Langs Offense

I like the idea of multiple formations, while I also like the idea of being versatile. However, the multiple formations with 9TE (7 of which can't run or catch) in this "offense" drives me up a wall. I think it's because there's not versatility. Defenses adjust to the TEs because they're running short drags underneath the sticks. Bubble screens are sticking out, because this offense takes so long to develop. Defensese also know only one person has a chance to run this football right now because Lee isn't a mobile quarterback. However this scheme isn't designed for a mobile quarterback, it's designed for a PRO quarterback with PRO talent around them.
 

The similarities to Callahan's crappy offense are frightening.

 
All I'm saying is...even Saban knew it was time to switch to a hurry up, even after he said it was bad for the game.

To add to that, offensive depth is important. On the last play of the National Championship last year, Clemson's WR lined up against Alabama's CB who had played 90+ plays. Clemson's WR had played 30 and was very fresh in comparison.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
Here's another issue that I've been saying for two years.  Everyone raved about how Langs would use fullbacks and tight ends again.  The problem with that is that the more offensive players you put in tight formation the more defensive players line up in the box.

This guy is bemoaning the offensive line's blocking.  But look closer.  We start with two TEs in formation and motion a third receiver in tight.  The defense properly reacts with a corner coming in tight and walking a safety into the box.  That's nine guys in the box.  That's not "stacking the box" - that's properly aligning their defense to the formation we are running as we are likely to run from such a formation.  We are making it very difficult on ourselves by inviting the defense to load the box.

I'm not going to say the line did a great job - Conrad isn't that good - but it's really the safety that walks down into the box adjusting to our formation that really makes the play.  If we don't shift into such a tight formation and that safety stays at 10-12 yards instead of 5, Wilbon has a lot of room to run off the left side.
Click to expand...
YES! I continually yell at my TV with Langs stupid motions. He is suppose to be so clever but you pick up on a major issue with his offense - HE MOTIONS INTO FORMATIONS WHERE WE ARE DISADVANTAGED! Your clip and analysis are prime example... the defense does nothing out of the ordinary but align properly based on the motion.

 
bugeater17 said:
All I'm saying is...even Saban knew it was time to switch to a hurry up, even after he said it was bad for the game.
Click to expand...




His arguments were in regards to how the offense can use such tactics to exploit substitution rules. 

Often times the play count is cited as a means to increase scoring, forgetting that the game is drive based and alternate possession.

 
Mavric said:
Here's another issue that I've been saying for two years.  Everyone raved about how Langs would use fullbacks and tight ends again.  The problem with that is that the more offensive players you put in tight formation the more defensive players line up in the box.

This guy is bemoaning the offensive line's blocking.  But look closer.  We start with two TEs in formation and motion a third receiver in tight.  The defense properly reacts with a corner coming in tight and walking a safety into the box.  That's nine guys in the box.  That's not "stacking the box" - that's properly aligning their defense to the formation we are running as we are likely to run from such a formation.  We are making it very difficult on ourselves by inviting the defense to load the box.

I'm not going to say the line did a great job - Conrad isn't that good - but it's really the safety that walks down into the box adjusting to our formation that really makes the play.  If we don't shift into such a tight formation and that safety stays at 10-12 yards instead of 5, Wilbon has a lot of room to run off the left side.
Click to expand...




Good example of how the O line actually blocked pretty dang well but other factors caused the play to look like they didn't.

 
I constantly heard in the offseason that a passing threat was going to open up the run game.  Now, I don't really buy that theory, but that theory requires the OC to design the run plays and pass plays out of the same formations and personnel.  I am thinking about Baylor under Art Briles when he would run the same formations and personnel over and over again, and the QB would basically count the defenders and run the play at the line of scrimmage, and it could be a run or pass.  That doesn't quite work for Langsdorf when his personnel groups and formations bring in more defenders into the box to defend the run.

 
Watching Nebraska's offense is like watching my buddies when they coach their kids' football teams.  They end up putting together these super cute formations and play calls that don't take into account the talent (or lack thereof) they actually have on their teams.  They'd be better off drawing up like 6 plays and drilling them relentlessly so they can do them in their sleep.  It's like Langsdorf gets hypnotized into trying to prove how smart he is versus dumbing it down and just getting it done.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no problem with running a pro-style offense.

I have no problem with a pass first QB.

I have no problem with a huddle offense that runs 70 plays a game.

I DO have a problem when the play calling puts the team in bad situations, makes no sense and the players are not proficient at running that offense after 3 years and with the type of players the coaches want.

At this point, I am perfectly fine getting rid of anyone who needs to go.  However, I am going to be really frustrated if we completely change offensive philosophies one more time delaying any true development of the offense yet another 2-3 years.  

