LJS: State of the Huskers - Offensive Line

[huskerhill]

Serious question, why is this all of a sudden an issue with this staff? I don't remember people making a stink out of the rotation when Barney and Garrison were calling shots. Were there cries to see more Knevel, Hannon and the Rock in 2014? I know they weren't rotated in on a regular basis.

The previous staff was more open to rotation which is what is causing the grumblings, even though people still thought other players should be seeing more PT in previous seasons. Now, rotation is pretty uncommon.

I guess I'll just have to take you word for it because I don't remember a rotation. The only thing I can recall is the right side of the line back in '14 (Givens-Price, Chongo, Sterup). I wouldn't consider that an attempt to get players experience but an attempt to shore up a weakness, which this staff did with replacing Chongo with Sterup.

I just find it odd that this has been a talking point for awhile now where one would think it's an issue at other positions. T-Ferg at linebacker. Antonio Reed, Kieron Williams and Aaron Williams at safety. I know A-WIll played a lot but I believe most of that was as the dime. One would think that he probably could have stolen some reps from Cockerel due to his struggles or given Gerry a series off here and there. Ryker for Tommy.

I just don't understand why other coaches are allowed to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win while Cav has to develop depth. Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of developing depth, but I don't think it should take precedence over wining football games.

 

[huskerhill]

Another thing that bothers me about the offensive staff is that every thing is built through the passing game. The best o-linemen are chosen, based on their pass blocking abilities. To me, that's a passive approach. That's not teaching the linemen to be aggressive and nasty run blockers.

Well HCMR has set a goal of being a Top 3 rushing team int he conference next year, so let's hope that changes.

 

[Enhance]

Serious question, why is this all of a sudden an issue with this staff? I don't remember people making a stink out of the rotation when Barney and Garrison were calling shots. Were there cries to see more Knevel, Hannon and the Rock in 2014? I know they weren't rotated in on a regular basis.

The previous staff was more open to rotation which is what is causing the grumblings, even though people still thought other players should be seeing more PT in previous seasons. Now, rotation is pretty uncommon.

I guess I'll just have to take you word for it because I don't remember a rotation. The only thing I can recall is the right side of the line back in '14 (Givens-Price, Chongo, Sterup). I wouldn't consider that an attempt to get players experience but an attempt to shore up a weakness, which this staff did with replacing Chongo with Sterup.

I just find it odd that this has been a talking point for awhile now where one would think it's an issue at other positions. T-Ferg at linebacker. Antonio Reed, Kieron Williams and Aaron Williams at safety. I know A-WIll played a lot but I believe most of that was as the dime. One would think that he probably could have stolen some reps from Cockerel due to his struggles or given Gerry a series off here and there. Ryker for Tommy.

I just don't understand why other coaches are allowed to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win while Cav has to develop depth. Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of developing depth, but I don't think it should take precedence over wining football games.

I think, if some people are honest with themselves, a lot of this talk about developing quality depth comes from two areas - first, the general understanding that depth helps build winning teams. Second, the knowledge that what made Nebraska so good in the 90's was that they had excellent depth.

Specifically, in regards to the second thought, I think this sometimes permeates peoples opinions whether they readily realize it or not. The 2 and 3 deep around here used to be better, in some cases, than a lot of other program's starters. So, people yearn for that to redevelop in some capacity. This also means that people want to see backups when starters aren't doing well and they want to see backups if we're up by a few scores.

Depth is a fantastic thing, but you're right - building it for the sake of building it shouldn't take precedent. I think our coaches proved last year they were willing to switch guys, even if it wasn't as often as some fans would've liked. I'm going to leave them to their devices and what they feel is best in this area.

 

[Mavric]

I guess I'll just have to take you word for it because I don't remember a rotation. The only thing I can recall is the right side of the line back in '14 (Givens-Price, Chongo, Sterup). I wouldn't consider that an attempt to get players experience but an attempt to shore up a weakness, which this staff did with replacing Chongo with Sterup.

I just find it odd that this has been a talking point for awhile now where one would think it's an issue at other positions. T-Ferg at linebacker. Antonio Reed, Kieron Williams and Aaron Williams at safety. I know A-WIll played a lot but I believe most of that was as the dime. One would think that he probably could have stolen some reps from Cockerel due to his struggles or given Gerry a series off here and there. Ryker for Tommy.

