New, True Pro Style Offense Vs. Gimmicky Offense Run Now?

[alexhortdog95]

I think we ran an offense like Oregon with the spread but with just less tempo and of course did not execute like Oregon does. I think the pro set with Riley is going to benefit Nebraska with good quarterback play.

Ask Bucky what they think of their offense. Their QB was horrendous yesterday (cept for the last two possessions they had). And they still won the game.

If Cardale Jones has a terrible game, the Buckeyes don't win that game.

I guess I'm having a hard time following you in this thread.
An offensive system isn't gimmicky if you know how to run it and see successful. It's gimmicky if you try to run a system but don't have the success of others.

It's gimmicky if it's based on the QB being really good and is successful. OSUs offense isn't gimmicky because it is a power run system but last night they would have never won in the QB didn't have good game even though you said he was horrendous.

Okay friend - here's basically what I'm saying:

Spread:

1. If you are a team that uses this spread and you lack a certain level of execution - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

2. If you are a team that uses this spread and your QB lacks a certain level of discipline - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

3. If you are a team that uses this spread and you can't recruit the most top level talent - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

4. If you are a team that uses this spread and you aren't physical off the ball 100% of the time on offense - maybe you shouldn't be running it (See Nebraska)

A pro-style offense can erase most of a QB's deficiencies (cept yesterday in the case of Winston, LOLZ). The reason why both Bammer and Free Shoes got to the championship (even though both their QBs played like garbage at different times during the year) is because of the level of true multiple sets they run out of their pro style offenses. It doesn't get guys recruited (unless you live in Ohio or you give out free shoes like Oregon) to your school in an area that isn't talent rich traditionally (see Baylor).

The offense that both Bucky and Sparty played yesterday kept both their QBs in the game, even though both of their QBs had moments where they went full retard (Stave and his picks and that GAWD AWFUL pick by Shaw yesterday). If the wheels fall off when running the spread, they're off.

When Bo, on the day he got hired, said he wanted to run an offense like Florida's, I cringed.

Here's the thing. I think I can agree with you but say if in a strange enough way that I can't.
You want an offense that works here at Nebraska with a QB that knows how to be a QB and people around him that are good football players for that system.

You believe that system should be a more pro style offense that utilizes a power running game.

LOL - no problem. I gotcha....

I guess what I'm saying on this front is that I am tired of having an athlete that is playing QB. I'd rather have a QB that is athletic, but is a true QB.

More like a Russell Wilson and less like a Colin Kaperneck.

To do so, you have to run the correct style of offense. Wilson ran pro style offenses at two different colleges with success, as well as in the pros.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think we ran an offense like Oregon with the spread but with just less tempo and of course did not execute like Oregon does. I think the pro set with Riley is going to benefit Nebraska with good quarterback play.

Ask Bucky what they think of their offense. Their QB was horrendous yesterday (cept for the last two possessions they had). And they still won the game.

If Cardale Jones has a terrible game, the Buckeyes don't win that game.

I guess I'm having a hard time following you in this thread.
An offensive system isn't gimmicky if you know how to run it and see successful. It's gimmicky if you try to run a system but don't have the success of others.

It's gimmicky if it's based on the QB being really good and is successful. OSUs offense isn't gimmicky because it is a power run system but last night they would have never won in the QB didn't have good game even though you said he was horrendous.

Okay friend - here's basically what I'm saying:

Spread:

1. If you are a team that uses this spread and you lack a certain level of execution - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

2. If you are a team that uses this spread and your QB lacks a certain level of discipline - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

3. If you are a team that uses this spread and you can't recruit the most top level talent - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

4. If you are a team that uses this spread and you aren't physical off the ball 100% of the time on offense - maybe you shouldn't be running it (See Nebraska)

A pro-style offense can erase most of a QB's deficiencies (cept yesterday in the case of Winston, LOLZ). The reason why both Bammer and Free Shoes got to the championship (even though both their QBs played like garbage at different times during the year) is because of the level of true multiple sets they run out of their pro style offenses. It doesn't get guys recruited (unless you live in Ohio or you give out free shoes like Oregon) to your school in an area that isn't talent rich traditionally (see Baylor).

The offense that both Bucky and Sparty played yesterday kept both their QBs in the game, even though both of their QBs had moments where they went full retard (Stave and his picks and that GAWD AWFUL pick by Shaw yesterday). If the wheels fall off when running the spread, they're off.

When Bo, on the day he got hired, said he wanted to run an offense like Florida's, I cringed.

