Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

[Enhance]

The '11 and '17 classes are close in terms of rankings, but the future is what really matters, even for the '17 class.

I will say the momentum being generated by the '17 class is greater than the '11, and that's completely objective. Just look at the buzz, the articles, the "Calabraska" movement. Time will tell if it amounts to anything. But, right now, Nebraska is creating it's best recruiting momentum in a decade.

The '11 class, in retrospect, had some great pieces but mostly disappointments. Several guys who transferred, didn't develop that well or any other reason. Far too many guys fizzled out for a program that's trying to reach a conference title and be competitive nationally.

If anything, the biggest problem with the '11 class wasn't the class itself but the subsequent recruiting. We didn't keep that momentum from '11 going which means when we started losing some talented players (via lack of development or transfers) we didn't have equally talented guys waiting in the wings. For example, if you recruit classes ranked 10, 25, 35, 30, and a bunch of the guys from the 10 class don't pan out, the recruiting from the other years will be tough to offset anything.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska's not unique in most ways. Maybe I should expand that statement and say I don't think it works almost anywhere in CFB.

It's funny because "doing a lot of things well" and "exploiting what the defense gives you" are actually the hallmarks of virtually every successful team in CFB, and for that matter every good team in any sport.

Yeah, I love when the Warriors go big with their lineup to exploit opponent's big men weaknesses.

Dude. You really don't want to go there.

The Warriors don't match up naturally with some of the bigger teams, so they get very creative in other ways. They will utilize Bogut to neutralize the opponents big man in the first quarter, then sit him for the entire fourth and let Draymond Green play center, betting he can always outplay the bigger man at the other end. When shorter guards are forced to guard 6'7" Klay Thompson or Shawn Livingston, they absolutely exploit that. Until the other team adjusts. If they sleep on Bogut and Ezeli, the Warriors very savvy passers will ram through a few alley oops before the other team adjusts. You are mad to suggest the Warriors don't do a lot of things well. They can even play big when they get the right matchup. And it all changes when you have a player like Steph Curry who spreads the floor like nobody else in the NBA.

Steve Kerr and Greg Popovich -- possible the best coach in all of sports -- would absolutely laugh you off the court, CM.

Exploiting what the the opponent gives you -- from game to game and quarter to quarter -- is a fundamental of coaching.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Objectively speaking, how is this class shaping up better than some other classes, like the '11 class?

I follow recruiting; I just don't follow the hype.

2011 player rating 88.32

2017 player rating 88.53 (after Avery commits)

So yeah, about the same as it ever was.

And that average is more likely to fall than to rise as the year goes on.

Not same as it ever was, same as the 2011 class. The 12, 13, 14 (especially), 15, and 16 classes were lower ranked. We should hope to be at the 11/17 level every year. And then let's hope in a few years that the 17 class doesn't flame out like the 11 class.

At this point in 2011, we had 4 commits. Today we have 7 (almost twice as many).

Interesting....of those 4 from 2011, only Williams stayed and contributed to the team.

 

[cm husker]

Nebraska's not unique in most ways. Maybe I should expand that statement and say I don't think it works almost anywhere in CFB.

It's funny because "doing a lot of things well" and "exploiting what the defense gives you" are actually the hallmarks of virtually every successful team in CFB, and for that matter every good team in any sport.

Yeah, I love when the Warriors go big with their lineup to exploit opponent's big men weaknesses.

Dude. You really don't want to go there.

The Warriors don't match up naturally with some of the bigger teams, so they get very creative in other ways. They will utilize Bogut to neutralize the opponents big man in the first quarter, then sit him for the entire fourth and let Draymond Green play center, betting he can always outplay the bigger man at the other end. When shorter guards are forced to guard 6'7" Klay Thompson or Shawn Livingston, they absolutely exploit that. Until the other team adjusts. If they sleep on Bogut and Ezeli, the Warriors very savvy passers will ram through a few alley oops before the other team adjusts. You are mad to suggest the Warriors don't do a lot of things well. They can even play big when they get the right matchup. And it all changes when you have a player like Steph Curry who spreads the floor like nobody else in the NBA.

Steve Kerr and Greg Popovich -- possible the best coach in all of sports -- would absolutely laugh you off the court, CM.