I just don't understand why other coaches are allowed to play the guys that give the team the best chance to win while Cav has to develop depth. Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of developing depth, but I don't think it should take precedence over wining football games.

The previous staff rotated the OL quite a bit - probably as much or more than anyone. IIRC, Sirles would flop from one tackle spot to the other depending on who else was in the game. ARod was in out out of the lineup quite a bit. I'm not saying that was the right answer, but it definitely happened.

Part of the reason people are talking about rotating the OL in this thread is because it's a thread about the OL. Kind of works that way.

I'm not saying we should do a lot of OL rotation. But I do think it's interesting how much we rotate other positions and don't rotate at all on the OL. We usually have a couple subs in on the DL on the first series of the game. Or at least we did early in the year. Might not have been quite so much as the year went on but we still rotated a lot. We rotated LBs quite a bit. I would definitely have gone for either of the Williams playing more than Cockrell - but this isn't a thread about the Safeties.

So I don't think people are being inconsistent about it. We're talking about the OL in a thread about the OL. And it's basically the only spot - other than QB - that we didn't rotate.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Coach Cav probably never thought about rotating linemen at Oregon State, because they didn't have the ability to recruit quality linemen who could play regularly at a young age. There was probably a large gap between their older linemen and their younger guys, so Cav got used to playing a select few almost every snap.

Now Cav is at NU, where he should be able to have more quality depth at o-line and shouldn't have a drop off in talent with the backups. Yet, Cav is still coaching how he did at Oregon State. He's not changing with his improved situation at NU. This is lazy coaching.

 

[Stumpy1]

There are a lot of teams that do not rotate. Many posters would love to have Stanford's offense and yet, they don't rotate their line. They get backups playing time by bringing them in as extra blockers in their "Heavy" package.

I think this is getting blown out of proportion and is just something to complain about by some.

 

[huskerhill]

Coach Cav probably never thought about rotating linemen at Oregon State, because they didn't have the ability to recruit quality linemen who could play regularly at a young age. There was probably a large gap between their older linemen and their younger guys, so Cav got used to playing a select few almost every snap.

Now Cav is at NU, where he should be able to have more quality depth at o-line and shouldn't have a drop off in talent with the backups. Yet, Cav is still coaching how he did at Oregon State. He's not changing with his improved situation at NU. This is lazy coaching.

Cool story

 

[huskerhill]

There are a lot of teams that do not rotate. Many posters would love to have Stanford's offense and yet, they don't rotate their line. They get backups playing time by bringing them in as extra blockers in their "Heavy" package.

I think this is getting blown out of proportion and is just something to complain about by some.

This

 

[Waterloohusker26]

Coach Cav probably never thought about rotating linemen at Oregon State, because they didn't have the ability to recruit quality linemen who could play regularly at a young age. There was probably a large gap between their older linemen and their younger guys, so Cav got used to playing a select few almost every snap.

Now Cav is at NU, where he should be able to have more quality depth at o-line and shouldn't have a drop off in talent with the backups. Yet, Cav is still coaching how he did at Oregon State. He's not changing with his improved situation at NU. This is lazy coaching.

Did rotating offensive lineman help the last regime?

 

[84HuskerLaw]

The problem with NOT rotating linemen or alternating individuals regularly is you end up in the place in the program we are at now. It began with Solich as the recruiting deteriorated, the depth disappeared. After about 5 years, the young guys were simply no longer good number 2s and were at best mediocre number 4s. We couldn't play them as the drop off was just too much and the games could never be securely put away in the win column until late in the fourth quarter. The lack of playing time for the back ups contributes to the decline as player development is stunted. You must put your 2nd and 3rd string guys in for realistic game action vs good competition so they can gain extremely valuable experience and the recognition of what it takes to play at championship level.

We won't play championship level football on a consistant basis until we have a second string good enough to compete with the teams we play week after week. The drop off to the third string can't be as much as the opponent's drop off to second string. Our thirds have to be learning as Freshmen and sophomores so they are ready to ones and twos as juniors and seniors. Game experience is quite valuable and critical to long term program strength.

