Offensive Line and Cotten's future
- Thread starter T_O_Bull
- Start date
zoogs
Assistant Coach
HuskersNC949597
Starter
bshirt
Banned
Well then, for you also.....I guess Uncle Milt didn't meet your minimum standards either as he needed help from Dan Young, right? You bet, anybody who needs help s*cks in a major way. And oh yeah, Kyler Reed, while a great threat through the air, just might be the worst blocking TE in Div1 cfb. Who was the TE coach last year?
We've NEVER put together a pancaking Oline since we canned smashmouth for fluffball under the mighty Clownahan. Four full years of fluffy performance from the road-graders before Barney came back with Bo. I'm not even going to go into the horrible previous recruiting for Olinemen we had in 2008 & 2009 because you'll just ignore it.
In his previous "one" year stint at NU in 2003, NU was the 7th ranked rushing team in the nation (236 ypg) despite having an almost zero passing threat with J. Lord. NU & Barney faced ultra stacked boxes every single game but were still reasonably effective running the ball.
Lastly, since the addition of Garrison & Stai in 2011, why did NU's game rushing averages (248 to 217) & ypc (5.7 to 4.6) decrease from 2010?
zoogs
Assistant Coach
Cotton & Garrison, and Milt & Young are too so so very different situations.
To summarize,
1) you're blaming Garrison for Kyler Reed not being a blocker when it's just not the type of player he is. That's like blaming a possession WR for not being a deep threat.
2) I don't think you're living in reality with regards to the improvements made by the bare-bones OL Callahan took over in 2004, to the pretty strong rushing we saw in say, 2006 and 2007. Of course we did not have a defense in 2007 and had to play from behind.
3) Nebraska averaged well under 20 pass attempts per game in 2003. Run 55 times a game and you're going to rank pretty high.
4) We graduated Roy Helu? We ... lost Shawn Watson?
No, but seriously, we changed systems on offense. How many times have we heard, "Taylor, DESPITE changing systems in 2011..." I would say our re-introduction of the lateral option and moving away from the zone read a little, the play that gave us so many big plays in 2010, was part of our struggles with finding explosive ypg in 2011. So did Beck keeping it on the ground and running the same plays over and over in the beginning of the year "just to get it on tape."
Blackshirt316 gave a very good explanation of Garrison & Stai's strengths and value to this staff and their fast-track rise up the ranks. He noted Garrison's outstanding work with the walk-ons which were his primary responsibility. Granted, in the end, it's a subjective evaluation that could be right or wrong, but at least it's rooted in something. He has a basis for that eval and has shared them in detail.
Aside from being contrary I am not sure why you are so committed to categorically defending Barney at every turn, especially when you have no qualms tearing down anybody else (apart from Bo and Taylor) in order to do so...
To summarize,
1) you're blaming Garrison for Kyler Reed not being a blocker when it's just not the type of player he is. That's like blaming a possession WR for not being a deep threat.
2) I don't think you're living in reality with regards to the improvements made by the bare-bones OL Callahan took over in 2004, to the pretty strong rushing we saw in say, 2006 and 2007. Of course we did not have a defense in 2007 and had to play from behind.
3) Nebraska averaged well under 20 pass attempts per game in 2003. Run 55 times a game and you're going to rank pretty high.
4) We graduated Roy Helu? We ... lost Shawn Watson?
No, but seriously, we changed systems on offense. How many times have we heard, "Taylor, DESPITE changing systems in 2011..." I would say our re-introduction of the lateral option and moving away from the zone read a little, the play that gave us so many big plays in 2010, was part of our struggles with finding explosive ypg in 2011. So did Beck keeping it on the ground and running the same plays over and over in the beginning of the year "just to get it on tape."Blackshirt316 gave a very good explanation of Garrison & Stai's strengths and value to this staff and their fast-track rise up the ranks. He noted Garrison's outstanding work with the walk-ons which were his primary responsibility. Granted, in the end, it's a subjective evaluation that could be right or wrong, but at least it's rooted in something. He has a basis for that eval and has shared them in detail.
