Langsdorf on Offensive Identity
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
So we continued to do it.....even when it wasn't working........ Yep. That explains a lot.
huskerfan92
All-Conference
"We're an inside zone team-we haven't been very good at that"......then you're not an inside zone team. Why is it so hard for coordinators to adjust their philosophy to the talent on their team?
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
I don't think "Inside zone team' qualifies as an offensive identity frankly. Identity connotes more than just a handful of basic plays. You might be a 'fun and gun' or power run or 'air raid' power I or wishbone or option based or something descriptive of the overall approach. Simply saying inside zone really only indicates a small portion of your identity to me. You identity is going to indicate your base or core set of plays and the scheme or modus operandi of the offense in generall. Are you a running team or a passing team? While nearly all teams do both on some level, each team can be 'identified' as being one or the other normally.
Last year's Nebraska team would have fallen in the passing team category by nearly all observers.
This year's team might be more aptly described as a passing team with an apparent desire to run the ball as well. Perhaps one could go so far as to use the dreadful "multiple' term to describe Nebraska's offense at times this year.
While it could be argued that not being pigeon holed into some kind of 'identity' or category can be advantageous as in unpredictable for opponents to defend, I think a majority of football thinkers would contend that you really do need an offensive identity in order to become highly efficient and to 'execute' at a high level. If one cannot give a simple and recognizable answer to the question "what is your offensive identity?" then the coaches need to reconsider what they are doing and why as a staff. There should be a theme or certain organizational approach to a team's offense. Random selection of relatively disconnected or otherwise disorganized plays is admittedly 'unpredictable' but simply being hard to predict is NOT adequate in football when playing an opponent with equal or superior physical talent and skils. This would explain the team's success vs weak teams but dismal failuire against Ohio State with far superior talent and defensive organization and coordination.
Last year's Nebraska team would have fallen in the passing team category by nearly all observers.
This year's team might be more aptly described as a passing team with an apparent desire to run the ball as well. Perhaps one could go so far as to use the dreadful "multiple' term to describe Nebraska's offense at times this year.
While it could be argued that not being pigeon holed into some kind of 'identity' or category can be advantageous as in unpredictable for opponents to defend, I think a majority of football thinkers would contend that you really do need an offensive identity in order to become highly efficient and to 'execute' at a high level. If one cannot give a simple and recognizable answer to the question "what is your offensive identity?" then the coaches need to reconsider what they are doing and why as a staff. There should be a theme or certain organizational approach to a team's offense. Random selection of relatively disconnected or otherwise disorganized plays is admittedly 'unpredictable' but simply being hard to predict is NOT adequate in football when playing an opponent with equal or superior physical talent and skils. This would explain the team's success vs weak teams but dismal failuire against Ohio State with far superior talent and defensive organization and coordination.
Decked
Heisman Trophy Winner
Possibly one that scores more than 17 or 3 points in our biggest games.
When you can't run the designated plays that fit your philosophy then your identity is irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Count 'Bility
Banned
Not trying to play armchair OC here. My only question would be that at some point cant you dial up some sort of complexity or something different? I understand the inside zone identity. But what learned in football, as a player and now someone who's coaching it at the youth level, up front, it that when youre outmanned in talent/size/depth (either or all) that's when you have to find a way to create numbers and angles with pin/pull, power, trap, double teams, etc. in partnership with designed run game. Zone is too much of a read/rythem system that when it aint working or youre just overmatched physically, it's really really hard. That'd by my only question.
That explanation makes no sense and the implied mentality is extremely odd.
"Two or three plays that always get yards."
In what world does a team have such a thing, and if they have it, why would they go away from it?
If he just means a couple of plays that are executed very well, why would that be limited to 2 or 3?
This all goes back to the "modular" or "package" oriented nature of pro style offenses. In the pros, you change out what you're doing frequently based on schematic and personnel match ups. You can do that because you have professional players and a lot of prep time. But, even there, they retain a "core" package week to week - which I think is what Langs may be referring to with his comments about a bread and butter package.
I personally don't think this approach works in college. Yes, you need to tweak what you do from week to week based on schematic match ups (e.g., even versus odd front defenses), but the most successful offenses keep their system/packages the same.
Successful College football offense is about creating big plays by keeping D's out of position. Pro offenses are generally about offensive efficiency through exploiting match ups. It's a subtle but important philosophical distinction that flows from the varying skills, experience and practice times between the levels.
"Two or three plays that always get yards."
In what world does a team have such a thing, and if they have it, why would they go away from it?
If he just means a couple of plays that are executed very well, why would that be limited to 2 or 3?
This all goes back to the "modular" or "package" oriented nature of pro style offenses. In the pros, you change out what you're doing frequently based on schematic and personnel match ups. You can do that because you have professional players and a lot of prep time. But, even there, they retain a "core" package week to week - which I think is what Langs may be referring to with his comments about a bread and butter package.
I personally don't think this approach works in college. Yes, you need to tweak what you do from week to week based on schematic match ups (e.g., even versus odd front defenses), but the most successful offenses keep their system/packages the same.
Successful College football offense is about creating big plays by keeping D's out of position. Pro offenses are generally about offensive efficiency through exploiting match ups. It's a subtle but important philosophical distinction that flows from the varying skills, experience and practice times between the levels.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
I've given Langsdorf a lot of slack for him to run his system. However, some of his quotes I have seen this week leave me scratching my head. Last year, we saw running plays that are in the play book that were creative, diverse and gets the ball in multiple player's hands. This week however, he acts like that all needs to be paired down to just a couple plays like Newby up the middle that we see on almost every first down for two yards.
I'm not quite following him on his theory here.
This. It has been my complaint on Langs the past 4 games. Instead of "over matched physically" I used aggressive D. I like your term better. When we played defenses whose from 7 over matched our OL we struggled. We were unable to exploit their D and ultimately lost 2 of the last 4. I would say in the game we have done "well" i.e. win we simply had better depth and conditioning that allowed us to win i.e. Illinois, Indiana and Purdue........ Langs was also able to exploit their "over matched" i.e. worn done D...
People have screamed, and been ridiculed, on the board for calling out Langs the past few games. People have screamed to the bolded above as well. It appears that Langs wants to run the ball, but for a lack of better wording doesn't "know how". He needs to find a way to run on teams who are, for all intensive purposes, over matching our OL.....
Count 'Bility
Banned
the only thing i can think of is maybe we're just so far into this system, that once we have personnel issues front, there's not enough time and talent to make the quick change. but it's a logical criticism to say that stuff shoulda been implemented as well from the get go.
RunMickeyRun02
Starter
I would go with "Pro style" with a little read option sprinkled in.
Yes, I too would be concerned with a system that relies on having better depth and talent then our opponents. You could get away with that at OSU/Michigan really any high population area team, but not here. I know this staff is recruiting better but the numbers will never be in our favor in that regard.
Landlord
Banned
The opposite of this layman explanation is something like Tim Beck's multiple. Doesn't seem like Nebraska fan likes that very much either. So what's the solution that makes us happy?
Count 'Bility
Banned
Ah. you wanna talk football. Me too.
power. triple option. 6 passes/game.