Here's the thing. I think I can agree with you but say if in a strange enough way that I can't.
You want an offense that works here at Nebraska with a QB that knows how to be a QB and people around him that are good football players for that system.

You believe that system should be a more pro style offense that utilizes a power running game.

LOL - no problem. I gotcha....

I guess what I'm saying on this front is that I am tired of having an athlete that is playing QB. I'd rather have a QB that is athletic, but is a true QB.

More like a Russell Wilson and less like a Colin Kaperneck.

To do so, you have to run the correct style of offense. Wilson ran pro style offenses at two different colleges with success, as well as in the pros.

And you definitely don't want one like Colin kaperneck, RG3, Marcus marriota, tommie Frazier, JT Barrett, Braxton Miller, Scott Frost...etc.

 

[alexhortdog95]

I think we ran an offense like Oregon with the spread but with just less tempo and of course did not execute like Oregon does. I think the pro set with Riley is going to benefit Nebraska with good quarterback play.

Ask Bucky what they think of their offense. Their QB was horrendous yesterday (cept for the last two possessions they had). And they still won the game.

If Cardale Jones has a terrible game, the Buckeyes don't win that game.

I guess I'm having a hard time following you in this thread.
An offensive system isn't gimmicky if you know how to run it and see successful. It's gimmicky if you try to run a system but don't have the success of others.

It's gimmicky if it's based on the QB being really good and is successful. OSUs offense isn't gimmicky because it is a power run system but last night they would have never won in the QB didn't have good game even though you said he was horrendous.

Okay friend - here's basically what I'm saying:

Spread:

1. If you are a team that uses this spread and you lack a certain level of execution - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

2. If you are a team that uses this spread and your QB lacks a certain level of discipline - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

3. If you are a team that uses this spread and you can't recruit the most top level talent - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

4. If you are a team that uses this spread and you aren't physical off the ball 100% of the time on offense - maybe you shouldn't be running it (See Nebraska)

A pro-style offense can erase most of a QB's deficiencies (cept yesterday in the case of Winston, LOLZ). The reason why both Bammer and Free Shoes got to the championship (even though both their QBs played like garbage at different times during the year) is because of the level of true multiple sets they run out of their pro style offenses. It doesn't get guys recruited (unless you live in Ohio or you give out free shoes like Oregon) to your school in an area that isn't talent rich traditionally (see Baylor).

The offense that both Bucky and Sparty played yesterday kept both their QBs in the game, even though both of their QBs had moments where they went full retard (Stave and his picks and that GAWD AWFUL pick by Shaw yesterday). If the wheels fall off when running the spread, they're off.

When Bo, on the day he got hired, said he wanted to run an offense like Florida's, I cringed.

Here's the thing. I think I can agree with you but say if in a strange enough way that I can't.
You want an offense that works here at Nebraska with a QB that knows how to be a QB and people around him that are good football players for that system.

You believe that system should be a more pro style offense that utilizes a power running game.

LOL - no problem. I gotcha....

I guess what I'm saying on this front is that I am tired of having an athlete that is playing QB. I'd rather have a QB that is athletic, but is a true QB.

More like a Russell Wilson and less like a Colin Kaperneck.

To do so, you have to run the correct style of offense. Wilson ran pro style offenses at two different colleges with success, as well as in the pros.

And you definitely don't want one like Colin kaperneck, RG3, Marcus marriota, tommie Frazier, JT Barrett, Braxton Miller, Scott Frost...etc.

Nope. Gimme a Russell Wilson or a Drew Brees any day. To be fair to Mariotta - he's still playing in college, as is Miller/JT. But, you wanna know what is different about those guys than anyone you named?

Both are cerebral types. Both were underrated because although they could move around, they weren't the next stud that could sling it 90 yards or run a 4.3 40. But - they both have something none of those other guys got:

I'll give you one guess.......

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think we ran an offense like Oregon with the spread but with just less tempo and of course did not execute like Oregon does. I think the pro set with Riley is going to benefit Nebraska with good quarterback play.

Ask Bucky what they think of their offense. Their QB was horrendous yesterday (cept for the last two possessions they had). And they still won the game.

If Cardale Jones has a terrible game, the Buckeyes don't win that game.

I guess I'm having a hard time following you in this thread.
An offensive system isn't gimmicky if you know how to run it and see successful. It's gimmicky if you try to run a system but don't have the success of others.

It's gimmicky if it's based on the QB being really good and is successful. OSUs offense isn't gimmicky because it is a power run system but last night they would have never won in the QB didn't have good game even though you said he was horrendous.