There are lots of changes (improvements) to the offense that can be made without completely changing the type of players we are recruiting.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I have no problem with running a pro-style offense.

I have no problem with a pass first QB.

I have no problem with a huddle offense that runs 70 plays a game.

I DO have a problem when the play calling puts the team in bad situations, makes no sense and the players are not proficient at running that offense after 3 years and with the type of players the coaches want.

At this point, I am perfectly fine getting rid of anyone who needs to go.  However, I am going to be really frustrated if we completely change offensive philosophies one more time delaying any true development of the offense yet another 2-3 years.  

There are lots of changes (improvements) to the offense that can be made without completely changing the type of players we are recruiting.
Click to expand...
I have been a big opponent of the pro-style offense.  I just don't think it works at the college level.

I don't have a problem with a QB that can pass, but I think the QB should be able to run, as well.  It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I do think there are times where offenses can go no-huddle to change the pace of the game, and put the defense on it's heels and enable the offense to physically dominate an inferior opponent.

I think you can change an offense with a new coach and still utilize many of the players that are on the roster.  Now, they may need to tweak the recruiting going forward (especially with QB), but a coach should still be able to attract top talent.  There are plenty of skill guys going to the NFL from spread-option and power-oriented teams.  One thing that Adam Carriker mentioned is that the current coaching staff tends to recruit "outside-in".  They tend to focus their big recruiting guns at the WR and QB level.  I don't see the same level of attention at the OL and RB level.

 
Mavric said:
This is what a lot of people who say "look what he did at Oregon State" don't want to admit.  Langsdorf wasn't the play-caller at OSU.  Riley was.  Langsdorf had the duty for some short amount of time but then Riley took it back.

Riley might have been a good play-caller back in the day.  Langs isn't.
Click to expand...


I like the rhetorical question Sam asks.

Maybe someone out there could cook up an elaborate defense for what Langsdorf drew up on Saturday. Maybe a good defense is out there - I'm open to hearing the argument.

But I agree with Sam's line of reasoning. Is Riley going to keep his fate in someone else's hands? When offensive line play is bad like it is now, I'd rather be running than passing. Draw up some plays that work the run outside. Take this next game to try handing the ball off to Wilbon/Ozigbo/Bradley and see if the product is better. 

Because the only way it could have been worse on Saturday would have been if Lee would have thrown more interceptions.

 
Undone said:
I like the rhetorical question Sam asks.

Maybe someone out there could cook up an elaborate defense for what Langsdorf drew up on Saturday. Maybe a good defense is out there - I'm open to hearing the argument.

But I agree with Sam's line of reasoning. Is Riley going to keep his fate in someone else's hands? When offensive line play is bad like it is now, I'd rather be running than passing. Draw up some plays that work the run outside. Take this next game to try handing the ball off to Wilbon/Ozigbo/Bradley and see if the product is better. 

Because the only way it could have been worse on Saturday would have been if Lee would have thrown more interceptions.
Click to expand...
You could make a potent argument that he should have thrown 5+

 
The offensive line is whiffing on assignments that shouldn't be an issue in year three. They either struggle to know what they're doing or they're physically incapable of doing it. My money would be on the former.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
I have been a big opponent of the pro-style offense.  I just don't think it works at the college level.

I don't have a problem with a QB that can pass, but I think the QB should be able to run, as well.  It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I do think there are times where offenses can go no-huddle to change the pace of the game, and put the defense on it's heels and enable the offense to physically dominate an inferior opponent.

I think you can change an offense with a new coach and still utilize many of the players that are on the roster.  Now, they may need to tweak the recruiting going forward (especially with QB), but a coach should still be able to attract top talent.  There are plenty of skill guys going to the NFL from spread-option and power-oriented teams.  One thing that Adam Carriker mentioned is that the current coaching staff tends to recruit "outside-in".  They tend to focus their big recruiting guns at the WR and QB level.  I don't see the same level of attention at the OL and RB level.
Click to expand...
I said I'm fine with changes to the offense.  A QB that can run is always a plus.  I don't believe it's a make or break deal though....as long as the offense is a well planned and executed offense. 

Not saying you are for this...but, it needs to be stated.....I am NOT for dropping in ability to throw the ball just so we can have a QB that can run.  The QB's first job is to distribute the ball to the play makers.  It's perfectly well and good to feel the legs should be used as a last resort or very sparingly to keep the defense honest.  There are lots of teams who have QBs like this and are successful.  

But, we have got to have an OC who can coach players to be extremely proficient at running the offense, players who can make good decisions on the field, and an OC who can make play calls that help the players on the field be successful.  We are not seeing any of that.

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