If I recall correctly, Bill Snyder began his time at K State by a massive red shirt strategy of taking his better sophs and juniors and red shirting them rather than playing them. Alowing him the opportunity to play the young guys and back up seniors who were either not ready or never would be ready to compete at a winning level. He sacrificed in the short term (by losing more games in years one and two) to build more depth and experience and thereby allow the players to feel the effects of winning and success later on. It somewhat worked. Unfortunately, the fans in Lincoln are not nearly patient enough to view a couple sacrificial seasons in order to rebuild the program. As a result, for over a decade, Nebraska has been rebuilding instead of reloading. We must return to reloading. Play the younger guys or redshirt them. We must accumulate quality over time. Graduation and leaving early for the NFL is really our enemy at this point.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Coach Cav probably never thought about rotating linemen at Oregon State, because they didn't have the ability to recruit quality linemen who could play regularly at a young age. There was probably a large gap between their older linemen and their younger guys, so Cav got used to playing a select few almost every snap.

Now Cav is at NU, where he should be able to have more quality depth at o-line and shouldn't have a drop off in talent with the backups. Yet, Cav is still coaching how he did at Oregon State. He's not changing with his improved situation at NU. This is lazy coaching.

Did rotating offensive lineman help the last regime?

I thought the o-line under the former regime had plusses and minuses. It definitely wasn't as consistent as we all would have liked.

My point on Cav is that the old line of "Well, this is how I have always coached linemen" gets old.

 

[Waterloohusker26]

Coach Cav probably never thought about rotating linemen at Oregon State, because they didn't have the ability to recruit quality linemen who could play regularly at a young age. There was probably a large gap between their older linemen and their younger guys, so Cav got used to playing a select few almost every snap.

Now Cav is at NU, where he should be able to have more quality depth at o-line and shouldn't have a drop off in talent with the backups. Yet, Cav is still coaching how he did at Oregon State. He's not changing with his improved situation at NU. This is lazy coaching.

Did rotating offensive lineman help the last regime?

I thought the o-line under the former regime had plusses and minuses. It definitely wasn't as consistent as we all would have liked.

My point on Cav is that the old line of "Well, this is how I have always coached linemen" gets old.

The plus being the best lineman they had was a walk-on?

Not saying I don't agree with you....just saying I'm going to save judgment for about another year at least

 

[junior4949]

The problem with NOT rotating linemen or alternating individuals regularly is you end up in the place in the program we are at now. It began with Solich as the recruiting deteriorated, the depth disappeared. After about 5 years, the young guys were simply no longer good number 2s and were at best mediocre number 4s. We couldn't play them as the drop off was just too much and the games could never be securely put away in the win column until late in the fourth quarter. The lack of playing time for the back ups contributes to the decline as player development is stunted. You must put your 2nd and 3rd string guys in for realistic game action vs good competition so they can gain extremely valuable experience and the recognition of what it takes to play at championship level.

We won't play championship level football on a consistant basis until we have a second string good enough to compete with the teams we play week after week. The drop off to the third string can't be as much as the opponent's drop off to second string. Our thirds have to be learning as Freshmen and sophomores so they are ready to ones and twos as juniors and seniors. Game experience is quite valuable and critical to long term program strength.

If I recall correctly, Bill Snyder began his time at K State by a massive red shirt strategy of taking his better sophs and juniors and red shirting them rather than playing them. Alowing him the opportunity to play the young guys and back up seniors who were either not ready or never would be ready to compete at a winning level. He sacrificed in the short term (by losing more games in years one and two) to build more depth and experience and thereby allow the players to feel the effects of winning and success later on. It somewhat worked. Unfortunately, the fans in Lincoln are not nearly patient enough to view a couple sacrificial seasons in order to rebuild the program. As a result, for over a decade, Nebraska has been rebuilding instead of reloading. We must return to reloading. Play the younger guys or redshirt them. We must accumulate quality over time. Graduation and leaving early for the NFL is really our enemy at this point.

If we say it enough times does it become true? Solich brought in some very good offensive linemen. Or, have you forgot about Toniu Foniti and Incognito? The OL recruiting didn't suffer until Solich was shown the door.

It's interesting you bring up Bill Snyder and KState. We had a starting OL on one of our NC teams that was turned down by Bill Snyder and KState because he was deemed too small.