Okay friend - here's basically what I'm saying:

Spread:

1. If you are a team that uses this spread and you lack a certain level of execution - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

2. If you are a team that uses this spread and your QB lacks a certain level of discipline - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

3. If you are a team that uses this spread and you can't recruit the most top level talent - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

4. If you are a team that uses this spread and you aren't physical off the ball 100% of the time on offense - maybe you shouldn't be running it (See Nebraska)

A pro-style offense can erase most of a QB's deficiencies (cept yesterday in the case of Winston, LOLZ). The reason why both Bammer and Free Shoes got to the championship (even though both their QBs played like garbage at different times during the year) is because of the level of true multiple sets they run out of their pro style offenses. It doesn't get guys recruited (unless you live in Ohio or you give out free shoes like Oregon) to your school in an area that isn't talent rich traditionally (see Baylor).

The offense that both Bucky and Sparty played yesterday kept both their QBs in the game, even though both of their QBs had moments where they went full retard (Stave and his picks and that GAWD AWFUL pick by Shaw yesterday). If the wheels fall off when running the spread, they're off.

When Bo, on the day he got hired, said he wanted to run an offense like Florida's, I cringed.

Here's the thing. I think I can agree with you but say if in a strange enough way that I can't.
You want an offense that works here at Nebraska with a QB that knows how to be a QB and people around him that are good football players for that system.

You believe that system should be a more pro style offense that utilizes a power running game.

LOL - no problem. I gotcha....

I guess what I'm saying on this front is that I am tired of having an athlete that is playing QB. I'd rather have a QB that is athletic, but is a true QB.

More like a Russell Wilson and less like a Colin Kaperneck.

To do so, you have to run the correct style of offense. Wilson ran pro style offenses at two different colleges with success, as well as in the pros.

And you definitely don't want one like Colin kaperneck, RG3, Marcus marriota, tommie Frazier, JT Barrett, Braxton Miller, Scott Frost...etc.

Nope. Gimme a Russell Wilson or a Drew Brees any day. To be fair to Mariotta - he's still playing in college, as is Miller/JT. But, you wanna know what is different about those guys than anyone you named?

Both are cerebral types. Both were underrated because although they could move around, they weren't the next stud that could sling it 90 yards or run a 4.3 40. But - they both have something none of those other guys got:

I'll give you one guess.......

So...our goal should be superbowl trophies?

 

[Comish]

I think we ran an offense like Oregon with the spread but with just less tempo and of course did not execute like Oregon does. I think the pro set with Riley is going to benefit Nebraska with good quarterback play.

Ask Bucky what they think of their offense. Their QB was horrendous yesterday (cept for the last two possessions they had). And they still won the game.

If Cardale Jones has a terrible game, the Buckeyes don't win that game.

I guess I'm having a hard time following you in this thread.
An offensive system isn't gimmicky if you know how to run it and see successful. It's gimmicky if you try to run a system but don't have the success of others.

It's gimmicky if it's based on the QB being really good and is successful. OSUs offense isn't gimmicky because it is a power run system but last night they would have never won in the QB didn't have good game even though you said he was horrendous.

Okay friend - here's basically what I'm saying:

Spread:

1. If you are a team that uses this spread and you lack a certain level of execution - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

2. If you are a team that uses this spread and your QB lacks a certain level of discipline - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

3. If you are a team that uses this spread and you can't recruit the most top level talent - maybe you shouldn't be running it. (See Nebraska)

4. If you are a team that uses this spread and you aren't physical off the ball 100% of the time on offense - maybe you shouldn't be running it (See Nebraska)

A pro-style offense can erase most of a QB's deficiencies (cept yesterday in the case of Winston, LOLZ). The reason why both Bammer and Free Shoes got to the championship (even though both their QBs played like garbage at different times during the year) is because of the level of true multiple sets they run out of their pro style offenses. It doesn't get guys recruited (unless you live in Ohio or you give out free shoes like Oregon) to your school in an area that isn't talent rich traditionally (see Baylor).

I guess what I'm saying on this front is that I am tired of having an athlete that is playing QB. I'd rather have a QB that is athletic, but is a true QB.

Agree with the red bolded......

I guess what I'm saying on this front is that I am tired of having an athlete that is playing QB. I'd rather have a QB that is athletic, but is a true QB.

We have spent the last seven years trying to "MAKE" an athlete into a QB. Maybe it's time to find a natural thrower FIRST and then work on his other skills.........

