Langsdorf Mulling Options for 2016 Offense

A balanced attack will always be more deadly than per say a heavy rushing attack. This is the B1G. Everyone runs and can stop the run for the most part. Being too one dimensional is a call for another 6-7 season.

 
1995 Redux said:
Bball1091 said:
UCLA gameplan every game...enough said
Click to expand...
Not all teams are as terrible at stopping the run....most teams aren't as bad as 2015 UCLA.
Click to expand...
That is true. But, I don't think a team has to be as poor against the run as UCLA was, nor do I think we need that level of success running the ball every game to win using that gameplan. From what I remember, we ran the ball and controlled the clock. When we did pass, it seemed to be routes TA was comfortable throwing or PA/rollout. Seems like a good gameplan. Typically, when you control the time of possession, then you win the game. If we could throw the ball all over the place and control the clock, then great do it. I just don't have that kind of faith in TA's throwing ability

 
Bball1091 said:
1995 Redux said:
Bball1091 said:
UCLA gameplan every game...enough said
Click to expand...
Not all teams are as terrible at stopping the run....most teams aren't as bad as 2015 UCLA.
Click to expand...
That is true. But, I don't think a team has to be as poor against the run as UCLA was, nor do I think we need that level of success running the ball every game to win using that gameplan. From what I remember, we ran the ball and controlled the clock. When we did pass, it seemed to be routes TA was comfortable throwing or PA/rollout. Seems like a good gameplan. Typically, when you control the time of possession, then you win the game. If we could throw the ball all over the place and control the clock, then great do it. I just don't have that kind of faith in TA's throwing ability
Click to expand...
With TA's throwing abilities being hopefully better by default of him being a senior, the clock management will also get better by default.

 
UCLA's run defense was a little more than a few tissues tied to some chicken wire, and we rightfully took advantage of it.

That's not going to work every game. Langs can definitely benefit from seeing more value in the run game than he did last season, but Beck/Pelini's 60/40 split is gone friends.

 
1995 Redux said:
Bball1091 said:
1995 Redux said:
Bball1091 said:
UCLA gameplan every game...enough said
Click to expand...
Not all teams are as terrible at stopping the run....most teams aren't as bad as 2015 UCLA.
Click to expand...
That is true. But, I don't think a team has to be as poor against the run as UCLA was, nor do I think we need that level of success running the ball every game to win using that gameplan. From what I remember, we ran the ball and controlled the clock. When we did pass, it seemed to be routes TA was comfortable throwing or PA/rollout. Seems like a good gameplan. Typically, when you control the time of possession, then you win the game. If we could throw the ball all over the place and control the clock, then great do it. I just don't have that kind of faith in TA's throwing ability
Click to expand...
With TA's throwing abilities being hopefully better by default of him being a senior, the clock management will also get better by default.
Click to expand...
Hopefully you are right

By default

 
I've got a small piece of beachfront property outside of McCook for those who think the UCLA gameplan is feasible for this season.

 
The Omaha paper dropped this fact the other day...

When looking at the experience (starts) of the offensive lineman of this years B1G teams.

Michigan is 1st in the B1G with 108 starts... and 8th in the nation (division 1).

Nebraska is last in the B1G with 24 starts... and 121st (out of 124 teams) in the nation (division 1).

We have our work cut out for us.

 
This is Nebraska. People will be banging that drum until the cows come home. Any OC worth his salt should be looking at this offense and trying to think of ways to get the ball into the hands of Carter, Reilly, Morgan, Westerkamp, etc.

Flowchart:
Did NU win a Natty?
Yes: Passing was OK I guess.
No: Run the Damn Ball!

I did like the UCLA blueprint. I liked the Michigan State game, too, though. I'm excited to see what Langs has in store this year.
 
huKSer said:
84HuskerLaw said:
Unfortunately the ideal game plan is to have a ball control, grind em out run game, much like the bowl game vs. UCLA with about double the passing mixed in there to score about 3 more TDS. You want about 300 rushing and 200 passing yards 'ideally' but we are really, talent wise, I think more suited to 300 pass and 200 run. That is OK but our time of possession will drop considerably. This in turn will give our opponents more time to work against the defense.

In many ways we have the potential to be rather explosive on offense, scoring in around 6 or 8 plays, instead of 12 or 14. Of course, many would argue that scoring quickly and often and running up 50 plus a game is 'the ideal'. But, really winning about 42 to 7 is about as ideal as it can be. The less you let the opponent hold the ball and run plays, the less chance you have to lose as of course if your opponent doesn't score, you can't lose.

We have an excellent (maybe 'great' by Husker standards) squadron of receivers in the "air force". We have a good platoon of soldiers in the army. You can score many points from the air but to win the war you must take ground and control and that is done at the line of scrimmage and in the backfield. The question is how best can we take advantage of our QB's skills (his biggest and best attribute by far is athleticism as a physically gifted player with great quickness, speed, arm and length strength, determination, toughness and loads of valuable experience. Frankly, Tommy Armstrong has all the makings of a GREAT quarterback that needs to do two basic things better as a quarterback consistently - choose the right receiver by making the right reads of coverages and coverage AND improving his footwork when in the pocket. He really handles the ball well and makes few errors in handoffs, pitches, fumbles, etc. Practice, maturity, confidence, study and better instruction from his coaches.

There is every reason to believe a great group of experienced, quick, fairly sure handed receivers at every conceivable position coupled with a strong armed, 4 year battle tested QB in the second full year of the offensive system should be amongst the best in the country!

We know Ozigbo and Newby have solid ball carrier abilities and can be a good 'one-two' punch and from reports Wilbon is maybe the best all purpose combination of the other two. We have shown a willingness to run any of our backs in any down and distance and play type situation and reports say all are capable as receivers and able blockers, size and technique wise. We always seem to plug in another tough stalky built fullback that will pop a few surpises up the middle. Jano certainly showed that and I think Riley and Co will want to find more opportunities for the "big boppers" as indicated by Armstrong's citing of more FB passing work.

I think we should have the best offense the Huskers have fielded in many years PROVIDED the O linemen do their part. We saw the strength and power (the push) starting to emerge in the bowl game. There is every reason to expect the overall strength of these guys should be improved with a year of Boyd Epley training them. Yes, we replace some starters but our seconds and thirds were pretty much on a par with the starters in my view. They should be better with age, maturity and development.

The defense has the potential but may need to rely on the offense to outscore people in the first month or so but I expect our back 7 to be quite good. We may be smaller but quicker and maybe able to pass rush better and get to the QB more. We could be susceptible to power runs but maybe we avoid that early on and get better by the time we hit the meat of the Big Ten schedule.
Click to expand...
+1 for the analysis

+1 for discovering paragraphs

Its amazing to see 84HuskerLaw growing up right in front of us
Click to expand...
Not growing up - just thought I had to simplify for you folks to catch up with me a little bit! You have a long way to go to get to where you see the world as clearly as I do however! LOL

 
Mavric said:
Methinks it's probably telling that the first five guys he listed as wanting to get the ball to are receivers.
Click to expand...
and that he didn't list the running backs' names
default_biggrin.png


Edit: oops, someone beat me to it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know what both of those game plans had in common Zoogs? Nebraska make a concerted effort to run the ball and stick with it both games.

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