Exploiting what the the opponent gives you -- from game to game and quarter to quarter -- is a fundamental of coaching.

They don't change their system to do a lot of things well.

TO's offenses did a lot of things well. It doesn't mean he used a "multiple pick and play" system.

There was a method, a progression, of how he attacked teams, and he, like the Warriors and Spurs, worked their system through the progression. You even reference that in your post. They didn't change the system as Langs apparently is considering changing his.

But then again, maybe Lang's isn't changing his system. What is his system? What are his core offensive philosophies? WHat are even his core "complementary" plays? I watch an Langs offense and am often left wondering "what are they trying to accomplish here?"

I suspect, he'd argue he tries to create isolation matchups that favor his players. This requires, for example, getting in the right formation, making the right pre-snap reads, making the audibles/adjustments, making the post snap reads and executing the actual play. Because he envisions a different package for each of his four or five receivers, that's a lot to learn, read and execute. Teams do it, but I don't think it's a recipe for consistent success at the CFB level.

Compare that to a TO, Briles, Leach or Herman led offense and you'll see that theirs are much less "multiple" and more about working a progression of plays based on what D chooses to do within a framework of offensive principles.

It's a subtle but significant difference and implicates all sorts of things in how you install, teach and call an offense.

 

[commando]

http://www.footballxos.com/wpfb-file/1997-nebraska-i-option-offense-tom-osborne-pdf/

it sure looks simple enough at first glance. compare it to his 1983 playbook and see how simplified it is

http://www.footballxos.com/wpfb-file/1983-nebraska-offense-pdf/

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska's not unique in most ways. Maybe I should expand that statement and say I don't think it works almost anywhere in CFB.

It's funny because "doing a lot of things well" and "exploiting what the defense gives you" are actually the hallmarks of virtually every successful team in CFB, and for that matter every good team in any sport.

Yeah, I love when the Warriors go big with their lineup to exploit opponent's big men weaknesses.

Dude. You really don't want to go there.

The Warriors don't match up naturally with some of the bigger teams, so they get very creative in other ways. They will utilize Bogut to neutralize the opponents big man in the first quarter, then sit him for the entire fourth and let Draymond Green play center, betting he can always outplay the bigger man at the other end. When shorter guards are forced to guard 6'7" Klay Thompson or Shawn Livingston, they absolutely exploit that. Until the other team adjusts. If they sleep on Bogut and Ezeli, the Warriors very savvy passers will ram through a few alley oops before the other team adjusts. You are mad to suggest the Warriors don't do a lot of things well. They can even play big when they get the right matchup. And it all changes when you have a player like Steph Curry who spreads the floor like nobody else in the NBA.

Steve Kerr and Greg Popovich -- possible the best coach in all of sports -- would absolutely laugh you off the court, CM.

Exploiting what the the opponent gives you -- from game to game and quarter to quarter -- is a fundamental of coaching.

They don't change their system to do a lot of things well.

TO's offenses did a lot of things well. It doesn't mean he used a "multiple pick and play" system.

There was a method, a progression, of how he attacked teams, and he, like the Warriors and Spurs, worked their system through the progression. You even reference that in your post. They didn't change the system as Langs apparently is considering changing his.

But then again, maybe Lang's isn't changing his system. What is his system? What are his core offensive philosophies? WHat are even his core "complementary" plays? I watch an Langs offense and am often left wondering "what are they trying to accomplish here?"

I suspect, he'd argue he tries to create isolation matchups that favor his players. This requires, for example, getting in the right formation, making the right pre-snap reads, making the audibles/adjustments, making the post snap reads and executing the actual play. Because he envisions a different package for each of his four or five receivers, that's a lot to learn, read and execute. Teams do it, but I don't think it's a recipe for consistent success at the CFB level.

Compare that to a TO, Briles, Leach or Herman led offense and you'll see that theirs are much less "multiple" and more about working a progression of plays based on what D chooses to do within a framework of offensive principles.

It's a subtle but significant difference and implicates all sorts of things in how you install, teach and call an offense.

Jesus, you're impossible.

We'll forget your tortured application of scheme and system to basketball for the moment and just concentrate on the college football examples above.

