Husker QBs

I think one of the biggest factors that is in our offense's favor this season, and one of the main reasons why Nebraska was so successful under Tom Osborne is... CONSISTENCY.

We finally have consistency again in the type of offense we are going to run, and we had no turnover on the coaching side of things for the offense either. So instead of players and coaches having to learn a new system, new hand signals, etc...they instead get the luxury of just having to tweak what worked or didn't work last season.

I think all of this together is a huge boost for the entire team obviously, but most importantly for Taylor Martinez and our offensive line.

 
This thread is full of :facepalm: . Some of you guys are in dire need of a game, and it's only March. You may be so far down that the spring game may just not hold you over.

 
Comish said:
Multiple has moved to Louisville.....
Click to expand...
Multiple is still sitting in the HC office. That was entirely Bo's doing...not Watson. Regardless of whether or not it worked, pre-Bo I always felt the offense had an identity/game plan. This whole idea of "we're going take what the defense gives us" thing started in 2008. I'm all fine and dandy with exploiting a defense's weakness, but when you have to transform your offense week-to-week to do it then there's no point. Make the defense adjust to you, not the other way around.

 
kchusker_chris said:
Comish said:
Multiple has moved to Louisville.....
Click to expand...
Multiple is still sitting in the HC office. That was entirely Bo's doing...not Watson. Regardless of whether or not it worked, pre-Bo I always felt the offense had an identity/game plan. This whole idea of "we're going take what the defense gives us" thing started in 2008. I'm all fine and dandy with exploiting a defense's weakness, but when you have to transform your offense week-to-week to do it then there's no point. Make the defense adjust to you, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this whole point. However, I also think folks interpret the way Bo words things a different way. I would think as a defensive guru, Bo would know how to exploit certain aspects of a defense. It's just a matter of passing that knowledge onto the guy developing the plan and calling the plays. Watson just didnt have the mental capacity to do it in the style and manner that Bo wanted to. Tho the jury is still out for many, I think Beck does.

 
^ it's certainly possible. It's obvious Bo approaches the offense from a defensive perspective. That's part of the reason we have no identity and have been throwing darts at the board for the last few years. We had a very rough offense in 2009....Bo injects himself into the offense and 2 things happen - 1) the defense slides into what we saw in 2011, 2) the offense goes even farther downhill - or at least in the 2 years since hasn't been much more productive.

I would be perfectly happy if Bo stayed out of the offense for the most part - working w/ the defensive unit and playing the CEO role. I think his defensive mind clouds the picture when trying to build the offense. For every offensive decision that is made, he has a defensive method to shut it down so it gets tossed aside. The problem w/ this is not many other coordinators are going to be able to shut it down like Bo can. They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.

 
kchusker_chris said:
^ it's certainly possible. It's obvious Bo approaches the offense from a defensive perspective. That's part of the reason we have no identity and have been throwing darts at the board for the last few years. We had a very rough offense in 2009....Bo injects himself into the offense and 2 things happen - 1) the defense slides into what we saw in 2011, 2) the offense goes even farther downhill - or at least in the 2 years since hasn't been much more productive.

I would be perfectly happy if Bo stayed out of the offense for the most part - working w/ the defensive unit and playing the CEO role. I think his defensive mind clouds the picture when trying to build the offense. For every offensive decision that is made, he has a defensive method to shut it down so it gets tossed aside. The problem w/ this is not many other coordinators are going to be able to shut it down like Bo can. They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.
Click to expand...
+1

Never looked at it from that perspective. Bo may very well be getting in his own way when it comes to developing and offense. The way you word it is it's his own humility that could be causing the problems.

 
accountability said:
kchusker_chris said:
^ it's certainly possible. It's obvious Bo approaches the offense from a defensive perspective. That's part of the reason we have no identity and have been throwing darts at the board for the last few years. We had a very rough offense in 2009....Bo injects himself into the offense and 2 things happen - 1) the defense slides into what we saw in 2011, 2) the offense goes even farther downhill - or at least in the 2 years since hasn't been much more productive.

I would be perfectly happy if Bo stayed out of the offense for the most part - working w/ the defensive unit and playing the CEO role. I think his defensive mind clouds the picture when trying to build the offense. For every offensive decision that is made, he has a defensive method to shut it down so it gets tossed aside. The problem w/ this is not many other coordinators are going to be able to shut it down like Bo can. They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.
Click to expand...
+1

Never looked at it from that perspective. Bo may very well be getting in his own way when it comes to developing and offense. The way you word it is it's his own humility that could be causing the problems.
Click to expand...

interesting thoughts.....Bo out foxing Bo...

 
kchusker_chris said:
They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.
Click to expand...
It's just that everybody wants a multiple offense because nobody wants to be one-dimensional. Name a team in this era that is so good at their one dimension that they can overpower even the best defenses they face. Even heavy running teams or heavy passing teams, they pull out all the stops they can to throw a defense -- different calls, different sets, changing up the playcalls to stay unpredictable (even if that means run outside / run inside / reverse).