 

[whateveritis1224]

It might have been said previously but the "check with me" system does not prevent the QB from making his own reads, does not prevent the QB from audibling, and is not the cause of bad offense. It is the huddle without being a huddle. Instead of running someone in to tell the QB the play, they signal it in from the sideline. All those games you quoted earlier where our Run offense went for under or around 100 yards and lost was not because of the "check with me" system, it was because we didn't execute and just flat out got beat.

There is nothing wrong with the "check with me" system.

 

[walksalone]

I'm a grown man

 

[BigRedBuster]

It might have been said previously but the "check with me" system does not prevent the QB from making his own reads, does not prevent the QB from audibling, and is not the cause of bad offense. It is the huddle without being a huddle. Instead of running someone in to tell the QB the play, they signal it in from the sideline. All those games you quoted earlier where our Run offense went for under or around 100 yards and lost was not because of the "check with me" system, it was because we didn't execute and just flat out got beat.

There is nothing wrong with the "check with me" system.

As a fan watching the game, I still hate it.

 

[gtsum2]

OP, It's only gimmicky if you don't understand it.

I've coached the zone read before. It is gimmicky. Why? Because it all depends on the play of one single player. See - Urban Meyer and Mark Helfrich are doing so well with their respective ball clubs because their QB play has been lights out. Only with Meyer, his QB play has been lights out with three different guys (which is why he'll be the national COY). Cardale Jones/JT Barrett have been successful in the passing game, which opens up Elliott in the running game. Helfrich has the Heisman Trophy winner at QB who is extremely effective and very DISCIPLINED with the football. He's thrown, what, four picks this year?

This offense works if the QB is successful, and execution is PHYSICAL at the point of attack. Go back and look at Elliott's long run in the 4th from last night. Receiver got a huge crackback block. Execution and physicality.

I'm assuming Georgia techs offense is gimmicky too.

Tech runs an OPTION offense, not a spread. The option they run is a very physicial type of offense. But yes, if they don't hit the few passes they throw down the field (see the ACC Championship game), then they are behind the 8 ball. But their offense is based on being PHYSICAL at the point of attack.

Gimmick.

Five turnovers. Bammer scored 14 off turnovers too. Not saying that game in Pasedena would go any differently if they held on to the football, but Free Shoes been playing with fire all year long.

I wouldn't call OSU a gimmick offense. What Meyer did the past few years, that has the most in common with Oregon, is recruit team speed. The reason the Big Ten (and the rest of the nation) looked pedestrian compared to the SEC 5-10 years ago was because the SEC really did have a speed advantage over other teams. The gap has not only closed, it was slammed shut the past few years (hence the SEC favoritism is now more hype). TCU and Baylor, same thing...fast! Regardless if an offense lines up in a spread or pro-set, milks the clock or runs hurry-up, speed is hard to cover and can't be taught. Look what an injection of speed from a guy like Pierson El can do at one position. Imagine that type of advantage all over the field. Coming from the Pac-10 and playing against Oregon, MR certainly understand this more than anyone.

See above. Here's my point I'm trying to make here. Urban Meyer can run that offense because he recruits to run it, and he KNOWS HOW TO RUN IT. Huskers aren't built that way anymore, and can't recruit that way. When the Huskers were contending for championships, other teams (that were running traditional offenses) saw something. They said, "Hey - Nebraska has made a living on this...those guys may be onto something...?"

So what'd they do? Start recruiting players like that. That's why you have an Oregon, TCU, Florida that are contending for championships. But again, with that being said.....if you're not successful, you can't recruit to that type of player.

Look at the goal-to-go situations for Ohio State in the first half last night. Bammer was slamming the door on them early on. If you can't line up and get 3 to 5 yards from under center, it says something.

I just don't like the style of offense because if you don't have the hosses for it - it lacks a physicality to it when you need it late in a game. That's all.

EDIT:

My argument? Baylor, Auburn, Navy, Arizona, Mississippi State, and yes, Nebraska all run a very similar style of spread offense. All 0-fer. Why? When they needed toughness at a certain point, they only had finesse.

I like this post and agree completely.

 

[gtsum2]

Tough, nasty lines and speed everywhere else cures most things...we need more of both regardless of what offense we run

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

This came up before. Something about those fancy high-octane offenses working at other schools, but being beyond the simple minds and talents of our home grown team.

I don't think that's fair.

It's also not that fancy.

A more cohesive offensive line, a quarterback with a 5% better completion rate, and hey, maybe even a stalwart defense, and the exact same Nebraska offense is neither gimmicky nor overly-sophisticated.

As it stands, the Nebraska offense was pretty damned exciting and genuinely feared by opposing DCs, but tended to lose focus and execution in big games, typically at the exact same time as defense and special teams.