Aside from being contrary I am not sure why you are so committed to categorically defending Barney at every turn, especially when you have no qualms tearing down anybody else (apart from Bo and Taylor) in order to do so...
bshirt
Banned
Tear people apart? Zoogies, I spend all my free time hugging trees & singing "Kum-by-ya". I can't imagine how you get that impression from me.
I am not sure why you're always the first to claim any rumor has substance, but different strokes for different folks, right? You know, I would have thought coaches were supposed to improve our players? Is that right? Watching K. Reed getting horribly stuffed trying to block people last year didn't impress me much. But I bet if Barney was the TE coach he'd get crucified for that daily. Would you agree?
Excuses, excuses.....Barney s*cks so we bring in Garrison/Stai and our rushing stats plummet. Somehow, that's just further proof that Barney needs to get canned and Garrison take over his position with someone else. I don't know why that's a struggle for me to comprehend but I'll keep trying.
Haha....zoggies, just win baby!
I am not sure why you're always the first to claim any rumor has substance, but different strokes for different folks, right? You know, I would have thought coaches were supposed to improve our players? Is that right? Watching K. Reed getting horribly stuffed trying to block people last year didn't impress me much. But I bet if Barney was the TE coach he'd get crucified for that daily. Would you agree?
Excuses, excuses.....Barney s*cks so we bring in Garrison/Stai and our rushing stats plummet. Somehow, that's just further proof that Barney needs to get canned and Garrison take over his position with someone else. I don't know why that's a struggle for me to comprehend but I'll keep trying.
Haha....zoggies, just win baby!
Milt and Dan had well defined roles that weren't the same. One coached run blocking the other coached pass blocking (and, IIRC, some work on special teams). Well defined roles help people evaluate what's being done well and what's being done poorly and aids in not passing the buck. In the case of Milt and Dan both of them did well.
I have serious qualms about judging a coach based upon 1 aspect of 1 player that he's been working with for 1 year. Especially when that player had injuries off and on throughout that year. I wonder, did any other TEs play that we could evaluate?
The pancaking Oline just doesn't happen anymore. Football has changed.
The previous year that Barney spent here (in 2003) Barney had mostly players that had been coached by Milt and Dan. In 2003 we saw a slight decline in offensive production and rushing; although some of the key players remained the same. I'm going to write it off to a new coach (Barney) and say that in 1 year, unless you see a significant change there's nothing really laudable or blamable about that year. (See above, I'm not a fan of judging on one year, unless there's a significant change)
I can't think of any B1G reasons why the rushing average would change. As was mentioned by zoogies perhaps it was the "loss" of Watson, the loss of Helu, the lingering injury to Martinez or the lack of a viable back up for Martinez. Maybe, just maybe there's another reason our YPC could have decreased.
Blackshirt316
Starter
Milt and Dan were awesome. But they were awesome because both were great coaches who each had their role and performed their job to perfection. They were also basically equals, Cotton and Garrison are not equals, Cotton is the line coach and Garrison is his subordinate.
Look, Most line coaches need a second set of eyes, even the best of them. That's not a secret. Simple fact of the matter is that on every single offensive snap there are five offensive linemen on the field. Unless a team runs nothing but 4 wide no other position coach comes even close to having that ammount of pieces that they have to watch and breakdown film for.
Barney Cotton isn't a bad O-Line coach because he needs help. What I said wasn't meant that way and I would not say that about any O-Line coach. What I said was that considering the current state of the line and the roles those other two coaches currently have any blame people want to lay on the line absolutely belongs soley on the shoulders of Barney Cotton.
That said, Cotton, help or no help just isn't a great coach. When Garrison was brought aboard I was all for it, I thought it may help the line a bit and maybe more importantly free Barney up to be a little more detail oriented and help him be better overall at his job... Garrison has done a solid job in his role and the line did improve a bit (expecially the guys he was directly coaching) But it really hasn't helped Cotton become any better in his primary role and I don't think now that it really will. Which is primarily why my personal thoughts on the subject have gradually taken a shift in the direction it has over the past year.