 

[Enhance]

The problem with NOT rotating linemen or alternating individuals regularly is you end up in the place in the program we are at now. It began with Solich as the recruiting deteriorated, the depth disappeared. After about 5 years, the young guys were simply no longer good number 2s and were at best mediocre number 4s. We couldn't play them as the drop off was just too much and the games could never be securely put away in the win column until late in the fourth quarter. The lack of playing time for the back ups contributes to the decline as player development is stunted. You must put your 2nd and 3rd string guys in for realistic game action vs good competition so they can gain extremely valuable experience and the recognition of what it takes to play at championship level.

We won't play championship level football on a consistant basis until we have a second string good enough to compete with the teams we play week after week. The drop off to the third string can't be as much as the opponent's drop off to second string. Our thirds have to be learning as Freshmen and sophomores so they are ready to ones and twos as juniors and seniors. Game experience is quite valuable and critical to long term program strength.

If I recall correctly, Bill Snyder began his time at K State by a massive red shirt strategy of taking his better sophs and juniors and red shirting them rather than playing them. Alowing him the opportunity to play the young guys and back up seniors who were either not ready or never would be ready to compete at a winning level. He sacrificed in the short term (by losing more games in years one and two) to build more depth and experience and thereby allow the players to feel the effects of winning and success later on. It somewhat worked. Unfortunately, the fans in Lincoln are not nearly patient enough to view a couple sacrificial seasons in order to rebuild the program. As a result, for over a decade, Nebraska has been rebuilding instead of reloading. We must return to reloading. Play the younger guys or redshirt them. We must accumulate quality over time. Graduation and leaving early for the NFL is really our enemy at this point.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, however, I do think the idea that we need a second string good enough to compete with teams week after week is an antiquated ideology, which is basically what I was getting at in post #33. We need better recruits that pan out first and foremost to create a strong line of starters, and getting to that point will help us build depth. IMHO depth is only built when your starters are up to snuff. I also think that scholarship limits, and other changes college football has seen in the last two decades, makes it more difficult to build that quality line of backups.

There's really only one program in the country right now capable of seemingly reloading every year and that's 'Bama. Same with USC in the 2000's and Nebraska in the 90's. I think, right now at least, being like 'Bama is an unrealistic goal.

 

[NUinID]

The problem with NOT rotating linemen or alternating individuals regularly is you end up in the place in the program we are at now. It began with Solich as the recruiting deteriorated, the depth disappeared. After about 5 years, the young guys were simply no longer good number 2s and were at best mediocre number 4s. We couldn't play them as the drop off was just too much and the games could never be securely put away in the win column until late in the fourth quarter. The lack of playing time for the back ups contributes to the decline as player development is stunted. You must put your 2nd and 3rd string guys in for realistic game action vs good competition so they can gain extremely valuable experience and the recognition of what it takes to play at championship level.

We won't play championship level football on a consistant basis until we have a second string good enough to compete with the teams we play week after week. The drop off to the third string can't be as much as the opponent's drop off to second string. Our thirds have to be learning as Freshmen and sophomores so they are ready to ones and twos as juniors and seniors. Game experience is quite valuable and critical to long term program strength.

If I recall correctly, Bill Snyder began his time at K State by a massive red shirt strategy of taking his better sophs and juniors and red shirting them rather than playing them. Alowing him the opportunity to play the young guys and back up seniors who were either not ready or never would be ready to compete at a winning level. He sacrificed in the short term (by losing more games in years one and two) to build more depth and experience and thereby allow the players to feel the effects of winning and success later on. It somewhat worked. Unfortunately, the fans in Lincoln are not nearly patient enough to view a couple sacrificial seasons in order to rebuild the program. As a result, for over a decade, Nebraska has been rebuilding instead of reloading. We must return to reloading. Play the younger guys or redshirt them. We must accumulate quality over time. Graduation and leaving early for the NFL is really our enemy at this point.

You recall incorrectly that was Jim Dickey who did that like in 1985. He redshirted like 12 seniors that year and the next they went something like 6-5. It didn't help him keep his job it just delayed his eventual firing.

Snyder built that program by

1. Being a very good coach that knew how to pick very good assistants

2. By being very detail oriented and putting in 18 hour days.

3. Getting 4 patsies to play in non conference to get himself 4 wins a year so he only had to win a couple of conference games to get bowl elegible

4. Being a great evaluater of JUCO talent and of under the radar diamond in the rough guys.

5. Being allowed by the administration to actually build a program and not look for instant gratification.