy, and slow. We used our quarterbacks as a wrinkle in the option game, combined with the play-action pass, used some Shotgun, Zone Read and minimal options and draws from Shotgun with the quarterback, running backs and receivers, as well as some Flexbone. I would consider that offense an "Option offense" with a heavy emphasis on the I-Formation running game.
Wisconsin, relies on heavy and powerful backs. We relied on our fast, athletic quarterbacks, and depth of balanced or speed backs.
Two VASTLY different offenses, and I MUCH prefer our old offense to Wisconsin's.
Our offense of back then could still work TODAY. You have to recruit for it, which we aren't, and most high schools don't run those types of offense as kids these days want to get to the NFL level, so it's hard to find. You can run it, but recruiting maybe a bit tougher. That, along with weightlifting programs and training programs, is where the game truly changes. Not necessarily on the field, but you have to recruit to get players on the field and those might be hard to come by with how things go these days.
However, I don't think Wisconsin's style of offense, which is purely powerful and heavy running back driven out of the I-formation, can get them over the hump. We relied on possession receivers blocking up-field and outside on options, off-tackles, counters, tosses, depth at running back, balanced, speed backs, and athletic quarterbacks.
Wisconsin does not have athletic quarterbacks like we do, and I'm not sure if they have any balanced or speed running backs, but don't quote me on that, I don't know what kind of depth they have.
Which is why I prefer our old offense opposed to theirs.
Their offense works well against certain teams, but if they got up against a team stronger than them, they will have problems. They have won X amount of games over the last X amount of years....great...good....wonderful....good for them. But that hasn't yielded in championships or BCS wins.
Here's how I see things. We are going back to what we used to do. To an extent. You will see options, athletic quarterbacks, speed and balanced running backs, speed, speed, speed, with an emphasis on running as well as keeping defenses honest with the pass.
The only exception?
We are spreading the formation out as opposed to running it strictly majority I-formation.
That and the athletic quarterbacks vs. non-athletic quarterbacks is a huge difference in the offenses.
Which is why I'm excited where we are going with our offense. I loved our old offense, and it would work today, but you have to recruit for it. To think we can "take Wisconsin's playbook" and put that on our 2010 or 2011 squad and have championship wins? Not likely. We don't have the power or size of running backs that Wisconsin does. Those are the biggest differences.
Wisconsin also relies on a run to pass ratio of AT LEAST 80-20 if not more. Bo's offense won't ever be at that level, nor should it be there. Osborne's may have been inflated, but due to getting up quickly on teams, again with depth at running back, an athletic quarterback, and a passing game to keep defenses honest, instead of run the score up, we just ran, ran, ran. I think Solich was more 65-35, with a HEAVY emphasis on quarterback doing most of the work, which was his ultimate downfall of not building an offense and just relying on a quarterback.
Now wait, weren't we talking about Iowa and their rivalries at the start of the thread? :backtotopic
If anyone thinks that the offense that we fielded under Osborne and Solich is even remotely close to what Wisconsin runs, they aren't looking at things with perspective.
Our offenses under Osborne and Solich had speed on the offensive side of the ball. Wisconsin is big, heavy, and slow. We used our quarterbacks as a wrinkle in the option game, combined with the play-action pass, used some Shotgun, Zone Read and minimal options and draws from Shotgun with the quarterback, running backs and receivers, as well as some Flexbone. I would consider that offense an "Option offense" with a heavy emphasis on the I-Formation running game.
Wisconsin, relies on heavy and powerful backs. We relied on our fast, athletic quarterbacks, and depth of balanced or speed backs.
Two VASTLY different offenses, and I MUCH prefer our old offense to Wisconsin's.
Our offense of back then could still work TODAY. You have to recruit for it, which we aren't, and most high schools don't run those types of offense as kids these days want to get to the NFL level, so it's hard to find. You can run it, but recruiting maybe a bit tougher. That, along with weightlifting programs and training programs, is where the game truly changes. Not necessarily on the field, but you have to recruit to get players on the field and those might be hard to come by with how things go these days.
However, I don't think Wisconsin's style of offense, which is purely powerful and heavy running back driven out of the I-formation, can get them over the hump. We relied on possession receivers blocking up-field and outside on options, off-tackles, counters, tosses, depth at running back, balanced, speed backs, and athletic quarterbacks.
Wisconsin does not have athletic quarterbacks like we do, and I'm not sure if they have any balanced or speed running backs, but don't quote me on that, I don't know what kind of depth they have.
Which is why I prefer our old offense opposed to theirs.
Their offense works well against certain teams, but if they got up against a team stronger than them, they will have problems. They have won X amount of games over the last X amount of years....great...good....wonderful....good for them. But that hasn't yielded in championships or BCS wins.
Here's how I see things. We are going back to what we used to do. To an extent. You will see options, athletic quarterbacks, speed and balanced running backs, speed, speed, speed, with an emphasis on running as well as keeping defenses honest with the pass.
The only exception?
We are spreading the formation out as opposed to running it strictly majority I-formation.
That and the athletic quarterbacks vs. non-athletic quarterbacks is a huge difference in the offenses.
Which is why I'm excited where we are going with our offense. I loved our old offense, and it would work today, but you have to recruit for it. To think we can "take Wisconsin's playbook" and put that on our 2010 or 2011 squad and have championship wins? Not likely. We don't have the power or size of running backs that Wisconsin does. Those are the biggest differences.
Wisconsin also relies on a run to pass ratio of AT LEAST 80-20 if not more. Bo's offense won't ever be at that level, nor should it be there. Osborne's may have been inflated, but due to getting up quickly on teams, again with depth at running back, an athletic quarterback, and a passing game to keep defenses honest, instead of run the score up, we just ran, ran, ran. I think Solich was more 65-35, with a HEAVY emphasis on quarterback doing most of the work, which was his ultimate downfall of not building an offense and just relying on a quarterback.
Now wait, weren't we talking about Iowa and their rivalries at the start of the thread? :backtotopic