You mentioned Kyler Reed, initially in my post I mentioned the TE's and that Garrison needs to pick up a bit in that area of his coaching - but I removed it before I hit reply as I'm not 100% sure of the role breakdown at that position currently. I believe Cotton handles the blocking while Morrow handles the recieving but I don't know how defined those roles are and didn't want to speak to what I'm not sure of.
I do know that our TE's were injured last year and that Reed did seem to at least improve in his blocking a little bit and Ben Cotton continues to improve as well... I want to see how the TE's are used this year before I go too deeply into them, but I will say that Morrow in his limited capacity in my opinion is a far better recruiter than Cotton has ever shown to be with anyone that doesn't share his last name.
I could give one rip about Clownahan. None of those coaches or players are here now. As far as the smashmouth/fluffball.. yes we went ultra fluffy at times under Callahan, who cares he's gone. But you apparently think it was all Callahan, hate to break it to ya but we were getting fluffy soft before Callahan. You think Bo doesn't want a smashmouth line? If Cotton were capable of producing one, we'd have one. Simple as that. He didn't give us a smashmouth line in the past 3 years and he didn't give us one in 2003 either.
2003 (Smashmouth football according to you)
Total Rushing Yards - 3436
Total Rushing Attempts - 716
Average Yards per Attempt - 4.3
Average Yards per game - 235.6
Total Rushing Touchdowns - 28
Sacks Allowed - 27
3rd down pct. - 37%
4th down pct. - 55%
Total Punts - 68
Total FG Attempts - 15
Average team Pentaly yards per game - 55
Points scored by quarter 1st 93, 2nd 74, 3rd 95, 4th 60
2006 (fluffball according to you)
Total Rushing Yards - 2387
Total Rushing Attempts - 554
Average Yards per Attempt - 4.3
Average Yards per game - 170.5
Total Rushing Touchdowns - 27
Sacks Allowed - 31
3rd down pct. - 45%
4th down pct. - 61%
Total punts - 68
Toal FG Attempts - 5
Average team Penalty yards per game - 43.9
Points scored by quarter - 1st 117, 2nd 135, 3rd 49, 4th 120
In 2006 we averaged the same amount of yards per rush, had one fewer rushing Touchdown, Were FAR better on 3rd and 4th down, punted the same amount of time, settled for field goals far less often and had far fewer penalties than we did in 2003. We also gave up just 4 more sacks. (with 219 more passing attempts)
Under Callahan we'd come out strong in the 1st half, struggle to make halftime adjustments quickly but would often finish solidly.. playing what you call "smashmouth" offense with Cotton in 2003 our line would constantly get worn down towards the end of each half and finish games with a whimper. That isn't smashmouth.
Now look, I understand that it's a one year by one year comparison where we ran completely different offenses with completely different focuses, the defenses we faced were completely different and played in the box far more against our 2003 team than in 2006, and stats can be twisted to show a lot of things. I didn't post the stats for those two years for a complete debate on the subject or to get into all the subjectivities or comparatives. I posted them for one specific purpose to make one point.
That we weren't playing smashmouth ball in 2003. It wasn't even close. Smashmouth ball is what we did under Osborne, where we would run the ball because noone could stop it and passed when we wanted to effectively, and by the end of the game the Defense wanted to crawl in a hole and sleep due to near exhustion rather than face another snap.
In 2003 We ran the ball 700+ times because we couldn't pass block at all and couldn't throw when we did block. Not because we had a great line to run behind and a strong running game, because truth is, we had neither and by the end of the games our guys were the ones that wanted to take a nap.
That said I do absolutely agree with you on the recruiting in 2006 and 2007. I've mentioned that several times over the years and actually was pretty lenient on Barney the first couple seasons (partly because of that recruiting and partly because we were running a west coast-hybrid system that he really wasn't suited for) I don't know if you've read any of my posts on the topic in the past but I mentioned those classes being poor several times in defense of the line.
