Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

No offense but college and pro football have very little in common. Norv Turner is no doubt a great OC and has been very successful but a lot of the concepts that they have to use in the NFL are because the defenses they face every week are so good that they can't line up and run the ball and be successful. They also have the luxury of finding and keeping a QB for his entire carreer if they choose which is not the case in college. If a school is lucky they get a QB for 3 years and have to start over. Part of the reason I feel Riley hasn't been able to maintain consistent success anywhere he has coached. I also believe this is why Osborne had the consistent success he had. He took the ball out of the QB hands and put the pressure on RB's. If there is one thing the NFL has proved is that almost any back can contribute if givin the right system. The success rate for QB's however is very low. So when CM says he is concerned with Langsdorf I would tend to agree with him. Not saying he isn't a good OC but if last year proved anything is that Langs is a NFL OC. Gives up on the run way to early and thinks he has Eli Manning at QB which isn't the case.

 
Yes, I share many of your sentiments.

I think some here think I hate all pro style offenses. I actually appreciate why those types of systems are so suitable for the pro ranks. I just don't believe they are the best systems for most college teams.

 
BRV920 said:
No offense but college and pro football have very little in common. Norv Turner is no doubt a great OC and has been very successful but a lot of the concepts that they have to use in the NFL are because the defenses they face every week are so good that they can't line up and run the ball and be successful. They also have the luxury of finding and keeping a QB for his entire carreer if they choose which is not the case in college. If a school is lucky they get a QB for 3 years and have to start over. Part of the reason I feel Riley hasn't been able to maintain consistent success anywhere he has coached. I also believe this is why Osborne had the consistent success he had. He took the ball out of the QB hands and put the pressure on RB's. If there is one thing the NFL has proved is that almost any back can contribute if givin the right system. The success rate for QB's however is very low. So when CM says he is concerned with Langsdorf I would tend to agree with him. Not saying he isn't a good OC but if last year proved anything is that Langs is a NFL OC. Gives up on the run way to early and thinks he has Eli Manning at QB which isn't the case.
Click to expand...
This is laughable considering Langs has never been a NFL OC. He has only been a QB coach, assistant WR coach and Quality control guy.

 
BRV920 said:
So from watching Langs call plays last year you don't think he calls plays like a NFL coordinator?
Click to expand...
What is calling plays like a NFL coordinator, exactly?

This discussion is flawed at it's very core as the OP took two variables (a general team and a NFL OC) and is applying wide-sweeping generalities about their application and meaning. The OP is furthermore suggesting offenses can be broken down into "system" based and "matchup" based, which is equally ludicrous, as every single offense in the world is based on a system but is also designed to exploit matchups.

Literally, every single offensive coordinator and offensive system is designed to exploit an opponent's weaknesses, aka determining "matchups."

So, if the concern is that a team like Alabama uses "packages" to gain a "matchup" advantage, that's like saying you're concerned your car uses gas to gain a driving advantage.

 
Enhance, have you listened to the discussion?

And no, installing new packages to defeat certain opponents is fundamentally different than what TO would do or briles now. You may tweak your system for your players, but not for the opponent.

Installing a specific package of plays to beat a specific opponent reminds me of what Watson did when trying to beat NU in the early 00s.

Yeah, it may work for that opponent but it's not a smart approach overall, because college players don't have the time or experience to perfect the multiple packages required to attack the different teams on a schedule.

 
cm husker said:
And no, installing new packages to defeat certain opponents is fundamentally different than what TO would do or briles now. You may tweak your system for your players, but not for the opponent.
Click to expand...
So if a team with a west coast offense faced a team that had the #1 pass defense in the country, but the #127 rush defense in the country, you would not run the ball any more than you usually would?

 
cm husker said:
They may try to do that but it's likely why so few teams do well employing a west coast offense at the college level.
Click to expand...
So if a team with a run-centric offense faced a team that had the #1 rush defense in the country, but the #127 pass defense in the country, you would not pass the ball any more than you usually would?

 
cm husker said:
Not encouraging from my perspective.
Click to expand...
t5npfn.jpg


 
JJkinz said:
cm husker said:
They may try to do that but it's likely why so few teams do well employing a west coast offense at the college level.
Click to expand...
So if a team with a run-centric offense faced a team that had the #1 rush defense in the country, but the #127 pass defense in the country, you would not pass the ball any more than you usually would?
Click to expand...
Let me know if and when you identify a defense like that.

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