I do think it is possible that Bo favors a certain skillset out of his quarterbacks because it leads to such big impact plays on our defense in scrimmage. And yes, that fills our season highlight tapes as well. Just a question of if it's worth the sacrifices in other areas made as a result.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i wonder just how much time Bo will have for the offense this season. Pap is in a new role, we have a new DB coach and i would think Bo will have to be heavily involed in the defense this season......at least Beck has had a year to install whatever it is he wants to do.......young guys need to get reps this spring so they know how to run his gig this fall........TM has been around for awhile now, so i see Bo spending more time back with the defense again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
kchusker_chris said:
They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.
Click to expand...
It's just that everybody wants a multiple offense because nobody wants to be one-dimensional. Name a team in this era that is so good at their one dimension that they can overpower even the best defenses they face. Even heavy running teams or heavy passing teams, they pull out all the stops they can to throw a defense -- different calls, different sets, changing up the playcalls to stay unpredictable (even if that means run outside / run inside / reverse).

I do think it is possible that Bo favors a certain skillset out of his quarterbacks because it leads to such big impact plays on our defense in scrimmage. And yes, that fills our season highlight tapes as well. Just a question of if it's worth the sacrifices in other areas made as a result.
Click to expand...
I don't see not being multiple as being one dimensional. I just don't want to see us running power sets, spread, pistol, option, zone-read, some diamond, yada yada yada. No OL can be all of those things. I don't see Alabama as being one dimensional - but I certainly have never heard anyone attempt to describe their offense as "multiple". Maybe it's the word more than anything...but then Beck called it a "mutt" offense last year, and that's no better to me now that I think about it. The fact our offense varies so much week to week worries me. Not surprisingly the outcome and level of execution varies week to week.

 
kchusker_chris said:
zoogies said:
kchusker_chris said:
They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.
Click to expand...
It's just that everybody wants a multiple offense because nobody wants to be one-dimensional. Name a team in this era that is so good at their one dimension that they can overpower even the best defenses they face. Even heavy running teams or heavy passing teams, they pull out all the stops they can to throw a defense -- different calls, different sets, changing up the playcalls to stay unpredictable (even if that means run outside / run inside / reverse).

I do think it is possible that Bo favors a certain skillset out of his quarterbacks because it leads to such big impact plays on our defense in scrimmage. And yes, that fills our season highlight tapes as well. Just a question of if it's worth the sacrifices in other areas made as a result.
Click to expand...
I don't see not being multiple as being one dimensional. I just don't want to see us running power sets, spread, pistol, option, zone-read, some diamond, yada yada yada. No OL can be all of those things. I don't see Alabama as being one dimensional - but I certainly have never heard anyone attempt to describe their offense as "multiple". Maybe it's the word more than anything...but then Beck called it a "mutt" offense last year, and that's no better to me now that I think about it. The fact our offense varies so much week to week worries me. Not surprisingly the outcome and level of execution varies week to week.
Click to expand...

i don't remember it described as a mutt offense, but that certainly is not the "pedgriee" i would want as my offensive label.....rather than continuously changing plays, formations every week for your opponent, maybe executing some base plays with precision would be the way to go? i dunno, but i guess there is no wonder why the offense doesn't seem to have an identity.........maybe Beck figures we don't need one and can just go with the "dog's breakfast" concept?

 
The multiplicity we saw last year I think was a result of a first year of a new system and OC. Not to mention many young players. I think there was a lot of "let's see how this would work" and "I wonder if these guys could effectively execute this". I know practice should be for those things, but sometime it has to be tried in gametime. I just think there was a lot of experimenting going on. I have a feeling this year we'll see a better dedication to being really good at a certain few aspects and not trying to do so many different things now that the staff has a better grasp on what our capabilities are against new styles of defenses. That the other big issue that always seems to be forgotten in these discussions is playing in the new conference.

 
kchusker_chris said:
zoogies said:
kchusker_chris said:
They don't have the intimate knowledge of our team that he has. So while a good idea might be brought forth - he likely looks at it defensively and casts it aside...leading us to a "multiple" offense that he feels can exploit defensive holes as he sees them...rather than as they might actually exist.
Click to expand...
It's just that everybody wants a multiple offense because nobody wants to be one-dimensional. Name a team in this era that is so good at their one dimension that they can overpower even the best defenses they face. Even heavy running teams or heavy passing teams, they pull out all the stops they can to throw a defense -- different calls, different sets, changing up the playcalls to stay unpredictable (even if that means run outside / run inside / reverse).

I do think it is possible that Bo favors a certain skillset out of his quarterbacks because it leads to such big impact plays on our defense in scrimmage. And yes, that fills our season highlight tapes as well. Just a question of if it's worth the sacrifices in other areas made as a result.
Click to expand...
I don't see not being multiple as being one dimensional. I just don't want to see us running power sets, spread, pistol, option, zone-read, some diamond, yada yada yada. No OL can be all of those things. I don't see Alabama as being one dimensional - but I certainly have never heard anyone attempt to describe their offense as "multiple". Maybe it's the word more than anything...but then Beck called it a "mutt" offense last year, and that's no better to me now that I think about it. The fact our offense varies so much week to week worries me. Not surprisingly the outcome and level of execution varies week to week.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to explain that to my pal zoogies for years. CFB isn't the NFL that has unlimited practices and years to work out the kinks. We only have a "very" limited practice schedule and for these kids to master something they need above all else reps.

To expect our Oline (especially) to master everything under the sun via changing formations and schemes every week (multiple) in true Callawatts tradition is just crazy.

I hope Beck now has a good idea on what core sets we're going to use and sticks with it. Practice them over & over. Live or die with it.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top