But the time for that excuse is gone. Between 2008 and 2010 we brought in 10 scholarship linemen and have had 3 walkons prove more than capable of starting. That's more than enough depth to not have the problems we had in 2011 and going into 2012. And now considering we have one lineman on the roster from the 2011 recruiting class, the depth issues are firmly on Cotton and have absolutely nothing to do with Callahan.
Brandon Thompson, David Grant, Nick Ash, Jesse Coffey, wether it's poor recruiting or poor development that is half our scholarship recruiting for the first 3 years under Cotton's tutalege that have done absolutely nothing. And 2 of the other 5 that did contribute were JUCO's that are now gone. THAT is why we currently have depth issues, Callahan has nothing to do with that.
*I left Moudy out of the discussion because it's too soon to tell what he will bring to the table, if anything.
As far as the production decrease from 2010... is that even a serious question?
Look, Most line coaches need a second set of eyes, even the best of them. That's not a secret. Simple fact of the matter is that on every single offensive snap there are five offensive linemen on the field. Unless a team runs nothing but 4 wide no other position coach comes even close to having that ammount of pieces that they have to watch and breakdown film for.
Barney Cotton isn't a bad O-Line coach because he needs help. What I said wasn't meant that way and I would not say that about any O-Line coach. What I said was that considering the current state of the line and the roles those other two coaches currently have any blame people want to lay on the line absolutely belongs soley on the shoulders of Barney Cotton.
That said, Cotton, help or no help just isn't a great coach. When Garrison was brought aboard I was all for it, I thought it may help the line a bit and maybe more importantly free Barney up to be a little more detail oriented and help him be better overall at his job... Garrison has done a solid job in his role and the line did improve a bit (expecially the guys he was directly coaching) But it really hasn't helped Cotton become any better in his primary role and I don't think now that it really will. Which is primarily why my personal thoughts on the subject have gradually taken a shift in the direction it has over the past year.
You mentioned Kyler Reed, initially in my post I mentioned the TE's and that Garrison needs to pick up a bit in that area of his coaching - but I removed it before I hit reply as I'm not 100% sure of the role breakdown at that position currently. I believe Cotton handles the blocking while Morrow handles the recieving but I don't know how defined those roles are and didn't want to speak to what I'm not sure of.
I do know that our TE's were injured last year and that Reed did seem to at least improve in his blocking a little bit and Ben Cotton continues to improve as well... I want to see how the TE's are used this year before I go too deeply into them, but I will say that Morrow in his limited capacity in my opinion is a far better recruiter than Cotton has ever shown to be with anyone that doesn't share his last name.
I could give one rip about Clownahan. None of those coaches or players are here now. As far as the smashmouth/fluffball.. yes we went ultra fluffy at times under Callahan, who cares he's gone. But you apparently think it was all Callahan, hate to break it to ya but we were getting fluffy soft before Callahan. You think Bo doesn't want a smashmouth line? If Cotton were capable of producing one, we'd have one. Simple as that. He didn't give us a smashmouth line in the past 3 years and he didn't give us one in 2003 either.
2003 (Smashmouth football according to you)
Total Rushing Yards - 3436
Total Rushing Attempts - 716
Average Yards per Attempt - 4.3
Average Yards per game - 235.6
Total Rushing Touchdowns - 28
Sacks Allowed - 27
3rd down pct. - 37%
4th down pct. - 55%
Total Punts - 68
Total FG Attempts - 15
Average team Pentaly yards per game - 55
Points scored by quarter 1st 93, 2nd 74, 3rd 95, 4th 60
2006 (fluffball according to you)
Total Rushing Yards - 2387
Total Rushing Attempts - 554
Average Yards per Attempt - 4.3
Average Yards per game - 170.5
Total Rushing Touchdowns - 27
Sacks Allowed - 31
3rd down pct. - 45%
4th down pct. - 61%
Total punts - 68
Toal FG Attempts - 5
Average team Penalty yards per game - 43.9
Points scored by quarter - 1st 117, 2nd 135, 3rd 49, 4th 120
In 2006 we averaged the same amount of yards per rush, had one fewer rushing Touchdown, Were FAR better on 3rd and 4th down, punted the same amount of time, settled for field goals far less often and had far fewer penalties than we did in 2003. We also gave up just 4 more sacks. (with 219 more passing attempts)
Under Callahan we'd come out strong in the 1st half, struggle to make halftime adjustments quickly but would often finish solidly.. playing what you call "smashmouth" offense with Cotton in 2003 our line would constantly get worn down towards the end of each half and finish games with a whimper. That isn't smashmouth.