There are perhaps a half-dozen coaches who have installed an offensive that is one-sided enough for you to call a "system." As in "pass-heavy" or "run-heavy." Some of them do okay with it. Some still labor through seasons we would consider unacceptable at Nebraska. It's definitely a way to go, but hardly a blueprint for success.

Then there's the other 128 teams,—bad ones, good ones and in-between (NU) — that run offenses you might accuse of "balance" or "multiplicity." They will all have a few bread and butter plays, but their "schemes" will include variations that prevent them from being predictable to anyone with access to game film. The smart coaches might adjust between games and between quarters when defenses sniff out and shut down the bread and butter plays, as good defenses are wont to do.

The good teams always do a lot of things well. Including defense. They generally have good talent and good coaching. That's what makes them good. Not the decision to limit the number of reps in practice to one scheme or discipline because the poor athlete's brain can't handle it. There are high school teams that do a nice balance of running and passing the ball. In many ways, Tom Osborne's power option scheme was more reliant on precision execution, and his playbook was far from simple.

And if you don't think Nebraska is a state that can attract one of those fancy passing quarterbacks and work him into an offense that also excels in the run, North Dakota State seems to be doing just fine, and their quarterback is about to be a Top 2 draft pick in the NFL.

But I guess Lincoln is no match for the bright lights and balmy windless weather of Fargo.

 

[cm husker]

It's how you go about doing things well.

There are very few teams that can throw for 250 one week and then throw for 300 another week and produce consistent, high end results.

I do find it humorous you've introduce NDSU into this analysis though. How many passes has their QB thrown during his college career? What was their run to pass ratio last year? 67% running.

And, if your claim is that they still were great offensively, weren't they middle of the D1AA pack in scoring and total offense?

 

[Landlord]

We're comparing the 2017 class to the 2011 class in here?

The 2011 class got a large ratings boots by Bubba Starling, who everyone knew would never put on a Nebraska jersey.

It also included Jamal Turner as our other quarterback.

Aaron Green transferred.

Tariq Allen didn't do much.

Tyler Moore transferred.

None of the defensive line recruits ever did anything.

Now all of that is after the fact, but what isn't is that we have almost twice as many players committed by May as we did in 2011, we have a ton of national buzz that didn't exist in that class, and we have at least a puncher's chance with a handful of top, elite talents. The most highly rated prospects in the 2011 class were high level but not Bama/OSU/etc. level, and the most productive players were the overlooked ones like Ameer.

 

[cm husker]

actually, this was supposed to be about lang's offensive identity, or lack thereof.

But I get why people want to deflect to the "intangibles" of recruiting national championships.

 

[cm husker]

Also, Ameer wasn't overlooked as much as people wanted to play him in a different position, like Tommie Frazier and Corey Ross. All three were highly regarded athletes. Ameer's relatively modest ranking on rivals is just more evidence of how useless those rankings are.

 

[commando]

actually, this was supposed to be about lang's offensive identity, or lack thereof.

But I get why people want to deflect to the "intangibles" of recruiting national championships.

you're right....we should fire them all and close down the football team. we will never get another TO so no one will ever measure up. time to forget it and give up. thanks for setting us straight cm. now i have more time for hunting and fishing next fall. always a good thing for me.

 

[cm husker]

actually, this was supposed to be about lang's offensive identity, or lack thereof.

But I get why people want to deflect to the "intangibles" of recruiting national championships.

you're right....we should fire them all and close down the football team. we will never get another TO so no one will ever measure up. time to forget it and give up. thanks for setting us straight cm. now i have more time for hunting and fishing next fall. always a good thing for me.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/53266047.jpg

 

[Mierin]

Also, Ameer wasn't overlooked as much as people wanted to play him in a different position, like Tommie Frazier and Corey Ross. All three were highly regarded athletes. Ameer's relatively modest ranking on rivals is just more evidence of how useless those rankings are.

It's anecdotal evidence that the recruiting rankings aren't perfect, but then that's never been the claim. They're far from useless.

 

[Redux]

actually, this was supposed to be about lang's offensive identity, or lack thereof.

But I get why people want to deflect to the "intangibles" of recruiting national championships.

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE 2011 CLASS UP IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

 

[The Dude]

Never seen someone derail their own thread and get mad about it before.

Troll game is strong when you're trolling yourself.