Nebraska's problem has been more about mindset than scheme, and why I preferred throwing Bo Pelini under the bus before Tim Beck.

 

[strigori]

It might have been said previously but the "check with me" system does not prevent the QB from making his own reads, does not prevent the QB from audibling, and is not the cause of bad offense. It is the huddle without being a huddle. Instead of running someone in to tell the QB the play, they signal it in from the sideline. All those games you quoted earlier where our Run offense went for under or around 100 yards and lost was not because of the "check with me" system, it was because we didn't execute and just flat out got beat.

There is nothing wrong with the "check with me" system.

I'm going to disagree with you here. And NFL scouts will agree with me. The "check with me" system creates a mentality of relying on the sideline, not your own eyes, and brains Lets be honest here, it got started in high schools where they had a amazing athlete who just could not figure out how to read a defense, so they signal it in at the last min instead of the QB having to read the defense at the line, and making an audible based on what he sees. This can become a catastrophic issue when the team runs into a defense that can disguise what it is doing pre snap, and confuse the QB after the snap. This is actually part of the reason Pelini's defenses could kill QB's passing games, and why the opponent completion percentage was so low for opposing QBs.

Read and watch some draft previews as they come out. A giant concern with NFL teams drafting a QB is not taking snaps from under center, and reading the defense, instead of relying on the "check with me" call from the sidelines.

 

[cg_8]

I read an article about Oregon and their victory over Florida State. There's a quote with Scott Frost talking about "dictating" the game:

This little portion from the ESPN article:

Oregon will beat Ohio State if it sticks to the simple plan it used against the Seminoles. Before the Ducks squared off against FSU, another college football blue blood, Frost spoke of the necessity of "dictating" instead of reacting to what the Seminoles were doing.

"If we are reacting to what they are doing, we aren't at our best," he said.

The reason I bring this up is because of what Beck has said over and over again. In fact, it seems that this is his motto. We need to read and react...

As was said in his cadid convo prior to the season:

Defenses have really changed over the years in college football, just like offenses. Offenses have become fast-paced or "gimmicky" in what they do. What we call "reading", or we don't block somebody, but we basically react to what the defense does.

These are two spread offenses with two very obvious different mentalities. One is to read and react. The other is to dictate the game.

Right now, I think that's the mentality that makes Oregon consistently the best offenses in the nation, amongst other things. I have always loved the Chip Kelly mentality. Not so much the scheme, but just the mentality of dictating how things will go for yourself. I also love his "if they haven't run the play in a critical situation a thousand times in practice, how do you expect them to succeed?" philosophy. Which, albeit isn't unique, but something I think we had issues with.

In theory, read and react sounds like a great way to run an offense. But truth be told, I never liked it. It seemed to cause more problems for us than not. And I'm not talking about read and react before the play, read and react during the play. I know this discussion has been primarily about QB's and reading D's, which all QB's at this level do. But I think this seems fitting for this discussion.

 

[BigRedBuster]

This came up before. Something about those fancy high-octane offenses working at other schools, but being beyond the simple minds and talents of our home grown team.

I don't think that's fair.

It's also not that fancy.

A more cohesive offensive line, a quarterback with a 5% better completion rate, and hey, maybe even a stalwart defense, and the exact same Nebraska offense is neither gimmicky nor overly-sophisticated.

As it stands, the Nebraska offense was pretty damned exciting and genuinely feared by opposing DCs, but tended to lose focus and execution in big games, typically at the exact same time as defense and special teams.

Nebraska's problem has been more about mindset than scheme, and why I preferred throwing Bo Pelini under the bus before Tim Beck.

I agree. And, the spread offense that at least Oregon runs, is not complicated. It has relatively speaking, few plays. It is simply based on reading what the defense does and reacting to that. Heck, many times, the defense can even tell what play is being ran when they set up. But, they can't stop it because it's simple but effective. Then, you put on top of it, their pace they run it at and it's an amazing offense.

No, I'm not saying I definitely want that at Nebraska. but, to say it can't be ran here is ridiculous.

Our offense (for the most part) was effective the last couple of years. Slight tweaks here and there with completion percentages and turn overs and our offense would be viewed completely different by some people.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Im rather obsessed with the psychology that goes into playing a game. Its so mentality and state of mind to me. And ive thought for a couple years now that our style of offense and defense just sucked all aggressive energy out of ghe mindset of our players. Read and react as opposed to dictating and going at someone, straight up doing what you want to do. And in a sport like football, an aggressive mindset is a top priority.