Now look, I understand that it's a one year by one year comparison where we ran completely different offenses with completely different focuses, the defenses we faced were completely different and played in the box far more against our 2003 team than in 2006, and stats can be twisted to show a lot of things. I didn't post the stats for those two years for a complete debate on the subject or to get into all the subjectivities or comparatives. I posted them for one specific purpose to make one point.
That we weren't playing smashmouth ball in 2003. It wasn't even close. Smashmouth ball is what we did under Osborne, where we would run the ball because noone could stop it and passed when we wanted to effectively, and by the end of the game the Defense wanted to crawl in a hole and sleep due to near exhustion rather than face another snap.
In 2003 We ran the ball 700+ times because we couldn't pass block at all and couldn't throw when we did block. Not because we had a great line to run behind and a strong running game, because truth is, we had neither and by the end of the games our guys were the ones that wanted to take a nap.
That said I do absolutely agree with you on the recruiting in 2006 and 2007. I've mentioned that several times over the years and actually was pretty lenient on Barney the first couple seasons (partly because of that recruiting and partly because we were running a west coast-hybrid system that he really wasn't suited for) I don't know if you've read any of my posts on the topic in the past but I mentioned those classes being poor several times in defense of the line.
But the time for that excuse is gone. Between 2008 and 2010 we brought in 10 scholarship linemen and have had 3 walkons prove more than capable of starting. That's more than enough depth to not have the problems we had in 2011 and going into 2012. And now considering we have one lineman on the roster from the 2011 recruiting class, the depth issues are firmly on Cotton and have absolutely nothing to do with Callahan.
Brandon Thompson, David Grant, Nick Ash, Jesse Coffey, wether it's poor recruiting or poor development that is half our scholarship recruiting for the first 3 years under Cotton's tutalege that have done absolutely nothing. And 2 of the other 5 that did contribute were JUCO's that are now gone. THAT is why we currently have depth issues, Callahan has nothing to do with that.
*I left Moudy out of the discussion because it's too soon to tell what he will bring to the table, if anything.
As far as the production decrease from 2010... is that even a serious question?
Last edited by a moderator:
Polarhusker
Special Teams Player
kchusker_chris
All-American
The entire team was marginal at best during that era. I wonder why some internet posters can easily write off TMart's struggles as freshman/sophomore issues, write off Bo's coaching problems as it being his first time as a head coach, then write off Beck's offense last year as the first year in a new system...yet continually drag the first year offensive line coach into the discussion any time we talk about a line that's been struggling for 4 years. The OL....the ONLY group that has had coaching consistency (Cotton) on this entire team during the Pelini era. It's also the ONLY group that has consistently under performed across those 4 years.
Consider this more a set of goals rather than what actually has to happen each game: one or more pancake blocks each play, over 200 yards rushing per game, and no sacks given up in the first three seconds of the play.
But the offensive line isn't like the running back - you can't judge everything based on numbers. Most importantly, you want guys winning their one-on-one match ups, meaning you need guys using their technique, strength, and speed to overcome the opponent. If everybody does their job, then the whole unit looks good. The problem is that not everybody does their job on a given play, and sometimes in the most painfully obvious ways.
Last edited by a moderator:
kchusker_chris
All-American
This. The line hasn't functioned as a single unit in some time. At least not for extended periods of time. I'd love to see a national breakdown of penalties so I could split out our false starts. I'd bet money Nebraska is in the bottom 20%.
(related to this I'd like to see the breakdown of personal fouls - i'd bet NU is in the bottom 20% there as well)
Last edited by a moderator: